The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06 DR 09-033ITEM #6 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DECEMBER 14, 2010 DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 T -MOBILE WEST CORPORATION 3 MACARTHUR PLACE, SUITE 1100 SANTA ANA, CA 92707 CITY OF TUSTIN CEDAR GROVE PARK 11385 PIONEER ROAD PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN TUSTIN THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUEST: A REQUEST TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A SIXTY- FIVE (65) FOOT TALL MONO -CEDAR FAUX TREE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND CO -LOCATION OF A FUTURE FACILITY LOCATED WITHIN CEDAR GROVE PARK. DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4163 approving Design Review 09-033 to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a sixty- five (65) foot tall mono -cedar faux tree with nine (9) panel antennas, one (1) parabolic antenna and associated equipment along with the future co -location of a facility located within Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road. BACKGROUND Section 7262 of the Tustin City Code requires approval of Design Review by the Community Development Director for new aboveground utility facilities and accessory equipment located on public property and in the public right-of-way. Although the Tustin City Code authorizes the Community Development Director to consider the proposed project, the item was forwarded to the City Zoning Administrator to allow for a public meeting to accept comments from the public regarding the proposed project. On October 20, 2010, the City of Tustin Zoning Administrator held a public meeting and approved the proposed request. At that meeting a number of residents in the vicinity of Cedar Grove Park and members of the public expressed concerns regarding the proposed project (see Public Concerns section). Due to overwhelming public interest in the project and various requests for appeal, the Zoning Administrator vacated the decision on the project on October 27, 2010, and forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for their consideration in accordance with Section 9299b of the Tustin City Code. Public Noticing A public hearing notice identifying the time, date, and location of the public hearing for the proposal was published in the Tustin News on December 2, 2010. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of the meeting by mail, a meeting sign was posted on the site, and a public meeting notice was posted at City Hall on December 2, 2010. In addition, an email notification was sent to members of the public whom had provided their email address at the prior Zoning Administrator meeting. Members of the public that provided written comments were also notified of the public hearing. DISCUSSION This report provides discussion and analysis of the following topical areas: • Project Site Location and Surrounding Properties • Proposed Design • Design Review o Design Criteria o Public Concerns o Required Findings • Other Related Information and Requirements DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 3 Project Site Location and Surrounding Properties The proposed wireless facility would be a faux cedar monopole that would be placed in the Cedar Grove Park located along Pioneer Road south of Peters Canyon Road. The wireless facility is proposed to be located in the northern portion of the park in a remote and minimally used landscape area between two trails and screened by a grove of cedar trees (Figure 1). Figure 1 Low density residential uses are located to the south, east, and west of Cedar Grove Park. Residences to the south and east of the project site are located across Pioneer Road within a private gated community and are approximately 600 feet away from the project site (Figure 2). There is an Orange County Fire Authority station at the intersection of Pioneer Road and Pioneer Way across the street from the south westerly corner of the park. Tustin Ranch Estates residential properties are located to the west of the park and are buffered by open space and a hillside area. The closest residence within Tustin Ranch Estates is approximately 350 feet away from the project site. To the north of the project site is Peters Canyon Elementary School. The location of the proposed facility within the park is approximately 230 feet from the northern property line of Cedar Grove Park which abuts the school. Classrooms and the modular units within the school are further away (See Figure 2 for distances). r r �r f{ y / 6 ILI MY �•.i �..^� -^ v^�_�,�{-'ra j� rxji" ��'�'�i l �F,., ,, r � _ �'(;py) 1T 11,A,i 4f'� ✓ � .. t 117. DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 5 Figure 5 (Project Site Looking North) Figure 6 (Project Site Looking South) Proposed Design As proposed, the wireless telecommunications facility would consist of a sixty-five (65) foot tall faux cedar tree and its associated equipment and a future co -location facility (Figure 8 & Attachment C). The faux cedar tree would be constructed of a steel monopole and camouflaged with synthetic bark material, branches, and needles to resemble the existing cedar trees in the area. The faux cedar tree will consist of 150 branches which will be constructed at a height of ten (10) feet above grade level and extend to the top of the faux tree ranging in length from four (4) feet to twelve (12) feet long. The monopole diameter will be wider at the base and gradually decrease towards the top of the pole in order to replicate a real tree. Figure 7 uawrto ax rnormeo ue awn ww _�cnu W) .tttwua �M.R X:IaM. WI 9ct M9. N'.\ _.--rwvEn nwek r. r.awx A'l2MIM la�mirtns) �� Future Co -location Facility Figure 8 DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 6 The applicant is proposing to install nine (9) panel antennas, one (1) parabolic antenna, and associated ground -mounted equipment which would be contained within a block wall enclosure. The panel antennas would be mounted near the top of the faux cedar tree located at a height of sixty (60) feet. The proposed block wall enclosure would be located adjacent to the faux cedar tree (Figure 7). The block wall would be finished in a stucco exterior with a graffiti resistant finish painted to match other buildings existing in the park. Landscaping consisting of shrubs and vines will be planted around the perimeter of the block wall enclosure. Existing cedar trees would serve to screen the proposed facility from the public right-of- way and adjacent properties. No trees on-site will be removed as a result of the proposed project. No trails or recreation areas of the park would be impacted due to the proposed location of the facility. The pictures below show photo simulations of the proposed wireless facility from various views. Full size pictures can be found in Attachment C. Existing View from the Northwest to the Southwest Proposed Existing Proposed View from the Southwest to the Northeast DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 7 Existing Proposed View from the Southeast to the Northwest To avoid proliferation of wireless facilities co -location is a preference in determining site selection for wireless communication facilities within the City of Tustin pursuant to Section 5 of Resolution No. 01-95, Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Property and within the Public Right of Way (Attachment G). The proposed plans for the facility would accommodate antenna and equipment locations for future co -location. If approved, pursuant to state law, future carriers would be able to place antennas below those being proposed on the faux cedar tree without additional discretionary action. A block wall enclosure would be placed directly adjacent to the proposed block wall enclosure to cluster the additional utilities. However, prior to installation of future co - location facilities, appropriate permits and a separate license agreement would need to be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Condition 2.7 of Resolution No. 4163 requires the applicant to evaluate all requests for co -location and determine the compatibility with the existing facility. Design Review The pending action before the Planning Commission is a Design Review of the proposed wireless facility. Unlike some actions that are before the Planning Commission, such as Conditional Use Permits, Use Determinations, Variances, etc. that focus on the use of the land, the pending action is whether the proposed improvement meets the design criteria approved by the City Council. Generally, there are two provisions of the Tustin City Code that apply to proposed action: 1) Design Review under Section 9272 of Tustin City Code, and 2) Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Property and in the Public Right of Way under Section 7260 and Resolution 01-95 Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment. • Design Review (TCC 9272) Within the provisions of Section 9272 et seq., to ensure that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of proposed new developments DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 8 and/or structures will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole, the City Council adopted a Design Review process and procedures. In reviewing a proposed project, the Design Review requires that the following items be considered: o Height, bulk, and area of buildings (structures) o Site Planning o Exterior materials and colors o Towers and antennas, o Landscaping o Exterior Illumination o Physical relationship of the structure to existing structures o Appearance and design relationship of proposed structure to existing and possible future structures o Proposed Signing o And other applicable development guidelines. The draft findings contained in Resolution 4163 are provided for the Planning Commission's consideration. However, more specific design criteria related to wireless facilities required by Tustin City Code 7260 and City Council Resolution No. 01-5 are discussed below. • Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right of Way (TCC 7260 and Resolution 01-95) As mentioned, Section 7262 of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a Design Review for new aboveground utility facility located on public property. The design criteria for these types of facilities are outlined within City Council Resolution No 01-95 (Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment). The criteria include items such as location, stealth facility, co -location, colors, screening, landscape, signage, accessory equipment, removal of abandoned structures, and undergrounding. The following provides an analysis of the proposed improvement in relationship to the approved criteria. 1) Location — The project site is located within a remote and minimally used landscape area between two walkways within the park. Little to no interference with public use of the park is anticipated to result from the proposed facility. The project site is also a considerable distance from adjoining properties. 2) Stealth Facility — The proposed wireless facility is of a stealth design that replicates a cedar tree. The branches, bark, needles, and overall design of the monopole has been engineered to blend as closely as possible with the existing trees in the area. Antenna socks may be used to further screen the individual antennas. 3) Co -location - The proposed facility can accommodate additional carrier to co - locate onto the facility. The additional carrier would place antennas on the mono - cedar below those of T -Mobile. The additional accessory equipment of the carrier could be placed within a block wall enclosure adjacent to T -Mobile's and of the DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 9 same material and finishes. Co -location eliminates the need for other providers to establish additional facilities within the area. 4) Colors — The colors of the facility would be non -reflective and incorporate natural colors of greens and browns in order to replicate a tree. The equipment enclosure would be coated with a graffiti resistant finish in the color of other public facilities within the park. 5) Screening — The proposed facility would be screened by a grove of trees and is not within a highly visible area of the park. There is an existing mature redwood/cedar grove which effectively screens the facility from the east and north. There is a hillside with eucalyptus trees immediately to the west of the project site. Views from Pioneer Road are limited due to the extensive distance to the project site from the street. Younger trees surround the project site and will fill in to further screen the facility. 6) Landscape — No trees would be removed as a result of the proposed facility and the equipment enclosure would be landscaped with shrubs and vines for screening purposes. The vines and shrubs would serve to screen the block wall enclosure as well as soften its appearance in the park. 7) Signage — Only signage related to certifications and warnings will be allowed at the facility in accordance with proposed Condition 2.5. No advertising would be permitted on the facility. 8) Accessory Equipment— A block wall enclosure would contain all of the accessory equipment for the facility. The block wall enclosure would be partially below grade due to a sloping hillside condition of the site. 9) Required Removal — Upon termination of the license agreement, the proposed facility would be required to be removed. 10)Undergrounding — All of the utilities servicing the project site would be located underground. Utilities are proposed to run along the western boundary of Cedar Grove Park adjacent to the park trail. • Public Concerns Members of the public attended the Zoning Administrator meeting and commented on the project both verbally and in writing. The majority of comments at the Zoning Administrator meeting were in opposition to the project. Some comments have been provided in support of the project. All comments regarding the proposed project which have been received in writing can be found in Attachment D. Information regarding wireless facilities which addresses some of the general concerns can be found in Attachment E. A general summary of the public concerns related to the proposed project is as follows: Concern: The proposed tower is inconsistent with the residential area. Response: The proposed wireless facility would be located within a City park and is of a design that would replicate existing trees within the immediate vicinity. The closest residence to the proposed facility would be DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 10 approximately 350 feet away with the next closest residence approximately 500 feet away. Requiring even greater distances than these from residences within an urban area such as the City of Tustin would restrict the placement of wireless facilities and limit the capability of wireless signals and use throughout the community. Concern: The proposed wireless facility will not improve wireless coverage effectively. Response: The applicant, T -Mobile, has provided mapping of their existing facilities within the area and coverage maps which demonstrate the improvement of coverage that would result from the installation of the facility (Attachment C). Furthermore, there are substantial startup costs associated with a wireless facility such as the one being proposed which would encourage the provider to make sure they have chosen a beneficial location. Concern: At 65 feet tall, the proposed tower is out of scale and in contrast with the area. The proposed tower would be an eyesore to the community. Response: The mono -pole associated with the proposed wireless facility is of a custom design which would replicate the existing trees within the vicinity. The location of the proposed facility is within a remote part of Cedar Grove Park near a grove of cedar and redwood trees. The faux cedar mono -pole has been designed to blend in with these trees. These trees also serve to screen the proposed facility. The majority of the trees within the cedar/redwood grove are between the heights of 50 to 60 feet. The proposed facility has a faux tree top height of 65 feet to accommodate for future growth of the existing cedar and redwood trees. The cedar/redwood grove is noted as an important natural resource within the City's General Plan and no trees within Cedar Grove Park would be removed as a result of the project. Concern: Property values in the vicinity would be lowered as a result of the installation of the proposed facility. Response: Staff is not able to provide comment on the correlation between wireless telecommunication facilities and property values. However, it should be noted that the proposed facility would be located in a City owned park and the closest residence would be over 350' from the proposed facility with the majority of residences more than 600' away. There are other wireless facilities within the City of Tustin that are closer to residences than the proposed facility would be. The City has not received prior concerns regarding existing or proposed wireless facilities lowering property values. DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 11 Concern: A precedent would be set by allowing the construction of wireless facilities in Tustin Ranch. Response: There are multiple wireless facilities existing within the Tustin Ranch Community and the broader community. The proposed facility would not set a precedent. Concern: The proposed tower is close to schools and could present a danger to children. Response: Based on commentary from the prior Zoning Administrator hearing, the concerns regarding proximity to schools and children were based on perceived health related illnesses and will be addressed in the next concern. There are existing wireless facilities located on school facilities. Concern: Health related illnesses could result from the installation of the proposed facility which is close to residential and institutional uses. Response: The Federal Government, in particular the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is responsible for regulating wireless transmissions and radio frequency emissions. The FCC has established guidelines and thresholds for radio frequency emissions to ensure the health and safety of humans. All wireless facilities including the one being proposed are required to comply with the standards established by the FCC. Humans are exposed to radio frequency emissions and other electromagnetic fields on a daily basis through the use of cell phones, microwaves, televisions, cordless phones, baby monitors, and other wireless devices. While cell phone use has been around since the 1980s, similar devices that emit radio frequencies have been around much longer and the technology of using radio frequency signals is not new. There are many reputable organizations such as the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society as well as others that have performed and reviewed studies. These organizations have come to the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence linking radio frequency signals from base stations and wireless networks to adverse health effects. • Required Findings In general, in determining whether to approve the Design Review for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility located at 11385 Pioneer Road within Cedar Grove Park, the Planning Commission must find that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed aboveground utility facility will not DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 12 impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the community as a whole. The specific findings the Planning Commission must make as required by Tustin City Code Section and the enabling Resolution are included in Resolution No. 4163 in Attachment F. A decision to approve this request as conditioned may be supported by the following findings: 1) The project site, Cedar Grove Park, has been identified in the City's Wireless Master Plan as an optimal location for a wireless facility. 2) The proposed wireless facility complies with Tustin City Code Section 7260 related to Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Property and in the Public Right -of -Way and with City Council Resolution No. 01-95 establishing Design Review guidelines for aboveground utility facilities on public property and in the public right-of-way. 3) The location, size and general appearance of the proposed project as conditioned is compatible with the surrounding area in that the faux cedar tree would be of a stealth design to blend in with the existing perimeter trees, and all associated equipment would be screened within a stucco block wall enclosure. The project site is also located within an area of Cedar Grove Park that has low visibility from the public right-of-way due to extensive tree screening of the proposed facility. 4) The proposed project has identified the potential for co -location of additional carriers on the wireless facility. 5) The proposed facility will provide wireless coverage to an area that is currently deficient of wireless reception. Other Related Information Requirements Wireless Master Plan In November 2007, the City entered into an agreement with ATS Communications to develop and implement a Wireless Communications Master Plan (WMP) for the City and to act as the City's agent in procuring qualified wireless carriers wanting to locate facilities on City -owned property. ATS Communications completed the Wireless Master Plan which was approved by the City Council on August 4, 2009. Through the use of ATS Communications, optimal locations are identified for wireless facilities on City -owned properties and properties within the public right-of-way. One of the potential wireless locations identified within the WMP by ATS Communications is the proposed project site of Cedar Grove Park. ATS works with wireless carriers to improve cellular service and efficiency within the City while balancing site selection and aesthetics of proposed wireless facilities. The project has been reviewed by the Community Development Department, the City's Redevelopment Agency, Parks and Recreation Department, and the City's wireless communications consultant, ATS Communications. ATS has been authorized by the City DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 13 Council to negotiate exclusively for wireless facilities within City -owned properties and the public right-of-way. ATS is responsible for procuring carriers, processing carrier applications, inspecting the installation of new facilities, inspecting the maintenance of existing wireless facilities under the new licenses, updating the WMP, and related issues impacting the terms and conditions of the license agreements as directed by the City. License Agreement Tustin City Code Section 7261 requires the applicant/operator to enter into a license agreement with the City prior to installing or operating the aboveground utility facility on City property. The license agreement is subject to the approval of the City Council, City Attorney's office, and the City Manager's office as to the specific terms and conditions required. The license agreement is separate from the Design Review application and would be evaluated and require a separate action by the City Council. Federal Telecommunications Act The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides regulations for wireless telecommunication facilities and radio frequency emission standards. The City and wireless providers are subject to these regulations. Generally, the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities by any State or local government: 1) Shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; 2) Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; 3) Shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time; 4) Any decision to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing; 5) Shall not regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. Swiontek Elizabeth A. Binsack Associate Planner Community Development Director Attachments: A. Location Map B. Land Use Fact Sheet C. Submitted Plans and Photographs • T -Mobile West Corporation — Proposed Wireless Communication Site in the City of Tustin (narrative) DR 09-033 December 14, 2010 Page 14 • Photo Simulations from various locations • Improvement Plans • Maps of Height of Existing TMO sites and Distance to Proposed Candidate Location • Letter dated August 11, 2010, from Larson Camouflage to Ms. Monica Moretta regarding proposed camouflage of cell tower. D. Public Comments • Letters of Support • Letters of Opposition E. Information Pertaining to Wireless Facilities • Frequently Asked Questions • Federal Communication Commission Consumer Facts (Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites • World Health Organization — Electromagnetic fields and public health: Base stations and wireless technologies • World Health Organization — Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones F. Resolution No. 4163 G. Tustin City Code 7260 et al and Resolution No. 01-95 ATTACHMENT A Location Map _JCA710N ,MAP :\ & ATTACHMENT B Land Use Fact Sheet LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 2. LOCATION: CEDAR GROVE PARK 3. ADDRESS: 11385 PIONEER ROAD 4 APN(S):502-451-31 5, PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: NONE 6. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL/FIRE STATION EAST: RESIDENTIAL WEST: ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) SOUTH: PCR EAST: PCR WEST: PCR 8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) SOUTH: PCR EAST: PCR WEST: PCR 9. SITE LAND USE: A. EXISTING: PARK B. PROPOSED: PARK C. GENERAL PLAN: PCR D. ZONING: PCR PROPOSED GP: SAME PROPOSED ZONING: SAME 10. LOT AREA: 9.7 ACRES DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES: 11. LOCATION: SITED IN A LIMITED USE AREA OF CEDAR GROVE PARK 12. STEALTH FACILITY: DESIGNED AS A FAUX CEDAR TREE TO BLEND WITH EXISTING TREES 13. CO -LOCATION: FUTURE CARRIERS AT THE FACILITY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED 14. COLORS: BROWNS AND GREENS OF FAUX TREE TO MIIMIC EXISTING TREES 15. SCREENING: FACILITY SCREENED BY EXISTING CEDAR TREE GROVE 16. LANDSCAPING: SHRUBS AND VINES TO BE PROVIDED AROUND ENCLOSURE 17. ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT: TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE Forms: Land UseApplicationFaetSheat ATTACHMENT C Submitted Plans T -Mobile West Corporation Proposed Wireless Communications Site in the City of Tustin Subject Reference: 11385 Pioneer Rd, Tustin, CA 92782 T -Mobile Reference: LA33842D Cedar Grove Park Introduction: The accompanying information is a general analysis prepared by T -Mobile's Engineering Department in reference to its proposed wireless communications site installation in Cedar Grove Park in the City of Tustin. It includes information regarding T -Mobile cell sites and how various Engineering Design constraints play a part in effecting the performance of T -Mobile's existing network. This information has been prepared by T -Mobile to briefly explain its alternate candidate analysis and the reasons why the current proposed location at the Cedar Grove Park is still the best option to meet the design requirements and future network performance. Background: T -Mobile was issued a wireless license by the FCC to build out a wireless communications network to provide its customers with the best possible network performance. The network performance goals include providing the best call quality, the lowest number of blocked calls, easy access, and continuous drop -free connections. T -Mobile's network, as for any other cell phone wireless provider, requires numerous sites to provide customers with suitable signal strength to deliver voice and data services. These sites are typically built on existing buildings, lattice towers, and monopoles in order to provide a grid of sites that provide seamless coverage over an area. The sites are built with a combination of antennas and electronic equipment. The electronic equipment includes radio receivers and transmitters that provide various channels for customers to use for voice or data communication. Sites being added to an existing network fall into one of two categories: Infill or Capacity. Infill sites are required for areas that have poor signal strength or no coverage at all. A new site will reduce dropped calls, reduce interference, and provide improved indoor coverage. Some infill sites are needed because it has been determined that the customers are using their phones indoors and are therefore considered in -building infill sites. Capacity sites are typically needed in areas where there is a high cellphone usage and an additional site is required to carry more call traffic. Capacity sites not only provide more radio capacity but also improve the performance of the area because they are offloading adjacent sites. Site Selection The proposed site (T -Mobile LA33842D Cedar Grove Park) is considered an infill site that will improve coverage to the dense residential neighborhood surrounding Jamboree Rd and Tustin Ranch Rd in the City of Tustin. This area has been identified as one with very low performance in which existing sites cannot provide good signal strength due to the terrain: elevation changes, hills, physical obstructions, and dense vegetation. A new cell site will improve indoor coverage in an area that is presently served at best with very weak signal strength levels that result in a high number of dropped calls, excessive interference and at times the inability to connect a call. T -Mobile Engineering guidelines used to determine the best candidate for this area are described below: 1. Site Visit — Visual assessment of the area to search for viable candidates based on location, structure height, topography, lease area, etc. 2. Propagation Analysis — T -Mobile uses a prediction tool, known as Asset, to predict the expected coverage of the new cell site and how it will perform with the existing sites in the area. 3. Drive Test Data — T -Mobile uses real-time data collected from the field to determine the need for an additional site. Design Limitations Generally, cell site coverage is affected by different factors described below: - Cell Site location in reference of coverage objective. - Cell Site antenna location and height available. (A very short site provides a very limited coverage pattern). That's the case for existing T -Mobile site LA02317A, Salvation Army. - Terrain elevations. (A very tall site causes interference over other existing cell sites). - Dense trees foliage or vegetation. - Physical obstructions: buildings, vertical elements, etc. Height Justification The proposed new facility at Cedar Grove Park has been analyzed using the computerized prediction tool known as Asset and has been found to have a good performance when interacting with existing T -Mobile sites at the proposed height of 60 feet (Top of the Antenna). Wireless facilities should be tall enough to clear surrounding buildings and tree cover. A line of sight to the coverage objective is always a top priority when designing a new cell site. Antennas always point to the horizon and due to fact that low power transmitters are used on this type of facilities, any obstruction would disrupt coverage pattern and result in a quick signal loss even in close proximity to the cell site. Any obstruction has a bigger effect when closer to the antennas. At the same time, the proposed height will allow co -location of future carriers offering a functional antenna location, minimizing the number of cell sites needed for other carriers in the area. Alternate location Analysis The table below shows RF Engineering comments in regards to the alternate locations and the reasons why they won't work for the coverage needs in the referenced area. Also, refer to the attached exhibits at the end of this document. Exhibit 1 shows a map with alternate locations. Exhibit 2 shows a drive test map, which consist of real time collected data. Table t Location Latittl(le Longitude Site Type RFEnginecring 1. Handy Creek 33.777399 -117.75531 Monopole Comments Existing T -Mobile's cell Monopole site at this location. 2. OC Emergency Facility's ground elevation Communications 33.764972 -117.74635 Lattice Tower won't work for a cell site Tower (1300 ft). 3. Verizon ROW 33.750518 -117.76636 Street Light Very low site (street light) with no collocation option. City of Irvine Jurisdiction. Location, if approved, will not work for the intended coverage 4.Vista Towers 33.747584 -117.76588 Mono -tree objective of this ring. That OCFA Project (proposed) location may work better for T -Mobile's toll road coverage and new residential area east of the toll road. Current design proposal 5. Cedar Grove Park 33.7520833 -117.76976 Mono -cedar will provide excellent Tree coverage at Jamboree Rd and Tustin Rd intersection. 3 Exhibit 7 Alternate locations map Map Legend i- l:. Evsnng T -Mobile Site 0 Mrenrarelocarion • r 0359 �1 lY 1. RANDY CREEK MONOPOLE Height: JJ h lAezen A Rig . h C - Height: 30 h -Ae271TA A � Heighr.l2 h f m 2. OC EMERGENCY COMM TOWER oze9sA ov LA Heiyht:80 h B y 5. CEDAR GROVE PARK = a �e l Rd 3. VERIZON ROW 3 a A.VIST TOWERS OCFA PROJECT R h� Rd Map Legend i- l:. Evsnng T -Mobile Site 0 Mrenrarelocarion Exhibit 2 Current Drive Test dot `p?� QD S Cb\O°3•' :' ,1 35941 $ s I i / Qt ' J t. 11A1mY CREEK MONOPOLE I Q•� � . � I m ' l' �oa�.� * i a• 4317A s,Drb^-'y'? ,-�9, 2. OC EMERGENCY COMM TOWER C; 0 OY In e }`01 } �� .+ 1 { •c•f� S. CEDAR IitOYE PARK / Pbnaer Rd au VERIZORROWJ ¢4f� �_ we �^` iVISTA TOWERS OCFA PROJECT wP s� � q •� �`�, � J Z Or `Pt DRIVE TEST LEGERD �+ m -76dBm (In Building) -76dBm to -84 dBm (In Vehicle) -84dBm to -91 dBm (Outdoor) R• -91 dBm to -102 dBm (Outdoor Marginal to None) •-102dBm to -110 dBm (None) 5 � � � E+4 N t j) r In % co t� k3£6 M? W ®Q � 7-+ o -a N CL mN M 0o � N r01 M� � W M `"'A N H ..J p •�4 1o1 y a a s a a s a R e¢ w U 7� ij.a g �YA F €a<Wi � Off!&�$ag z; cwl; ass P Q a z8{ . ui IL uj ■ (� ■ ■ Z� Y . 3 Z V O F q? � • yy3�Q. Sn� Z HOU � _ • ` � � i � € Afl's Z l f,w � . , �g,4� •� s Dr. ggg�g� 19:dg miLU m 0. uj On 00 M �/ �/� LL p Q W W 'n W ut 3�43$3tl °y Re � a Z Z W W W pk�pi� � A //�� V/ y/�� V/ �r/� Vi � �� #� �a x`2 G5�fj� ad%ayS �5 y�1E YYlIpa^^payyp �55. Out ��Q�g,pei E+ 9ag:$3p�se a€e3 yiYa r SEpqp k€S¢yka R��;rrre o �y y $ sE Ripggy4Q 99 -- aCe SA9 x tz'I �ju[ I 'Ju I u AR4 Z P196 NM � aaaasa egg B e BF iddddd 8 T4s limp, ^yM-e�Noia G �N aR Qa�g �9Y OsA- @ � v � � � ��w �`� � � � � N&➢ g%p+�� C M ILLLI N �ru.wrww maeu .a -,[o lit : gs _¢ "`444 i E � � q�q �.�� i 65 4��• 97: � J Evil 8b 3S SJ Ill- a A � >riV 5"'9¢ R aAi $y s .oa 0 I BE III E 4q5g k _4LE i III jpg gx x ,y J-. b O �``xyqyq� si i � i� 3 Q I gyp y� � iy�R�gq? � qjj$ j�u orgma niss.a au�pw m m.�rea .h[o y� vu wm'i-e_xon mmwu. w. w a. w W N OIa O5"dp. o a W° � @8 C• € _ s 8 @ y It y .Y Mi j N y .a "Y »uinx i x.l OleNMeµn uuo-o-n meow Tis -1 o]roeom » Hurl] .r.a plano.A`e.Ao -=rMdxr>nm�rOAa �s y@@ypp$ y �. 011weme y gg 199 • S 8 PY Y g �' py ggA g99 tl� $ 59 J r ��.• n, r � '. fti N,' � �8= � rYh-rz Yij �, _ .. C s@ y iJs �/ Y III 9gd • ` # tom �i 1Y IY jo eyya s8 is• c x g i 6 �3 F ,x,x>W,.vam=w F yay' pp �a _k�I t s 4 9 IHNv w W axnwv.3v]wr-=mauwemaa m,wi i "�`" rn=ema-wn muear � 0 LU GkOV HYI EE g A u U 3 I � 8 y Odd �'A dd�H �a BAec IY19y g n U A s o �I Oslo talo E Q e� ZIYd 5 IWR ,;_,_„ O D 000DO®0800 O O®00000 P � - Vi HIM�aat. It till"y„�zj YU '4: wnefrP:u VfW \^'^' a+Po IN°°]\WOfM�G. 11,:`d9 / KYi%LVI RWI\OIOE\IN:NMy I—VII d- all oil pie o O va ¢ Aas c,�l m sfG E€ Z J QCL 41 v.,a "I .— 1 „ . s 3 a a f7 &yy Z 1= � 3•� k 41 v.,a "I .— 1 „ . 3 a a f7 &yy Z 1= 41 v.,a "I .— 1 „ . m w 0 CL 0 I - a. a. 0 m c c� N_ C m d 0 C N d 0 L O1 2 FoLi a� o a Q. m o IL o a) a� r > ° m o : V o m m = o m o - m o ar a N c O o ME H v rn o C J W+5 d m O C ++ m � v tm X a CAMOUFLAGE INNOVATORS OF CONCEALMENT SOLUTIONS Monica Moretta Land Use Planner Sequoia Development Services, Inc. One Venture, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Re: T -Mobile Site LA33842, City of Tustin — Cedar Grove Park August 11, 2010 Dear Monica, Larson Camouflage, LLC 1501 S. Euclid Avenue Tucson, AZ 85713 Office: 520-294-3900 FAX: 520-741-3488 Larson Camouflage is a manufacturer of camouflaged cellular towers and has bid on and been awarded the above referenced T -Mobile site. As you know, our original proposal included foliage different from both the sample originally provided to the city and from the current sample we have provided to you. This letter contains information describing both types of foliage. Larson has proposed a 60 foot "top of steel" structural monopole on which to base this "mono - cedar tree." The basic dimensions are as follows: Top of steel: 60' AGL Top of branches: 65' AGL Base diameter: 25" Top diameter: 16" Baseplate: 29" square by 2'14" thick ASTM A572 G50 with (4) 2 WT ASTM A615 Grade 75 Anchor bolts. Shaft material: ASTM A572-65 steel. Larson Camouflage utilizes a specially formulated and proprietary epoxy composite applied to the pole, which is textured, and painted to simulate the trunk of a pine tree. Larson Ultraflex bark is proven to withstand extreme temperature variations and harsh environments. A detailed sample has been provided. Larson's pine branches are composed of a PVC pipe skeleton wrapped with fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) to provide the strength necessary to withstand winds of 110 mph yet provide natural look and RF compatibility. Extensive testing has been performed on our branches including wind tunnel testing, structural strength testing and analysis, accelerated UV testing, etceteras. Quality control is maintained though continuous inspection and testing. The individual pine foliage is UV resistant commercially manufactured PVC material, designed to stand up to the rigors of prolonged outdoor exposure. All materials are RF friendly, with a very low signal interference of less than 0.5 db. Ms. Monica Moretta August 11, 2010 Page 2 of 2 The cedar branch sample we have provided to you is composed of the same basic materials as the pine branches described above with two differences: first, the sample contains metal wire which will not produce the same RF signal performance (and will not be used in the RF area of the cypress built for T -Mobile, and second, the individual foliage is composed of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) instead of PVC. Based on the latest information, the tree would ultimately be delivered with a total of 150 branches beginning at 10' AGL and extending the height of the tree, with top branches extending 5' above the top of steel and ranging in length from 4' to 12' "long." Antenna socks, if necessary are constructed of PVC and HDPE plastic exclusively. Any foliage on the socks will be of the same source used on the branches. Please let me know if you have any other comments or questions. Sincerely, Tom Feddersen General Manager ATTACHMENT D Public Comment October 20, 2010 Dear Mr. Swiontek: Thank you for your time this morning to discuss the Cedar Grove Cell Tower Project under consideration by the City of Tustin. As discussed, I would suggest the applicant and City consider engaging in the following items: 1. Document radiation emissions at specified distances in comparison to other typical household equipment such as microwaves or baby monitors. 2. Discuss why placement of tower is needed at Cedar Grove Park rather than co -locating within existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) communications tower. It is my understanding there is remaining co -location capacity in the OCFA tower for additional service providers. 3. Discuss status of preparation of City of Tustin Wireless Master Plan, and technical reasons for determining optimal locations of cell towers. Explain issues relative to topography, signal strength, wireless demand, etc. 4. Document height of existing trees at Cedar Grove Park and discuss the difference between the proposed tower and the adjacent trees. 5. Document the proximity of the proposed cell tower to nearby homes and school buildings. Based on quick Google Aerial review, homes appear to be approximately 600 feet away from the proposed tower location: a. t home in Tustin Ranch Estates within 300; b. 1 home in Tustin Ranch Estates within 400; c. 1 home in Tustin Ranch Estates within 500; and d. Remaining homes in the Serrano neighborhood 600 feet away. 6. Discuss the revenue expected from licensing of the cell tower which will be contributed to the City of Tustin General Fund. 7. Consider conditioning the proposed project to construct a pedestrian trail linking the existing paved Class I multi -use trail to internal sidewalk within Cedar Grove Park near gated pedestrian access to Peters Canyon Elementary. Residents repeatedly have removed cross -beams from fencing along Class I trail to access Cedar Grove Park since no direct access is provided between Class I trail and Cedar Grove Park. If proposed project constructs an ADA compliant linkage concurrent with the cell tower construction, the City of Tustin can reimburse the applicant partially or fully based on negotiations. See the attached graphic illustrating the recommended concept. 8. Request the applicant discuss ordinances employed by other jurisdictions to help address resident concerns about environmental impacts caused by cell towers. For example in 2007 the City of Mission Viejo considered an ordinance restricting cell towers at any City park or open spaces or restricted cell towers from within 300 feet of residential property and school district property when the antennas are pointing towards those sensitive land uses. 9. Discuss health concerns related to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Thank you for your help with this matter, and I hope the items discussed above are constructive and beneficial for the City. Paul Martin 11015 Hiskey Lane, Tustin Letters of Support Swiontek, Ryan To: Hutter, Edmelynne Subject: RE: Resident comment; in support of Cedar Grove cellsite From: Hutter, Edmelynne Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:20 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Resident comment; in support of Cedar Grove cellsite Hi Ryan, FYI and FY -use: Jeff Tansley (live on Arbolada) called to express his support of the cellsite on Cedar Grove Park. His points were: • It's on City property • Will improve service in Tustin • Its part of having better service, so residents should just deal with it • In general, towers don't look that bad. Edmelynne V. Hutter, Associate Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 9278o T (714) 573-3174 F (714) 573-3113 utter tuStinCa OrE. A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Swiontek, Ryan From: Cathy Bardenstein [cjbardy®mac.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:32 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Jeffrey D. Scherzer Subject: Letter in support of T -Mobile Cell Site at Cedar Grove Park. Dear Mr. Swiontek, My husband and I live at 10908 Dishman Place in Tustin, CA. We just came home from vacation and found a note in our mailbox seeking our help in opposing the proposed T -Mobile Site. Instead, it spurred us to write a letter in support of this site because we are thrilled to know we will finally get cell coverage in our home. We would appreciate it if you would submit it to the Planning Commission as part of the record. We also note that there potentially will be AT&T antennas on the site as well. We are looking forward to that since we both own 3G ipads and have no service here except via wifi. For your information, my husband and I are both attorneys. My husband has also worked for many years as a paramedic responding to emergency calls. The letter that was circulated makes several points about the danger of cell towers. These points are without basis in fact, and because of ignorance, the proponents are doing nothing more than fear -mongering. Point #1 - Our children (and grown ups) will be subjected to cell tower radiation at school and at home. THE FACT IS, we are talking about radio frequencies, not "radiation" as that is commonly understood. The same radio frequencies that have been used in televisions for years, and in the baby monitors many of use next to our babies cribs. There has been extensive study about this issue and the government has found no evidence of danger to the public, but has issued safety guidelines that limit power levels to far less than what could possibly cause any harm to anyone, baby or adult. Because of the results of those studies, the Federal Government has felt it appropriate to preclude local governments from even considering health and safety of cell sites. Opponents of cell towers will point to some studies, especially from Europe, which conclude that there "may" be some risk to people from exposure to cell towers. Those results have not been duplicated and have not been peer reviewed, and are therefore not credible. Point #2 - Home Buyers will be afraid to buy our homes (Studies show homes near towers drop up to 10% in value). THE FACT IS, there are no such studies that come to this conclusion, just anecdotal statements from owners or realtors (no appraisers, however) stating that this is so. We do know, for a fact, that some appraisals on the east coast which looked at the impact of cell towers on property values SHOWED NO IMPACT. There are certainly some people who like us, look at coverage maps as a consideration in where to rent or buy a home. All this is, is fear mongering arising out of Point #1, and is nothing more than a typical NIMBY reaction to anything new. People will notice a new tower, but after a while, it blends into the background.. This one blends in pretty well according to the picture. The only people who are going to know it is there is those who will look for it because of the urgent notice that was distributed. 1 We can tell you that the one downside to moving to Tustin Ranch was the fact that cell tower coverage near Peters Canyon is TERRIBLE. T -Mobile's, in particular, is very bad, and we are T -Mobile customers. Having good coverage in the area makes it more desirable for us. My husband and I have a 12 year old daughter, and we would be much more comfortable with her walking and biking around the neighborhood, if she had a reliable cell phone with her in the event of emergency. We would also like to be able to use our cell phones throughout our home and yard. Finally, the infrastructure of our nation is increasingly being based on mobile communications. We have cell phones, blackberries and iPads, and we rely on being able to get voice and data coverage wherever we are. Moreover, we are in a high fire risk and high earthquake risk area. We want to know that emergency communications will be available when we need it whether if be for a 911 emergency or another slightly lesser urgency. The standard that the planning commission needs to look at is, whether T -Mobile has shown a significant gap in service coverage and whether the design is the least intrusive solution. Although we have not seen their evidence, we have no doubt that there is a significant service coverage gap based upon our own experience since we moved to Tustin. With regard to the site design, it is located in a wooded area in the park, and not immediately adjacent to residential properties. As noted above, I doubt any casual observer would ever notice the site. I understand that a City Councilman actually filed the appeal on behalf of the neighborhood opponents of the site. We would like to go on record in support of the site, and ask that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision approving a T -Mobile cell site at Cedar Grove Park. Thank you for your consideration. Cathy J Bardenstein Jeffrey D. Scherzer 10908 Dishman Place Tustin CA 92782 Cell phone: (585) 370-8020 FA Swiontek, Ryan From: Willkom, Justina Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:08 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: FW: Design Review 09-033 FYI Juslina Wilikom City olf Tustin 714.573.3715 Phone 714.573.311:3 fuss: jmillkom <+ tustinca.org From: Binsack, Elizabeth Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:08 PM To: Willkom, Justina Subject: FW: Design Review 09-033 From: Gary Steinman [mai Ito: ga rys@broadcom.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:49 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Design Review 09-033 Please ALLOW the Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park to continue. When the parent group wishes to discuss or debate the Cell Tower placement near Peter's Canyon School, please also ask them if they have WiFi in their homes or if they ever let their children use the phone at home (probably a cordless phone) or do they have a microwave oven. In all of these cases there is RF radiation within their homes which these same parents can control and they do not. These same parents also talk on their cell phones in the car with their kids and probably take their kids to Starbucks while they get a coffee.... IT'S THE SAME RADIATION PEOPLE! I! I!! So why are they now debating this issue and making it someone else's fault? Please stop the madness and stop letting the minority waste public time and money! Please also ask them to stop wasting my time! Gary Steinman Resident and Citizen, Tustin California 1 Swiontek, Ryan From: Willkom, Justina Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:09 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: FW: Cedar Grove Cell Tower Attachments: mage001.jpg fusiina Willkom Cilyof .'tstin 714.573.3115 Phone 714.573.3213 Fax iwi 11 kart @ htsti nca. o rg From: Binsack, Elizabeth Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:08 PM To: Willkom, Justina Subject: FW: Cedar Grove Cell Tower From: John Reynolds [mailto:john@hkaconsulting.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 4:34 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cedar Grove Cell Tower We could use better cell service in the area. Thanks John Reynolds I Principal & President H vewul'or Caul tng, Inc 23211 South Pointe Drive I Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Office: 949.348.9711, Ext. 2011 Direct: 945.334.5344 1 Cell: 949.547.7909 1 Fax: 949.348.9751 www.hkaconsulting.com 1 Letters of Opposition PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin Ranch, California are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: The proposed towers completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, a non-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. 3. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 4. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 5. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 6. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential area! Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition 11 Page 1 of 2 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park View Current Signatures - Sien the Petition To: City of Tustin PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin Ranch, California are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park, Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: 1. The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, a non-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. 3. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 4. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 5. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 6. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. 7. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the http://www.petitionontine.com/CedarGry/Pedtion.html 10/20/2010 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition Page 2 of 2 potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential areal Sincerely, The Undersigned Click Here to Sign Petition View Current Signatures The Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition to City of Tustin was created by and written by Jennifer Wierks (jaws2@oox.net). This petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice. Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form. share: Q blogger ■ del.lcio.us I digg fR facebook a furl r 7 reddit 10 slashdot send to a friend Send Petition to a Friend - Petition FAG - Start a Petition - Contributions - Privecv- Media Ki PetitionOnline - DesipnCommunity - Architecture Week - Great Buildings - Archiplanet - Search http: /Avww. PedtI onOnline. com/CedarGrv/petition. html 1999-2007 Artifice. Inc. - All Rights Reserved. http://www,petitiononline.com/CedarGrv/petition.html 10/20/2010 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition Page 1 of 2 unlveraita, M Phanedr4C Veetional Nurrno 9allkd Results In Today's Most Popular FleMs. Hands-on tnlning a job plawment help, tA, bathe en4 Carew. Clacsea. OC and Ontario captain. out sty coogk Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Following is a tab delimited list of all active signatures on your petition. To format and use this data elsewhere you should save this page as text Open the file in a text editor and delete the text before and afterthe signatu a list and than import the dam into a spreadsheet program, such as Microsoft Excel, Number Name Email Cnmmentsaddrese 1 Jennifer Slates 2 Lyhoses Kull There are other Suitable locations then in a park los. ted In a reerdential area between two schools (paters 3 David Haigh devid.haigh@oos.nat Put the cell tower up on the tall east hill 4 Jennifer Souter 2jecuter@cox.nst 5 Natalie Griswold 6 Kurt Himlar 7 Jane Zhou 8 Sonja Peterson sonjap@.csu.fullerton.edu 9 thenh on 30 Debra Plante debplante@cce.net. 11 Dru Desai 12 Margaret Shen 13 Jennifer Van Iersel 14 Larry Kull is Karen Day Would prefer cell tower not be be placed to community park and by Schools 16 Kruti Khan V Lisa O.ako I Saka@Cox.rtet 18 Tilden Osaka 19 Rita semaan 20 mltuaile blue 21 Caroline Marchant cazolin_e@marbasorhockey.com Please do not put up this call tower So .close to our obildran. 22 Todd Marchant 23 Yen Ye 24 Michael S. Center 25 Stephanie M. Frbbri Carter there are thousands of children who play at that park- why would we put all these Children 26 amie s TJ Sun 27 yen Ye 2a Madeline Griswold 29 Yen Ya 30 Cathy Sanders 31 Mercer. Marcus 32 Jayne Chun Jay n..hun@talmail.=M A 33 Brandon Key dapost@cox.net Wouldn't a location nearer the toll road, in a less populated area be a better option? 34 Stacey Nuts at...ymuto@hoterai1 35 Cvette Salth 36 Kathy Piazzen 37 Sharon Komerous 1 oppose the construction of a call phone tower next to comer, Grove park and our schools. Let's find another 3a Robert allen 39 Valeria Pereira vppereira@aol.Opm 40 Scott Xamer Griswold Let's find a better spot then a popular and beautiful. park 41 Joyce Magserl I 42 Katharine Bobtail. We don't want to -expose our kids 43 Debbie Bessen 44 Mpnica Nesbitt 45 "S. Koreas 46 Colaen Fields 47 Mike K.... Bad idea, ether locatiom more suitable, 48 David Bessen 49 Jacinto Lamb jacin ta.lemti@gmail.rom A 50 Kimberly can 51 Davert Araki 52 earn L. Groves 53 Robin K1Ltq 54 Janet Allen jdallen@cox.vet 55 Lei Xe shellyxu was.netshellyau@cex.net 56 Lindsey Garratt 1 am vehemently opposed to a cell phone. tower in Cedar Greve Park 57 Lisa Deneen 58 Anne Barring 59 Sharon Michael 60 Kristi Puente. 6l Lisa Richardson 62 Thom. Michael 63 Patrick J. Garrett 64 Melodist Belger 65 Christina Dennis 66 narelyn Nagle 67 Chen Lt. 68 Debra. Lanvin¢ 69 Edward eerfetti 70 Kandep, Gambillkshgl1cox•net 71 Susie Won-9peirer 72 David Baker I am opposed to a tell tower ONLEaa it meets higher safety and aesthetics standards. 73 Elisabeth Tilford 74 sop Pham Please don't put cell phone tower near our residential area. 75 Luke Nguyen 1t in at safe for our community, 76 Trish NorMnld Why In a park surrounded by schools and neighborhoods. Tall road seems like the perfect place, 77 Cheryl Alherola 78 Jennifer Lucci jeminoci acox.net This is completely Srresp... ibla to have this so close to where children play and spend so m 79 Erik Tran a0 Katie Head 81 Dale Head 82 oiang Y. shallyxu@cox.net 63 Stacy mekellar, these has to be a better place to put the cell tower. the park is clearly not an appropriate or safe choice R4 Janis Nishimotc 85 Tracy Feldman 86 Jacqueline Moppet haps://petitionordine.securesites.com/CedarGry/tDgGVDjyQihh.cgi 10/20/2010 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition 89 ala Hoppe BB alisa kopp 89 Cutely. Osborn 90 Sue Garland sn,egarla»d@y91100.00iz 91 'alma MdnlCa Greens 92 Lisa Hung 93 Susan Peterson 94 Jessica Chatterton, 95 Timothy P. Duchene 96 Ingrid Hob Lik 97 Lisa BOnrbour 98 Mitch King kingim@yahn0-Com 99 Sue Teller 100 Mid. Calvagnn 101 Rebecca Gomez 102 Line guardadc 103 Stacie L Reyes 104 Vicki Schaffer A 105 Chad Slumskie ice Beth Pflnmm 107 Steve Irwin 105 Irina TOderoV 109 Sara Stewart 110 C.Ma,ine Lambert 111 Jeff Sprosty 112 Candace Lee U Graham Lambert 114 Laurie Ayers 115 Gypsy M. Hiller 116 Maggie Villegas mvillegas1516@yah0o.com 117 Dan Villegas L11 Eric Sanders 119 David Ayers 120 Susie Teel 121 Natalie Banning 122 Jodi Sprosty 123 kin, chi tram 124 Teres. O'Dell 125 kimberty vu 126 Brad Bjor.dehl 127 Kendra Bjorndahl 128 Joanna Sakaeda 129 Nanry Kuwada 130 Stephanie Cra11 A 131 Janet Beadle 132 Michael Stadia 133 Breit Crail We don't want it! 134 Colleen Bell 135 Cheryl Bell That. must be a safer place te, put it 9atWn mr+mm. Mel6l Page 2 of 2 The Pefifion to Proact Cednr Grove Park Pefidon m City ofTuefin was ceamd by and wrhlen by Jennifer Wier" (iaws2®co .net). This pdidon is hosed here o! www PahnmaOnlinc umin as a public smuts. There is nn endnrsemat of this petillon, axpresa or Implied, by Anlfce. fnc. ar aur sponsors. For teehni W support place use our simple Petition Help fo,m. Send this in e friers smd PsisM MrFama.�On FAy.gyllr Prylllan-Gn0m¢9Sbt4-p.111'J4t-mpgBnll--6^.^nC lm� •ovrrllpc= PshhonOnline - DesnnCommunily - AmhiloctureWeek - Grew R., drops - Searrh 104P llb w laa it/mwn0ev.ewroCed"G.'peNlonbrmf W 1999-2005 Anifse. lac. - All Righm lieserved. https://petitiononline.securesites.com/CedarGrv/tDgGVDjyQihh.egi 10/20/2010 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks jjaws2Qcox.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:17 PM To: Biggs, David; City Clerk Cc: CITY COUNCIL; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Confirmation of Vacated 10120 Zoning Admin Decision re Proposed Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park Dear City of Tustin, Mr. Biggs, and City Council: This letter shall confirm my telephone conversation this morning with City Manager David Biggs in which he confirmed that the Zoning Administrator has vacated its 10/20 Decision in Design Review 09-033, approving the application of T - Mobile to install and operate 65 foot fake tree cell tower with 10 antennas and associated ground equipment along with future coloration in Cedar Grove Park. He further confirmed that there was no longer any active decision or action from which an appeal could be filed at this time. Instead, the matter has been referred to the Planning Commission and it will be put on the December 14, 2010 agenda where the applicant and the City will essentially start again from square one, so to speak. This will be a public hearing. If any of this information is incorrect, please notify me immediately. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today Mr. Biggs. Very truly yours, Jennifer Wierks 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 714.505.9236 Swiontek, Ryan From: Lauralee McKay [lauraleemckay@sbcglobal.netj Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 6:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: No to Cell Tower at Cedar Grove Park! Dear Planning Commission and City Council: I am a Tustin resident who frequents Cedar Grove Park with children to play and enjoy the scenic beauty of the historic Cedar Grove. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a 65' Cell Phone Tower next to the Cedar Grove and yards away from the National Recreation Trail the Mountains to Sea trail. If you were in my shoes, would you want a 65' cell tower down the street from your home???? Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our children. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. We meet other families there from Tustin as well as the surrounding areas including Santa Ana, Orange, and Irvine. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for mothers, kids, and families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Pa rk, Please don't change this. We were upset to recently learn that T -Mobile wants to construct 65 -foot (5 -story) Cell Phone Tower with large ground equipment in Cedar Grove Park, close to neighbors (within 300 feet), next to Peters Canyon Elementary (with some portable classroom just several yards away) and near Pioneer Middle School. A Tower at this location, fake tree or not, will compromise the scenic beauty and historic integrity of the tree grove and the park. These trees are over 100 years old and are one of the oldest landmarks left in Tustin Ranch. Tustin, is, after all "The City of Trees". I also understand that the tower equipment will be substantial and possibly produce noise - it will compromise the peacefulness and enjoyment of the park. It may further present a safety issue as an attractive nuisance to children in the park. In short, it will affect our quality of life. I am further concerned it will further lower the property values of the homes in the area. Studies indicate it can affect it anywhere from 2% to 10% or more. That, in turn, will affect your property tax revenues as homeowners seek re -assessment based upon the lower values. Just do a simple cost benefit analysis: the revenue the City would earn from this tower (I understand you are hoping for a revenue stream in the range of $21,600 to $28,000/year) is not enough to offset the lower property tax revenues the entire area would suffer as a result of the placement of the tower at this location. 'It is also not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this significant financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower. I Cell Towers continuously emit RF/EMF 24 hrs/day. We do not want our children exposed to electromagnetic radiation, as these Cell Tower emissions are dangerous to human health. More and more facts are revealed about health dangers every year. We have learned that health studies - primarily in Europe - conclude that living near Cell Towers is especially hazardous to children. I am aware that you don't want to consider the health effects in your decision, but the perceived health effects are the very reason why property values will decline, and people will refuse to frequent the park. In any event, you need not consider health effects as it is not necessary to get that far in the analysis. There are plenty of other reasons to deny the application of this tower at this location. Cell Towers in undesirable locations have been rejected all over this country, and some jurisdictions have banned them on or near public schools. There are other alternative locations available that need to be studied, and/or identified. The surrounding community has plenty of potentially more desirable higher elevation locations that could better serve the need in the area. Some may be within City limits, some may be in the areas just outside the City's borders. Also, a word of caution. T -Mobile represents to the buying public on its own website that the voice coverage in this area is "good" to "very good" or better. Data coverage is even better. Either this public claim or their application claim of necessity due to a significant gap in coverage must be put in question. Please don't put a Cell Tower here, next to all our kids. Abide by the City's motto to "Preserve Our History". Stop the Tower in Cedar Grove! Please keep it for kids. If not, we will no longer be able to use the Park. Thank you! Sincerely, Lauralee McKay 2 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Daws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:39 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Cc: CITY COUNCIL; City Clerk Subject: Save Cedar Grove Park Letter Opposing Application under Design Review 09-033 Attachments: Position Letter of Save Cedar Grove Park.pdf; Exhibits to Save Cedar Grove Park Position Letter.pdf Dear Planning Commission, City Council, Mr. Biggs, Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek: Attached please find our position letter in opposition to the application under Design Review 09-033 regarding the proposed wireless telecommunication tower and facilities at Cedar Grove Park. The Exhibits to this letter are also attached as a separate file. This letter was prepared in anticipation of the December 14, 2010 public hearing. Please ensure that the Planning Commission has received it in advance of the hearing and that it is made part of the record of the hearing. We request an acknowledgment by email that you have received the attachments and that the files are able to open for you. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely — Jennifer Ann Wierks, Esq. 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 (714)505-9236 Jaws2@cox.net Brandon Key 10950 Hiskey Lane Tustin, CA 92782 (714)544-9133 dcpost@cox.net Sharon Michael 11615 Goetting Tustin, CA 92782 (714)505-6200 Sharon @sha ronm ichael.com David Bessen 10960 Hiskey Lane Tustin, CA 92782 (714)505-4545 furniturerep@cox.net Tracy Powell 2875 Pankey Tustin, CA 92782 Tracylpowell@vahoo.com Sharon Komorous 10875 Kimball Place Tustin, CA 92782 (715) 573-9938 skomoCeDcox.net Rita Semaan 10880 Tantlinger Drive Tustin, CA 92782 (714)838-0592 ritasemaan@aol.com Erik Tran 11675 Leihy Avenue Tustin, CA 92782 (714)389-2524 erikntran@vahoo.com Nancy Kuwada 2701 Timmons Tustin, CA 92782 (714)832-7259 nkuwada@cox.net SAVE CEDAR GROVE PARK JENNIFER ANN WIERKS, ESQ INDIVIDUALLY AND TOGETHER WITH THE COMMITTEE TO SAVE CEDAR GROVE PARK 714-505-9236 jaws2@cox.net 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 December 7, 2010 Planning Commission City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Position Paper of Save Cedar Grove Park Proposed 65' "Fake Tree" Cellular Tower Application by'T-Mobile Communications; Design Review 09-033 Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: We are residents. We are parents. We are students. We appreciate nature. We frequent our park. We love our community. We want to preserve our history. We are land owners. We pay taxes. We are cell phone users. We oppose the application of T -Mobile to install a 65' cellular tower and associated ground equipment in our Cedar Grove Park, next to the Deodar Cedars, Redwoods, National Recreation Trail (the Mountains to Sea trail), and too near Peters Canyon Elementary School and residences. We have signed an online Petition opposing this application. As of November 30, 2010, the online Petition contained 481 signatures, which accompanies this letter for your review as Exhibit 1. Should this application be granted, T -Mobile would install one of the largest cellular phone towers in our City with 9 panel antennas, 1 parabolic antenna and associated ground -mounted equipment. Eventually, under the City's Wireless Master Plan, 4 additional carriers would join them with all of their own antennas and equipment.I 1. Introduction This location is just a little over 300 feet from Peters Canyon Elementary School. Bungalow style portable classrooms are just on the other side of the fence. Children play at recess at the playground just on the other side of the fence. Residential homes including the bordering neighborhoods known as Tustin Ranch Estates and Sedona are just a few hundred feet away. Tustin Wireless Master Plan, p. 5 Page 12 Playground equipment and picnic areas at the park are even closer. The sports field is right in front of it. The nationally recognized Mountains to Sea Trail is a few yards behind it. The picnic area for the trail is right next to it. The historic Cedar and Redwood grove housing hundred year old Cedars planted by the Irvine Family on the former Irvine Ranch land is just a few feet away. The very patch of land in question is used by families to take pictures for family portraits, to lounge around on, play games and enjoy the scenery of all that surrounds it. Those traveling on Pioneer Road will have an unobstructed view of the 65 foot fake tree cell tower with 10+ antennas and its associated equipment sheds. Simply put, this spot is the center of our recreational, educational, and residential community and is an extremely undesirable location to place a giant cell tower. Fake tree or not, these towers are unattractive and it would be a visual blight in this community at this location. Our property values will be affected by the proximity of the tower. Studies indicate they can be affected anywhere from 2% to 10% or more. In these neighborhoods, even at just 2% we could be talking anywhere from $15,000 to $70,000 or more per home. Our pool of prospective buyers will shrink, as people steer clear from our area because of the perceived risks of living next to a cell tower. Safety risks will increase from fire and injury of curious children and others. Our overall enjoyment of the park will be compromised. We urge the City to deny this application, and, if necessary, look for alternative options for placement of this and any future proposed towers. 2. The Players a. The City The City of Tustin has actively been pursuing the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities within the City limits to improve coverage and to generate additional revenue. This effort has been spearheaded in substantial part by first term Councilwoman Deborah Gavello, who ran for office in large part on the campaign promise to improve cellular service in the East Tustin area. The City has estimated that it can collect between $21,600 and $28,000 per year for each site it allows to be installed. There are currently 39 active cell sites within the City's limits. 11 of those facilities are currently operated by T -Mobile . T -Mobile has the largest number of wireless installations in the City.2 The City has an existing General Plan which recognizes and encourages the preservation of its history and the specific preservation of the Cedar Grove located at Cedar Grove Park. The City is known as the "City of Trees" and its motto is "Building Our Future, Honoring Our Past". b. ATS Communications T -Mobile filed this application ostensibly as a result of the identification of this spot as a possible wireless tower location by the Tustin Wireless Master Plan Study. Do not let the word "study" fool you. This Wireless Master Plan is "a marketing tool that maximizes the potential revenue 2. August 4, 2009 Agenda Report from Redevelopment Agency to City Manager; Tustin Wireless Master Plan, p. 5. Page 13 that can be generated from new cell sites on a property".3 This "study" was performed not by the City, but by a third party wireless vendor/consultant ATS Communications contracted by the City. This Lake Forest based company partners with the wireless telecommunication companies to identify and locate potential wireless cellular antenna sites. It then proactively markets these locations to the wireless carriers in an attempt to create a revenue stream for that location. This vendor/consultant is paid by the wireless providers indirectly in that it will receive its compensation by netting a significant percentage of the revenues the City will receive from the land use leases for these towers. Indeed, although its dba is ATS Communications, it is registered and operates in the State of California as Telecom Partners Group Corp.4 Thus, it is in ATS's financial interest to get as many towers installed as possible. ATS is not a neutral party. e. T -Mobile T -Mobile has the largest number of towers in the City of Tustin already (eleven in all). T - Mobile has filed this application based upon a claim that there is a purportedly a gap in coverage in this East Tustin area necessitating the tower. The truth of this representation, however, is cast into doubt by T -Mobile's own data on its website, where a consumer can check his/her coverage in their area. According to T -Mobile's Personal Coverage Check, found at http://www.t-mobile.coin/coverage/i)cc.aMx the area in and around Cedar Grove Park ranges from "Good" to "Very Good", with the Park itself being in the "Very Good" range. Data coverage is even better. (The entire range spans from "No Coverage", "Partner", "Good", "Very Good", and "Excellent".) Copies of these results can be found with this letter as Exhibit Number 2 and incorporated by this reference. 5 These maps indicate that there is in -car or better coverage for virtually all of this area without the proposed Cedar Grove tower. It appears that what T -Mobile portrays to the City to obtain approval for the cell phone tower is in direct conflict with what they maintain to the buying public on their website, putting its representations to the City into question. Moreover, T -Mobile's effort to explore alternative locations in this area also may be a bit disingenuous based upon the representations made at the October 20, 2010 zoning administrator hearing. Indeed, little if any effort has been made to identify or secure the numerous other higher elevation alternative locations in this area. 3. History of the Cedar Grove Tustin Ranch's history is inextricably entwined with the story of the Irvine Ranch. What is now known as Tustin Ranch was annexed just a little over twenty years ago in 1986. It is deeply rooted in the Irvine Family history. The Irvine Family planted the Cedar Grove trees in the early 1900's as an experiment to determine if it would make an adequate windrow as an alternative to ATS Communications literature found on its website at http://atscomm.com/services/wireless-master-plan.htnd However, according to the Orange County Clerk/Recorder's office, ATS Communications' dba registration expired on July 29, 2007. 5 For purposes of this exercise, we used the Sedona neighborhood address of 11615 Goetting Avenue, which is owned and occupied by Thomas and Sharon Michael. Pagc 14 the costly and imported eucalyptus trees that they ultimately used throughout the Irvine Ranch area. The experiment ultimately failed, but the grove has been preserved as a mark of the history of the area. Few if any other historical markers exist in Tustin Ranch. Simply put, this grove has historical significance not only to the City of Tustin, but also to Irvine and the County as a whole. Its scenic beauty needs no mention. It is probably the oldest preserved site within Tustin Ranch. James Irvine's love of trees is evidenced in his gift of the county's first regional park (now Irvine Regional Park). He placed several conditions on his land donation, including that there be absolutely no harvesting of trees, which instead were to receive good care, and the park was to be kept as natural as possible.6 One can liken Tustin Ranch's Cedar Grove to the majestic oaks of Irvine Regional Park — it is one of the last vestiges of Tustin Ranch history that must be preserved, protected and kept natural. No one would think of putting up a tower next to Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park, or upon Mount Rushmore, or next to the General Grant or General Sherman trees in Sequoia National Park. Our Cedar Grove is our own little piece of Tustin Ranch history. It should not be desecrated by a 65' modern fake tree tower. 4. Conflict with City General Plan and Purpose The proposed placement of this tower is in direct conflict with the City General Plan and is inconsistent, contrary, and out of character with the nature, beauty, landscape, scenery, charm, and historical nature of the park and surrounding neighborhoods. The City of Tustin published an updated General Plan in 2008 as a "blueprint for future growth and development" in the city.7 It addresses issues in relation to land use, circulation, housing, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of open space, the noise environment and the protection of public safety as required under Section 65302 of the Government Code. An approval of T -Mobile's application for a wireless telecommunication facility at Cedar Grove Park would be in direct conflict with the goals, objectives and strategies described in the City's General Plan. The preservation of the Cedar Grove is of paramount importance in the General Plan and is alluded to numerous times both directly and indirectly throughout. To this end, the City's Wireless Master Plan, prepared by financially interested party ATS Communications is also in direct conflict with the General Plan. For example, within the General Plan is the Land Use Element ("LUE'), a guide for allocation of land use in the City. It provides in pertinent part: "DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER IN EAST TUSTIN 6 Liebeck, Judith. Irvine: A History of Innovation and Growth (1990) Pioneer Publications. ' City of Tustin General Plan ("TGP"), June 17, 2008, page 6 Page 15 o The opportunity exists in East Tustin to ensure hillside development protects the natural terrain, and that significant open space resources (such as the eucalyptus windrows and stand of redwoods) are preserved. o In an area as large as East Tustin, the provision of land uses which support the resident population to minimize travel distances to shopping, recreation and service uses. o Important viewsheds in East Tustin, including the Peters Canyon ridgeline, the redwood/cedar grove, the knoll, and major tree stands, should be protected from intrusion."s The Land Use Element warns at page 7 that "[n]ew development, if not regulated, can interfere with public vistas and views of the surrounding hillsides, public monuments, and other important viewsheds." Many of the Goals contained in the Land Use Element apply in this instance. Policy 3.7 implores the City to "[e]ncourage the preservation and enhancement of public vistas, particularly those seen from public places."9 Goal 4 states "[a]ssure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses."'c Policy 6.5: Preserve historically significant structures and sites, and encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older buildings, sites and neighborhoods that contribute to the City's historic character." I I In the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan ("COSRE"), it is noted that the Cedar grove has been preserved and its continued protection will require biological assessment of any new development to ensure the local ecosystem and the "City's aesthetic environment,,. 12 The interpretation of the General Plan is clear: Cedar Grove Park is a recognized location of natural and historical significance that must be protected and preserved. Moreover, no biological assessments were performed prior to approval of this application. Simply stated, a wireless telecommunications facility has no place in this park. We have substantial evidence. Installation of this facility will lead to a deterioration in the quality of the life that we have come to treasure here in Tustin. The cell tower disguised as a fake tree is a visual blight, and sets an unwelcome precedent for our East Tustin hillside neighborhood. a Land Use Element,. p. 9 (Emphasis added). LUE, p. 16. ° LUE, p. 16. " LUE, p. 19. COSRE, pp. 3435 Pagc 16 5. The City Retains Power to Deny the Application Despite the Limitations of the Federal Telecommunications Act It appeared from the previous the Zoning Administrator meeting held on October 20, 2010 that the City is mistakenly under the assumption that its hands are tied in this matter in that it lacks authority to deny an application under federal law in that its authority is limited and preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"). This City is misguided. The City retains power to deny this application. Under Section 47 of the United States Code which embodies the Telecommunications Act, its clear language states that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority" of a local goverment "over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification" of wireless facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) In short, local governments do have the authority to deny wireless tower applications. Reasonable discrimination is allowed under federal law. Moreover, the City has authority to regulate the place and manner of cell phone tower facilities including the location, number, and appearance of wireless facilities. a. Authority to Deny based upon History and Nature Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 includes several limitations to prohibit municipalities from denying a cell tower based on health and environmental concerns, the authors of the Act wanted to ensure that our parks be preserved and protected. In this regard, the City still has authority to deny an application to preserve both history and natural surroundings. "The Committee recognizes, for example, that the use of Washington Monument, Yellowstone National Park, or a pristine wildlife sanctuary, while perhaps prime sites for an antenna and other facilities, are not appropriate ... and use of them would be contrary to environmental, conservation, and public safety laws." 13 As stated above, allowing this installation of a giant 65 foot fake tree would mean the City of Tustin will fail to live up to its commitment and pledge in the General Plan if it is allowed to be located in this park location. The placement of a cellular tower next to this grove will greatly compromise its aesthetics and the historic integrity of the Cedar Grove trees. "Fake tree" or not, these towers are unattractive and a visual blight to the community and a desecration of the honor of our past. We urge the City to stand by the promise of its City motto, honoring the past in this instance in protecting the Cedar Grove from a such a significant visual intrusion. This living history must continue to be preserved and protected. b. Authority to Deny Based Upon Protecting the Public Interests of its Residents Moreover, recent Ninth Circuit Court and U.S. District Court decisions — citing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA)1 and California state laws —have acknowledged and 13 Original authors: of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see 104'h Congress, 1' Session, House of Representatives, Report 104204, Communications Act of 1995, Commerce Committee, July 24,1995; p. 95. Page 17 affirmed the rights and authority of local governments to regulate the placement and appearance of wireless facilities. 14 There have been two recent U.S. District Court decisions, NewPath Networks v City oflrvine and NewPath Networks v City of Davis, explaining how local authorities have rights that do not conflict with Federal and California State laws and regulations concerning wireless facility installations on poles in PROW, including authority to protect the public interests of its residents. 15 In case there is further doubt, look to the explanation and assurances that Thomas Bliley, chairman of the Commerce Committee at the time of the TCA's enactment. In addressing the concerns of his fellow representatives that the proposed TCA would strip local governments of their regulatory powers, he stated for the record that: "Nothing is in this bill that prevents a locality, and I will do everything in conference to make sure this is absolutely clear, prevents a local subdivision from determining where a cellular pole should be located, but we do want to make sure that this technology is available across the country, that we do not allow a community to say we are not going to have any cellular pole in our locality. That is wrong. Nor are we going to say they can delay these people forever. But the location will be determined by the local governing body. The second point you raise, about the charges for right-of-way, the councils, the supervisors and the mayor can make any charge they want provided they do not charge the cable company one fee and they charge a telephone company a lower fee for the same right-of-way. They should not discriminate, and that is all we say. Charge what you will, but make it equitable between the parties. Do not discriminate in favor of one or the other." 16 c. Reasonable Discrimination is Permitted Local governments are authorized to regulate wireless facilities with aesthetic and public safety standards, requirements and ordinances, as long as these requirements are not unreasonable, and do not violate the specific limitations of the TCA. For example, in MetroPCS v the City and County of San Francisco (9t1 Cir. 2005) 400 F. 3d 715, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited AT&T Wireless v City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d at 427, and other court cases that have aflumed that "some discrimination among providers of functionally equivalent services is allowed: Any discrimination need only be "reasonable." 74 Telecommunications Act of 1996; Source: FCC, p 117, http://www.fee.2ov/RePorts/tcom1996.pdf1 15 You can read the decision denying NewPath's motion for summaryjudgment, dated Dec 23, 2009, here: http://cityofdavis.ore/cmo/odfs/nc"ath/Pre]iTninary-lni unction/02-23-10/Exhibit-A-to-Citvs-Request-for-Judici al- Notice-%28Doc-24-2%29.1) . You can read the City of Davis' Feb. 24, 2010, response to NewPath's complaint here: htty://cityofdavis.ore/emo/udfs/newi)ath/NewPath-v.-City-of-Davis/Answer-to-Comolaint.t)df. and the March 19, 2010 U.S. District Court final Decision favoring the City of Davis here: www.telecomlawfirm.com articles/odf/newuath v davis deny prelim ini 20100319.uci f f1 Cong. Rec. H8274 (daily ed. Aug. 2,1995) Page Is In AT&T Wireless PCS v City Council of Virginia Beach (4s' Cir. 1998) 155 F.3d 423, at issue was a denial for a wireless facility proposed on church property in an area that was residential and had no commercial towers. In this case, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that a city can favor one competitor over another, as long as it does not unreasonably favor one over another, and then addressed what is "unreasonable" and "reasonable" (bold-faced emphasis below is this Report's): even assuming that the City Council discriminated, it did not do so "unreasonably," under any possible interpretation of that word as used in subsection (B)(i)(I). We begin by emphasizing the obvious point that the Act explicitly contemplates that some discrimination "among providers of functionally equivalent services" is allowed. Any discrimination need only be reasonable. There is no evidence that the City Council had any intent to favor one company or form of service over another. In addition, the evidence shows that opposition to the application rested on traditional bases of zoning regulation: preserving the character of the neighborhood and avoiding aesthetic blight. If such behavior is unreasonable, then nearly every denial of an application such as this will violate the Act, an obviously absurd result. Both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts referred to the original Congressional Conference Report, or legislative history behind this particular limitation of the TCA, that supports this view: It condemns decisions that "unreasonably favor one competitor over another" but emphasizes the conferees' intent that the discrimination clause "will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even if those facilities provide functionally equivalent services."4 Most importantly, the Fourth Circuit Court also noted about the intent of the authors of the TCA of 1996: For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor's 50 - foot tower in a residential district 5 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed similarly, citing previous court cases: see also Omnipoint, 331 F.3d at 395 ("Permitting the erection of a communications tower in a business district does not compel the [zoning board] to permit a similar tower at a later date in a residential district."); Unity Township, 282 F.3d at 267 (discrimination claim " `require[s] a showing that the other provider is similarly situated' ") (quoting Penn Township, 196 F.3d at 480 n.8). In fact, the sole district court case from the Ninth Circuit on this issue holds that a mere increase in the number of wireless antennas in a given area over time can justify differential treatment of providers. Airtouch Cellular v. City of El Cajon, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1166 (S.D. Cal. 2000). Page 19 Other recent court decisions also affirm that requirements for installations in one part of town can differ for another part of town, and take into account aesthetics, design, and public safety. 17 Numerous municipalities have also decided against towers based upon aesthetics and other factors.$ 6. Surrounding Residential Property Values Will be Significantly Affected by an Installation at this Site Various studies and reports are available on the Internet that indicate that the presence of a cell tower in a residential neighborhood affects home values. The diminution in value ranges from 2% to 20% by some sources. Even the financially interested ATS Communications representative present at the Zoning Administrator meeting on October 20, 2010 conceded that property values may be affected by as much as 2%, taking the most conservative approach. In the neighborhoods surrounding Cedar Grove, even this meager 2% can have an impact of $15,000.00 — $70,000.00 on a home's value. The value of the home, in tum, dictates the amount of property tax that municipalities may collect for that residence. 19 17 Please see Sprint PCS v Palos Verdes, MetroPCS v San Francisco, and T -Mobile v City ofAnaeortes (Id.) is Examples of recent local municipal decisions, resolutions and motions denying a cell tower due to aesthetics include: • City of Los Angeles Planning Commission denies cell phone tower on condo complex (October 12, 2010) (news story here: httn://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/10/los angeles residents fight ba.ohe.) • City of Northridge rejects T -Mobile application (October 20 10) near residential neighborhood (news story here: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci 16260946.) • County of Los Angeles: Board of Supervisors denies T -Mobile cell tower proposed for Hacienda Heights upon appeal; see County of Los Angeles website for Motion of Intent to Deny by Supervisor Don Knabe, October 27, 2009, on-line at: httn://tile.lacountygov/bos/sundocs/51925.pdf. Also see County of Los Angeles Counsel, Findings and order adopted March 9, 2010, 6 pages, on-line at: http://file.lacounty.eov/boa/sui3docs/53564.i3 • City of Los Angeles Associate Zoning Administrator Maya E. Zaitzevsky denies T -Mobile cell tower in Toluca Lake, CA (North Hollywood -Valley Village area): see CUP denial, Case No. ZA 2009-1873 (CUW), February 17, 2010; Los Angeles Planning Department website, on-line Summary at: final Decision on-line directly here: • City Council for Temple City, CA, denies monopine cell tower proposed for church location in residential neighborhood: passed, approved and adopted March 16, 2010. Source: City Clerk, Temple City, CA. • City Council for City of Irvine, CA, denies NewPath DAS installations for Turtle Rock community, resolution approved August 11, 2009. See on-line at City of Irvine website at: http://www.irvin ee uickrecords.com/sirgpub/cache/2/smoxvoyxOSvvzg45kpgyypuo/9578494051720100130 5652.PDF. 19 A number of organizations and studies have documented the detrimental effects of cell towers on property values. Page 110 Thus, residents are justifiably concerned about proposed cell towers reducing the value of their homes and properties. Who would want to live right next to one, or under one? And imagine what it's like for people who purchase or build their dream home or neighborhood, only to later have an unwanted cell tower installed just outside their window? This negative effect can also contribute to urban blight, and a deterioration of neighborhoods and school districts when residents want to move out or pull their children out because they don't want to live or have their children attend schools next to a cell tower. These points underscore why this wireless facility is a commercial facility that doesn't belong in this park near residences and two schools, and should be placed in an alternative, less obtrusive location .20 1. The Appraisal Institute, the largest global professional membership organization for appraisers with 91 chapters throughout the world, spotlighted the issue of cell towers and the fair market value of a home and educated its members that a cell tower should, in fact, cause a decrease in home value. The definitive work on this subject was done by Dr. Sandy Bond, who concluded that "media attention to the potential health hazards of [cellular phone towers and antennas] has spread concerns among the public, resulting in increased resistance" to sites near those towers. Percentage decreases mentioned in the study range from 2 to 20% with the percentage moving toward the higher range the closer the property. These are a few of her studies: a. "The effect of distance to cell phone towers on house prices" by Sandy Bond, Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007, see attached. Source, Appraisal Journal, found on the Entrepreneur website, htty://www.entrepreneur.com/tradeiournals/article/171851340.htn l or http://www.pn•e.s.net/papers/Bond Squires Using GIS to Measure.pdf b. Sandy Bond, Ph.D., Ko -Kang Wang, "The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods," The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005; see attached. Source: Goliath business content website, c. Sandy Bond also co-authored, "Cellular Phone Towers: Perceived impact on residents and property values" University of Auckland, paper presented at the Ninth Pacific -Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Brisbane, Australia, January I9-22, 2003; see attached. Source: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society website, bu://www.pmes.net/Papers/Bond The Impact Of Cellular Phone Base Station Towers On Property Values.pd f 2. Industry Canada (Canadian government department promoting Canadian economy), "Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review, Section D — The Six Policy Questions, Question 6. What evidence exists that property values are impacted by the placement of antenna towers?'; see attached. Source: Industry Canada http://www.ic.Rc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.htn3l website, 3. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, "Appendix 5: The Impact of Cellphone Towers on Property Values' see attached. Source: New Zealand Ministry for the Environment website, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/i)ublications/mia/nes-telecommunications-section32-aug08/html/vagel2.html 20 A few other examples of evidence showing the decline in real estate value include 1. Glendale, CA: During the January 7, 2009 Glendale City Council public hearing about a proposed T -Mobile cell tower in a residential neighborhood, local real estate professional Adders Beall described how a Spanish home in the Verdugo Woodlands, listed for 1 rmllion dollars, sold $25,000 less because of a power pole across the street. "Perception is everything," said Ms. Beall stated. "It the public perceives it to be a problem, then it is a problem. it really does affect property values." See Glendale City Council meeting, January 7, 2009, video of Adders Beall comments @2:35:24: h-"://elendale.granieus.com/MediaPlaver.php?view id=12&clip i&1227 2. Windsor HillsNiew Park, CA: residents who were fighting off a T -Mobile antenna in their neighborhood Page Ill received letters from real estate companies, homeowner associations and resident organizations in their community confirming that real estate values would decrease with a cell phone antenna in their neighborhood. To see copies of their letters to city officials, look at the. Report from Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission regarding CUP Case No. 200700020-(2), from L.A. County Board of Supervisors September 16, 2009, Meeting documents, Los Angeles County website, here at: httn://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/48444.vdf a. Seepage 295, August 31, 2008 Letter from Donna Bohanna, President/Rcaltor of Solstice International Realty and resident of Baldwin Hills to Los Angeles Board of Supervisors explaining negative effect of cell tower on property values of surrounding properties. "As a realtor, I must disclose to potential buyers where there are any cell towers nearby. I have found in my own experience that there is a very real stigma and cellular facilities near homes are perceived as undesirable." b. See page 296, March 26, 2008 Letter from real estate professional Beverly Clark, "Those who would otherwise purchase a home, now considered desirable, can be deterred by a facility like the one proposed and this significantly reduces sales prices and does so immediately ... I believe a facility such as the one proposed will diminish the buyer pool, significantly reduce homes sales prices, alter the character of the surrounding area and impair the use of the residential properties for their primary uses." c. See Page 298, The Appraiser Squad Comment Addendum, about the reduced value of a home of resident directly behind the proposed installation after the city had approved the CUP for a wireless facility there: "The property owner has listed the property... and has had a potential buyer back out of the deal once this particular information of the satellite communication center was announced.... there has been a canceled potential sale therefore it is relevant and determined that this new planning decision can have some negative effect on the subject property." d. See Page 301, PowerPower presentation by residents about real estate values: "The California Association of Realtors maintains that'sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of the property,' including 'known conditions outside of and surrounding' it, This includes 'nuisances' and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses." e. See Pages 302-305 from the Baldwin Hills Estates Homeowners Association, the United Homeowners Association, and the Windsor Hills Block Club, opposing the proposed cell tower and addressing the effects on homes there: "Many residents are prepared to sell in an already depressed market or, in the case of one new resident with little to no equity, simply walk away if these antennas are installed. f. See Pages 362-363, September 17, 2008, Letter from resident Sally Hampton, of the Windsor Hills Homeowner's Assoc., Item K, addressing effects of the proposed facility on real estate values. 3. Santa Cruz, CA: Also attached is a story about how a preschool closed up because of a cell tower installed on its grounds; 'Santa Cruz Preschool Closes Citing Cell Tower Radiation," Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 17, 2006; Source, EMFacts website: http://www.eTnfacts.com/webloix/?p=466. 4. Merrick, NY: For a graphic illustration of what we don't want happening herein Burbank, just look at Merrick, NY, where NextG wireless facilities are being installed, resulting in declining home real estate values. Look at this Best Buyers Brokers Realty website ad from this area, "Residents of Merrick, Seaford and Wantaugh Complain Over Perceived Declining Property Values: httv://www.bestbuyerbroker.com/bloiz/?p=86. 5. Burbank, CA: At a City Council public hearing on December 8, 2009, hillside resident and a California licensed real estate professional Alex Safarian informed city officials that local real estate professionals he spoke with agree about the adverse effects the proposed cell tower would have on property values: "I've done research on the subject and as well as spoken to many real estate professionals in the area, and they all agree that there's no doubt that cell towers negatively affect real estate values. Steve Hovakimian, a resident near Brace park, and a California real estate broker, and the publisher of "Home by Design" monthly real estate magazine, stated that he has seen properties near cell towers lose up to 10% of their value due to proximity of the cell tower ... So even if they try to disguise them as tacky fake metal pine trees, as a real Page 112 On a local level, residents and real estate professionals have also informed city officials about the detrimental effects of cell towers on home property values. At Tustin's own zoning administrator meeting on October 20, 2010, realtor Sharon Michael testified that the presence of the cell tower would most certainly affect property values. She further testified that the question of the presence of nearby cell towers frequently arises during her conversations and real estate estate professional you're required by the California Association of Realtors: that sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of a property including conditions that are known outside and surrounding areas." (See City of Burbank Website, Video, Alex Safarian comments @ 6:24:28, htto://burbank.wanicus.com/MediaPlaver.phntview id=6&clip id=8481 Indeed, 27 Burbank real estate professionals in December 2009 signed a petition/statement offering their professional opinion that a proposed T -Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon Park would negatively impact the surrounding homes, stating: "It is our professional opinion that cell towers decrease the value of homes in the area tremendously. Peer reviewed research also concurs that cell sites do indeed cause a decrease in home value. We encourage you to respect the wishes of the residents and deny the proposed T -Mobile lease at this location. We also request that you strengthen your zoning ordinance regarding wireless facilities like the neighboring city of Glendale has done, to create preferred and non preferred zones that will protect the welfare of our residents and their' properties as well as Burbank's real estate business professionals and the City of Burbank. Higher property values mean more tax revenue for the city, which helps improve our city." (Submitted to City Council, Planning Board, City Manager, City Clerk and other city officials via e-mail on June 18, 2010. To see a copy of this, scroll down to bottom of page and click "Subpages" or go here; Here is a list of additional articles on how cell towers negatively affect the property values of homes near them: • The Observer (U.K.), "Phone masts blight house sales: Health fears are alarming buyers as masts spread across Britain to meet rising demand for mobiles," Sunday May 25, 2003 or go here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2003/may/25 housepr ces.uknews • "Cell Towers Are Sprouting in Unlikely Places," The New York Times, January 9, 2000 (fears that property values could drop between 5 and 40 percent because of neighboring cell towers) • "Quarrel over Phone Tower Now Court's Call," Chicago Tribune, January 18, 2000 (fear of lowered property values due to cell tower) • "The Future is Here, and It's Ugly: a Spreading of Techno-blight of Wires, Cables and Towers Sparks a Revolt," New York Times, September 7, 2000 • "Tower Opponents Ring Up a Victory," by Phil Brozynski, in the Barrington [Illinois] Courier -Review, February 15, 1999, 5, reporting how the Cuba Township assessor reduced the value of twelve homes following the construction of a cell tower in Lake County, IL. See attached story: hM2://Vot.colorado.edu/—maziara/appeal&attachments/Newton-43-LoweredProi)ertvValuation/ • In another case, a Houston jury awarded 1.2 million to a couple because a 100 -foot -tall cell tower was determined to have lessened the value of their property and caused them mental anguish: Nissimov, R, "GTE Wireless Loses Lawsuit over Cell -Phone Tower," Houston Chronicle, February 23, 1999, Section A, page 11. (Property values depreciate by about 10 percent because of the tower.) Page 113 transactions with real and prospective clients. Subsequent to the October 20, 2010 Zoning Administrator meeting, she was indeed professionally involved in a sales transaction in November 2010 where this very tower application for a facility in Cedar Grove put her client's sale transaction into jeopardy. She will be able to testify about that experience at the hearing on this matter. 7. There is No Significant Gap in Coverage Necessitating this Tower Here There is a burden of proof which must be met by T -Mobile that proves a significant gap in coverage exists in the proposed location necessitating the tower in the area of the proposed location. 21 Just last year, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Sprint PCS Assets v. the City of Palos Verdes (9's Cir. October 2009) 487 F.3d 684 and T -Mobile v the City ofAnacortes (9s' Cir. July 20, 2009) 572 F.3d 987, explained that the "effective prohibition" inquiry involves a "two- pronged" analysis requiring: (1) the showing of a "significant gap" in service coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations. We contend that this application fails on both prongs: T -Mobile has failed to show a "significant gap" nor has an inquiry been conducted into the feasibility of alternative locations or facilities. In T -Mobile v the City ofAnacortes, the City conceded a significant gap existed, so the Court stated that the provider then had the burden of showing the lack of available and technologically feasible alternatives to close the gap, for instance, exploring and researching reasonable and viable alternative locations (called the "least intrusive means" standard). The Ninth Circuit noted that this standard: allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their fust siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the last one remaining after a series of application denials. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals further explained: A provider makes a prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed WCF is the least intrusive means of filing a significant gap. A locality is not compelled to accept the provider's representations. Moreover, we need more rigorous alternative site analysis requirements of our wireless applicants. In our case, T -Mobile has presented some evidence that there is purportedly a gap in coverage. The truth of this representation, however, is cast into doubt by T -Mobile's own data on its website, where a consumer can check his/her coverage in their area. According to T -Mobile's Personal Coverage Check, found at hU://www.t-mobile.com/coveraee/pcc.asvx, the area in and around Cedar Grove Park ranges from "Good" to "Very Good", with the Park itself being in the "Very Good" range. (The entire range spans from "No Coverage", "Partner", "Good", "Very 21 Sprint PCS Assets v. the City of Palos Verdes (9' Cir. October 2009) 487 F.3d 684 and T -Mobile v the City of Anacortes (9"' Or. July 20, 2009) 572 F.3d 987 P a g C 114 Good", and "Excellent".) Copies of these results can be found hereto attached as Exhibit Number 2 and incorporated by this reference. For purposes of this exercise, appellant used the Sedona neighborhood address of 11615 Goetting Avenue, which is owned and occupied by Thomas and Sharon Michael. These maps indicate that there is in car or better coverage for virtually all of this area without the proposed Cedar Grove tower. Data coverage is even better. It appears that what T -Mobile portrays to the City to obtain approval for the cell phone tower is in direct conflict with what they maintain to the buying public on their website. It is also important to note that while the placement of the cell tower at Cedar Grove may provide additional coverage to the immediate Sedona and Tustin Ranch Estates Communities, it will also cover in substantial part just parkland thereby limiting the number of residences that will benefit from this location. T -Mobile and the City conceded at the Zoning Administrator hearing that the benefit only extended to Sedona and Tustin Ranch Estates. The same remedy can be accomplished by installing antennas or a tower in another alternative location, providing coverage to a greater number of Tustin residences. 8. Alternative Locations Moreover, as to the second prong of the analysis discussed above pursuant to Sprint PCS Assets v. the City of Palos Verdes (91h Cir. October 2009) 487 F.3d 684 and T -Mobile v the City of Anacortes (9th Cir. July 20, 2009) 572 F.3d 987, little evidence exists that this prong has been satisfied in exploring whether alternative and feasible site locations and facilities exist. In fact, the evidence indicates an opposite result. Again, the veracity of T -Mobile's application representations are put into question. For instance, in discussing the viability of the OCFA training center as an alternative and more desirable location, T -Mobile and the City contended at the October 20, 2010 hearing that the OCFA was "not interested" in a facility at their location. This is simply untrue. In November 2010, representatives of Save Cedar Grove Park were specifically invited to accompany OCFA, T - Mobile by and through its representative vendor, Coastal Business Group, and other carriers to tour the approved site that is in the works at the OCFA facility by third party tower builder Vista Towers. OCFA confirmed to us that the site and proposed two (2) 45' multieatrier towers meets their approval. Thus, it is difficult at best to believe that just a couple weeks earlier, OCFA was .not interested".12 We urge the City to explore more feasible alternative locations to serve this area. Many locations in this area may prove to be more desirable as they are at higher elevations, not adjacent to schools or displacing our parklands. As this is a border community, it may very well be that alternative locations can be found outside the City limits that can best serve this need. There has been much discussion about other locations, however, we feel it is incumbent upon the City to identify and study these locations as is deemed necessary by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.23 For instance, many communities (this area included!) have resolved the need for 22 It was further represented to us at the OCFA tour that the City of Irvine has given preliminary approval to the project at this higher elevation site. 5 Such alternative locations that have been identified by various entities/persons include, but are not limited to, the OCFA facilities, the eastern hills by the toll roads, and Pioneer Park (identified by the City's Wireless Master Plan as a viable location). It is our further understanding the City has also been trying to find a tower builder to put one up in Citrus Ranch Park off of Portola and Tustin Ranch Road. In addition, we are told there are two sites already Page 115 modem telecommunications in fragile, historic, or natural areas with the installation of a distributed antenna system such as that on Jamboree Road which is less obtrusive and unsightly than a fake tree tower. T -Mobile has failed to consider the implementation of such technologies within our residential neighborhood and historical geographical area. Tree -like or not, the proposed 65 foot tower will be visually jarring to visitors and residents who are hoping to be enveloped by the historical and natural surroundings of Cedar Grove Park and do not expect to see (or hear) the modernity and intrusiveness of a 65 foot cell tower with significant ground facilities. 9. Quality of Life a. Until Potential Health Effects Issue is Resolved, Wireless Companies Should be Discouraged from Building Facilities in Close Proximity to Schools. This Should only be a "Last -Choice" Possibility Although the FCC has made it clear that local municipalities cannot deny an application based upon the adverse health effects of a cellular facility, it is still worth noting that the probability does exist. In fact, the California Public Utilities Commission formed a special committee to investigate the health effects of wireless facilities. The committee workshop occurred on July 21, 1993. (Studies since then have shown relationships between adverse health effects and RF radiation from cell towers, so these workshop conclusions are pretty much out of date). However, the State committee concluded that it had to defer to FCC standards and rules, and the committee said while it is difficult to conclude a health and safety problem exists, it is also unclear that health and safety problems do not exist. Relevant, however, the committee also acknowledged public perception of adverse health effects. Until it could find more conclusive evidence of harmful effects of cell tower radiation, it DID make this recommendation regarding locating cell towers near schools and hospitals: "Cellular companies can be encouraged to consider alternative siting, especially if projected cell sites are in close proximity to schools or hospitals. School and hospital sites can be designated only as last -choice possibilities." See Decision 91-11-017: htty://www.ouc.ca.goy/Environment/emf/emfoi)en.htm and htto://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/emEemfonen.htm While the wireless industry will contend there are no known adverse health effects related to wireless towers and antennae, even a perceived health risk is enough to negatively affect the quality of life of Tustin residents near a cell tower. Whether perceived or real health risks, a cell tower installation at Cedar Grove park adversely impacts neighboring properties and schools. It approved by the City of Irvine on the other side of the toll roads near the Orchard Hills and High Grove areas which may or may not serve this community. Although we do not endorse any of these locations, we merely point out that alternatives do exist. In fact, the Save Cedar Grove Park committee has learned of an active pursuit of a multi carrier wireless telecommunications facility at the Orange County Fire Authority training Center at Jamboree and Pioneer Road. This proposed tower reportedly has been given preliminary approval by the OCFA and the City of Irvine. It has been represented to us that T -Mobile has been included in colocation at this site. This site is at a higher ground elevation than Cedar Grove Park and would purportedly serve the same general area. Page I16 will create anxiety, stress, worry, sadness, a need for moving out of the area, among other things. Parents will consider alternative educational options for their children rather than send their kids to PCE and possibly even Pioneer Middle School. This is a deterioration of the quality of life for Tustin residents, and our neighborhoods. b. Public Safety— Fire and Fall Hazard and Attracting Crime Residents, city officials, and the State of California, are also concerned about these pole installations from a public safety standpoint. There is great public concern over cellular towers and facilities in general. They have been said to attract crime, vandalism, vagrancy, suicide attempts, and are a leading cause of occupational falls. Routine maintenance has led to fires, and high winds have toppled poles. The recent Malibu fires, according to an ABC news report, were caused by utility poles overburdened by new cellular phone gear. "Power poles that should have withstood winds of 92 mph snapped in the 50mph hour winds due to the "heavy, wind -catching cables and antennas." We don't want to put this cell tower, which could entail more antennas adding onto it once it is installed, in a park next to an entire grove of trees adjacent to the elementary school and around homes. It's a potential fire hazard, especially in this hillside fire -sensitive area of Tustin. It would increase anxiety and worries about a potential fire here. There is the safety concern regarding cell towers and potential fire hazards. The California Public Utilities Commission is currently holding, workshops to address the fire hazard risks posed by telecommunications equipment loaded onto utility poles. These types of installations have either started or contributed to several wildfires that resulted in loss of lives and/or serious destruction of homes and/or property/land. In addition, back-up batteries for wireless facilities can be made of hazardous substances. For instance, this June 2008 Board of Appeals Report addresses this serious concern residents raised in that instance about the dangers and hazards of lead back-up batteries: http://www.montaomerycountymd.gov/content/council/zah/])dUret)orts/s-2709.udf. See also, httv://www.city.waltham.ma.us/leveweb/EPAinfo/EPA Lead -Acid Battery fax sheet.htm: http://www.calicory.com/articiesibatteries-hazards.htmi and http://www.calicoro.com/articies/baftery-advisory.hbnl. Combined, these public safety news stories underscore why these installations should be placed away from homes and schools, because knowing they could be installed near our homes, schools and parks negatively affects our quality of life. 9. Conclusion The City has the power to regulate the placement and appearance of cell towers, as long as such discrimination is not unreasonable. Keeping a cell tower out of Cedar Grove Park is a reasonable limitation. Cell coverage, albeit not perfect, does already exist in this area. Putting cell towers in Cedar Grove is just bad business. For residential owners, it means decreased property values. It will mean a smaller pool of prospective buyers of our properties when it comes time to sell. It means anxiety and concern Page 117 for perceived stigmas attached to the proximity of these towers to our homes and schools. It means the compromise of the area's natural beauty. It will signal a lack of appreciation and honor to our local history. It means bringing our treasured park down a few notches and creating potential safety risks. For local businesses (realtors and brokers) representing and listing these properties, it will create decreased income. And for city governments, it results in decreased revenue (property taxes). There are viable alternative solutions, including, but not limited to, higher elevation places outside the City limits of this border neighborhood which will effectively serve this area. The Wireless Master Cellular plan is not absolute, and may warrant further investigation. We encourage the City to explore these alternative options. In this instance, the tower and cellular facility as currently proposed directly conflicts with the City of Tustin's General Plan to preserve the historic nature of the cedar grove trees and the park. It will substantially affect the aesthetics of the park, and will significantly affect residential property values. Many homes bordering the park are multimillion dollar homes or near million dollar homes. This in turn will significantly affect the City's property taxes as residents seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. The facility will affect quality of life and can present a potential fire hazard to this community. "Good" to "Very Good" coverage already exists in this area by T -Mobile's own admission, and alternative locations and/or solutions exist or can be identified by the City or other municipalities in the area that will both serve its residents and comply with T -Mobile's interests in securing adequate coverage for the area. The installation of a cell facility in Cedar Grove is bad for the City, bad for the Park, bad for the residents, and bad for the legacy of the City of Tustin. For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested the Planning Commission deny the application of T -Mobile under Design Review 09-033 and do everything in its power to prevent the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities and towers in Cedar Grove Park. Respectfully, Jennifer Ann Wierks, Esq. Brandon Key Sharon Michael David Bessen Tracy Powell Sharon Komouros Rita Semaan Erik Tran Nancy Kuwada And nearly 500 others ... Save Cedar Grove Park enclosures Exhibit 1 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin Ranch are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: 1. The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, a non-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 3. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 4. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 5. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential area! Number Name Email Comments Address. 1 Jennifer Wierks 2 Lynnea Kull There are other suitable locations than in a park located in a residential area between two schools (Peters Canyon Elem. and Pioneer Middle School). 3 David Haigh david.haigh®cox.net Put the cell tower up on the tall east hill 4 Jennifer Souter2jsouter®cox.net 5 Natalie Griswold 6 Kurt Himler 7 Jane Zhou 8 sonja peterson sonjap®csu.fullerton.edu 9 thanh vo 10 Debra Plante debplante®cox.net 11 Dru Desai 12 Margaret Shen 13 Jennifer Van Iersel 14 Larry Kull 15 Karen Dey Would prefer cell tower not be be placed in community park and by schools 16 Kruti Khan 17 Lisa Osako lkosako@cox.net is Tilden Osako 19 Rita Semaan 20 michelle blum 21 Caroline Marchant Caroline®marchanthockey.com Please do not put up this cell tower so close to our children. 22 Todd Marchant 23 Yan Ye 24 Michael S. Carter 25 Stephanie M. Fabbri Carter there are thousands of children who play at that park- why would we put all these children at risk 26 Annie & TJ Sun 28 Madeline Griswold 30 Cathy Sanders 31 Marcene Marcus 32 ,Jayne Chun jaynechun®hotmail.com A 33 Brandon Key dcpost®cox.net Wouldn't a location nearer the toll road, in a less populated area be a better option? 34 Stacey Muto staceymuto®hotmail 35 Evette Smith 36 Kathy Piazzon 37 Sharon Komorous I oppose the construction of a cell phone tower next to Cedar Grove park and our schools. Let's find another solution. 38 Robert Allen 39 Valeria Pereiravppereira@aol.com 40 Scott Warner Griswold Let's find a better spotthan a popular and beautiful park 41 Joyce Magsarili 42 Katherine Boutelle We don't want to expose our kids! 43 Debbie Bessen 44 Monica Nesbitt 45 Lisa Kormos 46 Coleen Fields 47 Mike Kormos Bad idea, other locations more suitable. 4.8 David Hessen 49 Jacinta Lamb jacinta.lamb®gmail.com A 50 Kimberly Gob 51 Dawn Araki 52 Dean L. Groves 53 Robin King 54 Janet Allen jdallen®cox.net 55 Lei Xu shellyxu®cox.net shellyxu®cox.net 56 Lindsey Garrett I am vehemently opposed to a cell phone. tower in Cedar Grove Park 57 Lisa Deneen 58 Anne earring 59 Sharon Michael 60 Kristi Fuentes 61 Lisa Richardson 62 Thomas Michael 63 Patrick J. Garrett 64 Melanie Belger 65 Christina Dennis 66 Daralyn Nagle 67 Chen Li 68 Debra Lanning 69 Edward Perfetti 70 Kathleen Gambill kshg®cox.net 71 Suzie Won-Speizer 72 David Baker I am opposed to a cell tower UNLESS it meets higher safety and aesthetics standards. 73 Elizabeth Tilford 74 Hop Pham Please don't put cell phone tower near our residential area. 75 Luke Nguyen It is not safe for our community. 76 Trish Nornhold Why in a park surrounded by schools and neighborhoods. Toll road seems like the perfect place. 77 Cheryl Albercla 78 Jennifer Lucci jennlucci®cox.net This is completely irresponsible to have this so close to where children play and spend so much time 79 Erik Tran 80 Katie Head 81 Dale Head 82 Qiang Ye shellyxu®cox.net 83 Stacy mckellar there has to be a better place to put the cell tower. the park is clearly not an appropriate or safe choice. 84 Janis Nishimoto 85 Tracy Feldman 86 Jacqueline Hoppe 87 Blair Hoppe 88 alisa kopp 89 Carolyn Osborn 90 Sue Garland suegarlandoyahoo.com 91 Salma Monica Greene 92 Lisa Hung 93 Susan Peterson 94 Jessica Chatterton 95 Timothy P. Duchene 96 Ingrid Hoblik 97 Lisa Bourbour 98 Mitch King kingim®yahoo.com 99 Sue Tobler 100 Alida Calvagna 101 Rebecca Gomez 102 Lisa guardado 103 Stacie L Reyes 104 Vicki Schaffer A 105 Chad Slumakie 106 Beth Pflomm 107 Steve Irwin 108 Irina Todorov 109 Sara Stewart 110 Catherine Lambert 111 Jeff.Sprosty 112 Candace Lee 113 Graham Lambert 114 Laurie Ayers 115 Gypsy M. Biller 116 Maggie villeg_asmvillegasl516Oyahoo.com 117 Dan Villegas 118 Eric Sanders 119 David Ayers 120 Susie Teel 121 Natalie Banning 122 Jodi Sprosty 123 kim chi tran 124 TereseO'Dell 125 kimberly vu 126 Brad Bjorndahl 127 Kendra. Bjorndahl 128 Joanna Sakaeda 129 Nancy Kuwada 130 Stephanie Crail A 1.31 Janet Beadle 132 Michael Beadle 13.3 Scott Crail We don't want it! There must be a safer place to put it! 134 Colleen Bell 135 Cheryl Bell 136 Shawna Esparza 10147 Albee Ave, Tustin 137 Hani Semaan Why is this issue being rushed when the community just found out about it the day before the city issues its decision? I also question the timing which is right before the November general election. 138 Nicole Swanson 139 Mary Partible 140 Nancy Mallory 141 Robin Steinmetz would love to see a cell tower, but not in this location Will impact our home values 142 Naushad Reshamwalla 143 Gita Aminloo 144 Lisa Beale 145 candice Kikuta 146 elisabeth mccutcheon 147 Ivan Todorov We neet to stop this tower !!! 148 john boots I'd rather not have it at the park, but maybe up along jamboree or by the peter's canyon sanitation structure. 149 Margaret Choe 150 Erle Petrie 151 Heidi Goldman 152 Quyen Urick 153 Traci L Henderson 154 Natalie Migirdichian 155 Kamer Migirdichian drkamerde@aol.com 156 Karen Daurio 157 Karen Malloy Please choose another location that is far away from schools, homes, retail and parks so that the readiation will not affect our children. Thank you! 158 John Wallace 159 Pina Mehta 160 Biren Mehta 161 Todd von Sprecken 162 Clark Le Done This tower has no place in a residencial neighborhood. 163 Gary D. Acker Place the cell tower at another location. 164 Gail Kamo kamokids@juno.com NO Tower at Cedar Grove Park 165 Brian Sakaeda 166 Malena Deall I go to that park. 167 Tracy L. Powelltracylpowell@yahoo.com 168 Rebecca Gallegos ntrgall@aim.com 169 Jun Dai 170 Sanjay Mehta 171 Joseph Teo 172 Sonja Key yecks@cox.net Keep cell towers out of Cedar Grove Park and away from our kids! 173 Cindy Koval 174 Jennifer Sutton A 175 Mimi Saenz Listen to your constituents whom you represent 176 David Pifel Place the cell tower on private land, not public land. 177 Mieke small Protect our health 178 Tammy Stern -Thieriot 17.9 Yujun Si 180 Lisa Watson 181 Karen Sisson 182 Holly Love Why construct a tower such as this, when there is so much land going up Jamboree, which will not impact the well being of the community as a whole. 183 Mark Love 184 maria von sprecken mlloban@yahoo.com 185 Hendric Minassian 186 Hendric Mnassian 187 Catherine Fortier-Minassian 188 Thomas L. Michael tmichael@bluepacificproperty.com 189 Evelyn Gerace 190 Geraldine Schwarz 191 Matthias Schwarz 192 Paolo Mazzucato Petition item 47 is of utmost concern. I would rather risk losing a call than risk losing even one child 193 Arja Galentine 194 MARGARET BURNETT Completely NOT NECESSARY! TMobile? L don't think so. Switch to Verizon. Shame on you Tustin Commission 195 Christine Liekhus NO TOWER @ Cedar Grove Park!! 196 Monica Myhr 197 Niklas Myhr 198 Christopher Liuchristopher.liu@yahoo.com 199 Joan Liu joan_wu liu®yahoo.com 200 Kristin Leonard Move it away from our kids! 201 Utpala Bhalodia No tower at Cedar Grove Park 202 Anil Bhalodia 203 Caroline Brenninkmeyer 204 Oliver Brenninkmeyer 205 Daryl Holzberg 206 Dr. Cheng Donn Please recosider a suitable alternate site 207 Mrs. S. C. Donn A 208 Dev Keshav devkeshav®eathlink.net very much opposed to this tower installation 209 Roshani Le Done 210 Kelly 211 Jamie Holzberg 212 Micheline Awad 213 Timothy Powell timcpowelloyahoo.com 214 Lawrence Kull 215 michelle vu 216 Ron Fields 217 Emmy Coats put it somewhere else. 218 Elaine Tso elainetathomeecox.net Cell tower should be away from homesand schools. Cedar Grove Park is too close to schools and residential area. 219 Charles. Lin 220 Nancy Smith There are plenty of other places to put the tower, please research them. 221 Robert Smith Our property values have dropped enough, this is the last thing we need 222 Britt Kiley brittkileyesbcglobal.net Please consider an alternative location. 223 Karen Whittemore 224 Ruben Whittemore 225 Allan Brooks Put it the grounds of OC Fire Authority 226 Stacey Spector sjspector2®aol.com 227 Jane Seltzer jane2272®hotmail.com 22.8 kelly w pauls-cummings 229 Silbana Uribe silbanamneyahoo.com Not around our schools!!!!! Please!!!! Protect our children's health! 230 Susan Lee 231 D. Jack Tan 232 Angela Y. Tan 233 Bin Chu 234 Jihong Zhou 235 Sandra Staffordsandy_stafford®cox.net 236 Gayle Demsher 237 Stephanie Holoubek 238 Carolina Chu i would rather go to the doctors for a yearly checkup than cancer 239 Norman Chu NO TOWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I111I!!!!!!1l!I!!!lII11Il1111!!1(!!I!!II1!I!!!!11 240 Maricris Lee We don't need another cell tower in our neighborhood -- especially near a school where our children spend a huge amount of time. 241 Sharon Mexal 242 Erice Cheng 243 Tammy Wu I WILL NEVER LET THEM DO THIS111111 244 Tim Appleford 245 Michelle Isenberg 246 Helen Flechner 247 Tamara Schmidt 248 David Milligan 249 Ari Flechner 250 Yanni Tripolitis 251 Linda Brooks 252 Danny Bouimad 253 Cyrus Shahriary 254 Mantreh Farhadieh 255 Ricardo Silvestre 256 Rosana Silvestre 257 Diane Kanegae 258 Jeff Kanegae 259 Jinny Bender 260 Tom Bender 261 Winnie Leung 262 Eugene Chen 263 Jennifer Chen 264 James Wikle jim®youngwikle.com 265 kelvin vu 266 robert weinberg 267 ROBERT REA O'BRIEN JR I am always curious of what or who is getting "kickbacks" from something like this, when there is plenty of vacant land along the 261 and 241 that would serve the same purpose. 268 Debra Musco 269 Elle H. Kim 270 Christina hatch 271 Alvin Kwan 272 Pat McNeal pdmlaw@gmail.com Tragic decision .2.73. Bonnie Foulkes 274 Daniel Demsher ddemsher@aol.com 275 Denise E Julian 276 Molly Brown 277 Jun Hong 278 Sherri Lovelandsherri-lovelandecox.net Cell towers should_ not be placed near schools where our children may be affected by radiation. Consider our children! 279 Timothy J Butler Simply a bad choice for locating a cell. tower 280 Shelly Decker 281 Nick Schubert In a park next to an elementary school? What do they have against the children in this area? 282 Cary Vanraes Let's make the right choice for the future 283 Jennifer Imus 284 Junia Martinson 285 Ann Lew 286 Erik Martinson eman_nolgyahoo.com Place the tower a the fire department 287 Lilly Lin 288 Joanna Y Sakaeda Place the tower at the fire marshall's side of the hill. 289 Lisa Spencer 290 Craig Spencer 291 Jung Choi A 292 Sean Hwang A 293 Milton V. Fajardo, Esq. This is truly unconscionable and a blatant violation of the public's trust. 294 Jeff Chung A 295 Jane Gao gao_jane®yahoo.com gao_jane@yahoo.com 296 Yueying Ren yren_98@yahoo.com Please do not allow the cell tower in the park within a residential area. 297 Ron Imus 298 Feng Wang fengwang3001@yahoo.com Protect our children. No cell tower at Cedar Grove park or any park in the residential and school neighborhood.. 299 Adelle Wang yren_98@yahoo.com 300 Cindy Lynch Please use the the endless hills of the toll roads where there aren't hundreds of children playing. 301 Jose Lynch Toll road hills is a safer and better choice!!! 302 Lauren Townsend improved cell service is not a reason to destory our beautiful park and community. an alternative must be found. 303 Erin Solomon I oppose the cell tower at Cedar Grove Park 304 Debbie Salise we don't want our children exposed to this 305 Sue and David Wang wangsuelee@yahoo.com 306 Sean Solomon First show me the study that proves conclusively that 'cell waves' have NO adverse :effectson children, and then let's address the. aesthetics. Find a more appropriate location. 307 mei ling then 308 Lin Chen 309 Cindy .Qin 110„2 310 Dana Cooper ARE YOU CRAZY ! THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN IN 2 SCHOOLS ADJACENT TO THIS SITE !!!!! 311 Yihan Hong 312 Susan Shube 313 Lihua Peng 314 Jill Munro NO NO NO 315 Ruth Evans Imrevans@cox.net 316 Charles Hatch How can you put it in a park next to 2 schools? 317 Rick Balsiger rbalsiger@cox.net Clearly, there are other, far safer options than near a huge park, two schools and hundreds of homes 318 Connie Wang We don't need the cell tower to close to our kids. 319 penning k. I strongly against the tower placement in Cedar Grove Park!!!. 320 poyun wu We DO NOT NEED ANY CELL TOWER IN OUR BACKYARD!!! 321 Bahman Anvari 322 Stella Syn 323 Gene Syn 324 Lei Zhu 3.25 Ray Rusandhy I live across from Cedargrove and strongly oppose this tower 326 Luny Saritoh Put the tower over the toll road hills 32.7 Brian Liekhus STOP THE MADDNESS!!!! 328 Angela Franco No Phones! Nature first!! 329 Elizabeth Stevens This is a horrible place to put this cell tower. Place it somewhere where the radiation will not harm people. 330 Heather Thompson In the middle of a park and right between two schools, surrounded by homes? What are you thinking) 331 Barbara Jensen -Scott 332 Adrienne Turner 333 Christine Chen 334 Sandy Jung ssjunglahotmail.com 3.3.5 Lee Jung 1_jungichotmail.com £� 336 Kim Tolsma 337 Steve Tolsma 338 Irwin Vidal ividal@yahoo.com please do not add this tower which radiates energy next to our kids at school!! 339 Leslie Kalasky 340 Richard Nassetta 341 Jenny Wang 342 Yan Ma We don't need a cell phone tower here! 343 Gina Vidal 344 Cameron Carlen The proposed cell phone tower would be a detriment to one of Tustin's best loved parks! Please stop it! 345 Randy Ruegger 346 Deborah Nassetta 347 Natalie Soo 348 bindu kansagra 349 Marianne Hales 350 jilt perricone 351 Evelyn Aleccia They could have put this tower in many other locations. Why so close to school and homes 352 James Aleccia 353 Dennis Tase Protect our green space 354 Isabel Chen 355 Alex Williams While there is no conclusive evidence to prove that cell phone towersarea risk to human's health, especially children, the fact there there is a possibility is enough. A cell tower is, indeed, needed for the area. However, placing it in an area right next to two schools and in a heavy -residential area is not the best location. Please reconsider this. 356 jodi turk MOMS of Merrick NY support youl 357 Chunlai Zhong 358 Linda Miller it took the city long_ enough to build it, now don't destroy it. 359 Kelly Foley 360 Tim Foley 361 Chris Danielson 362 Pat Beerdsen 363 Al Beerdsen 364 Tanya Zaverl No cell phone towers in residential neighborhoodsl Put it on the toll road!! 365 Mark Zaverl Seek an alternative site—not near homes and schools! 366 Cynthia Truman cindy2®busche.com once again it's T-Mobile pushing around communities 367 Faith Lattomus 368 Bing Wu 369 Michael Vuu m_vuu®yahoo.com 370 Tim Denin tdeninohotmail.com Stop the madness!!!!!! 371 Adrienne Kitson 372 Brian McMahon 373 Darren Kopp dkopp@shorelinemedia.org 374 Bryan Dell 375 Donald Kitson 376 Mylin Sun 377 Michael Sun 378 James Karns james.karns®ericsson.com We do not want this in our neighborhood. Verizon Wireless works fine at my house across from Cedar Grove Park. They have obviously found a way to cover this area with proper RF Engineering to make this happen without a cell site in our park. Other Wireless carriers can find other locations and Engineer it appropriately. 379 Kaila Karns Please put the cell tower away from Cedar Grove Park. Something like this should not be placed in areas where wildlife exists and many people and children come to enjoy. The cell tower should be placed elsewhere, like maybe the toll road. 380 Stephen G. Mangold 381 Mark Diaz Once again, corporate profits and city officials benefit and our children suffer. Are we in the City of Sell? 382 Jeff Olah Stop the Cell Tower at Cedar Grove Parkl 383 Nancy Jones 384 Carlos Nuques 385 Sheila Sentner sheila33@sbcglobal.net 386 Tucker Morrison NO CELL PHONE TOWER IN OUR PARK! 387 Siriporn Kuanchai 388 Marie Van Rase 389 Shiao-Li Lau We do not need further exposure to health risks than we are already. 390 Jin Kam 391 Victoria Allen 392 Jonathan Verdi It is outrageous that this location is even being considered) Cell phone towers don't belong near schools and our homes! 393 Adam Key T-Mobile, tsk tsk tsk 394 Sang Lee 395 Payal Swami 396 Christine Ma-Schweich 397 Susana Daboub VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULD EVEN CONSIDER PLACING THESE TOWERS HERE. THEY NEED TO LOOK OUT FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS!! 398 Donna Kunz We need to protect our park and the surrounding homes in which we live 399 Ann Hoang and Duc Ngo atthoang®yahoo.com 400 Mark V Johnson johnsonof4®cox.net 401 Tzatzi Murphy 402 Rochelle Murphyre.info.asap@gmail.com UNVELIEVABLE that our elected officials would allow a tower near school grounds?! 403 Zandra A. Diaz Why are we permitting a tower that is potentially hazardous to our children at Peters Canyon Elementary on PUBLIC property 404 Jane Ashpes 405 Ong Lay Chin A 406 Lim Chee Leong A 407 Brian Murphy bmurf68730yahoo.com This is a no-brainer, c'mon people -think of your own kidsl If you knew how much radiation those things put out, would you do it to them so willingly? 408 Yeh Su yehsu®hotmail.com Please dont put ANY cel tower anywhere in Tustin Ranch area. 409 Holly Blumhardtnoshots4me®gmail.com Please do not endanger our children, Tustin Ranch residents, family, and friends. Read this info from Dr. Mercola and see if you still think it's ok to put the tower up http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/2/7/the-cell- phone-quot-tower-of-doom-quot.aspx - It could increase cancer rates by 20\8, cause Alzheimer's, Autism, Parkinson's, Headaches, Sleep Interruption, altered memory function, poor concentration, etc. Do your research before you put 100s of families at risk! 410 Dr. Shannon Blumhardt Please do not endanger our children, Tustin Ranch residents, family, and friends. Read this info from Dr. Mercola and see if you still think it's ok to put the tower up http://articlea.mereola.com/sites./articles/archive/2008/2/7/the-cell- phone-quot-tower-of-doom-quot.aspx - It could increase cancer rates by 20\%, cause Alzheimer's, Autism, Parkinson's, Headaches, Sleep Interruption, altered memory function, poor concentration, etc. Do your research before you put 100s of families at risk! 411 Diana Bown Please protect my grandchildren from this dangerous idea. 412 Ronald Ashpes Health risks associated with erecting and operating this tower are significantly greater than any potential cellphone service benefits. Asthetically, a tower no matter how camouflaged will be an eyesore. 413. Kirsten Jessel kjesseloearthlink.net 414 Wade and Helen Oshiro lhensy®cox.net Protect our kids and others 415 Bonita McCarthy there are plenty of open spaces across Jamborree near toll road where this can be placed, and not contaminate the children of Peters canyon, nor the residence. Someone needs to think of the residence and impact before corporate desires. We certainly don't need another contaminator and ugly sight in this lovely and healthy neoighborhood. BTW when did residence get to vote on this?? where are the politicians when you need them to rprotect our community? Oh are they busy bashing other politicians or taking kickbacks? this is outrageous and If I have to call the President on this , I will. 416 Kin Wang xinwang98®hotmail.com I hope city council members can stand firmly on our side to protect our kids, our health, and our property value thanksl 417 Randi Mackowiak Pleasedo not allow a cell tower to be erected in our neighborhood. 418 Daniel Donghun Kim 419 Stephanie Mijeong Kim 420 Kei C Huang 421 jim tsai 422 jacklyn huang :stop the tower 423 ashley tsai 424 aaron tsar 425 li-thing tsai 426 Chu Eun Kim 427 Young J Kim 428 shereen afshari 429 Marsha Sorey NO TOWER1111!!1!!111 430 Tiffany Storm PLEASE for the safety of the children - DO NOT INSTALL THE CELL TOWER! 431 Lorenz Kull deny the cell tower 432 jenni£er czinder No cell tower around school and resident area. 433 Shaun Storm PLEASE for the safety of the children - DO NOT INSTALL THE CELL TOWERI 434 .Tames F. Beachler PLEASE PROTECT THE CHILDREN - DO NOT INSTALL THE CELL TOWERI 435 Len Piazzon 436 ken oelerich. 437 Kristen Reeves 438 Sean Reeves 439 Melissa Minahan Save our kids' health! Who needs a T- Mobile tower there? They should share towers since we don't know the. health implications! Don't put a tower in a residential neighborhood! 440 Daniel Minahan This should not be up to the city to decide! Thepeople should have a voice. in this. 441 Monica Rakunas put the tower in another location, don't take away a park for childrenl 442 Mark McLellan 443 Shellye McLellan 444 Sergio Avila 445 Diemkhanh Mary Dinhluu 446 Diemkhanh Mary Dinhluu 447 An H. Nguen 448 an nguyen 449 Mark Nguyen 450 Cecilia Bui 451 Margaret Russell Bereskin 452 Marcia Bohac 453. Jason Knight 454 Stuart Mathews 455 Carolyn Sagara 456 Christine Heyninck-Jantz 457 Fiona Lee 458 bob akbari 459 Darlene Orech 460 Douglas & Sandra Polett PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin and other Area Cities are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erecta 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, a non-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community, Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 3. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 4. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 5. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential area! Number Name Email Comments Your zip Code 1 Richard Holden rlbholden®sbcglobal.net keep the tower out of CedarGrove 90620 2 Casey King 92614 3 Jessica O'neill 92604 4 Nora Chen 92614 5 kathie Schultz 92614 6 Ana Gonzalez 79912 7 Ms. Kiku Lani Iwata, Burbank ACTION nocelltowerinourneighborhood®gmail.comResidents here in Burbank are opposing the proposed T -Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon recrational park near our homes and schools. We are also working with local officials to update our outdated wireless ordinance to adopt stronger regulations to protect our homes, parks and schools, like so many other communiites are now doing. This proposed tower should not be allowed in your community park next to schools and homes, too. 91504 8 Catherine Abbott 11218 9 Dan Shah danshah®cox.net 92705 10 Carol Smiley needs to be in a non-residential area -can be a potential health hazard 44092 11 saul martinez 92672 12 leigh anne webster 92610 13 Rusty Yunusov 92630 14 Kitty and Bob Stockton As former residents we know the park was designed as a healthy recreational area for families to gather... bottom line..it was paid for with Mello Roos tax money..in other words the residents of the area ... the city council should bow to the realistic concerns of the tax paying residents. 34481 15 J Maag 92675 16 Karen Webb 92663 17 Amy Piazzon 48073 18 Kathleen Piazzon 34135 19 Joe Piazzon 34135 20 Terry Andorfer 46815 21 Kevin Nguyen Keep Tustin Parks Natural & Beautiful -- Please do not a cell phone tower here192865 (This shorter second Petition (21 signatures) was prepared for those out of area residents who wanted to sign a Petition specifying same). Exhibit 2 T -Mobile Coverage Map http://coverage.t-mobile.com/Default.aspx Close up view (Data Coverage is Red, Voice Coverage is Green) .� Norton- �.4en..„.n.m•.. a ...� (%. Qx.w.u.w . r W. ro nw a.u. x. m cnmaru�. tib: m btwsw.rw..w R - O . . • 'y. v+- t..e. *• ”A �.o.+.unwwm..iw. m.• _ _. Y.wMYSY o+sssr`u.�r F uue Panned Out View (Data Coverage is Red, Voice Coverage is Green) ry u w rn.nn rw w, a��0.vlan.. rlY1wM Br w4.{uny. WIIY.� X uIw • .�YrM.SiA�b Voice Coverage Map (Green) and Data Coverage Map (Red) (12/6/2010 at 5:25 p.m.) is wewc«.:.wu.a=ur��w e+ raw.r�s sYrme ,9:�r rT NORM• ..,,,,sa.��,.•..w n x.,.. ®. C'J [.nsleµi.. .. r� n gs.swrlsw.. u uw:.ua.... '�'imenY C.•vM.fM4.UIWmtmliY.. __._ _. _._._.._.._...._�mrvn•m-..-.mr. �. �] . xN• S.Ib• IwM1. �. •• - - •..�•.�mm,.:mvr-�_.-rm.a�mm� T—MobUe•® ® ofsco5er cuwage swoon • - rm.tl COmmq COeak swm .'ee.<«.:w.W x ya�mn.+..r uen men 0 Yr..v iN�saun. er. Cq+ .wx vwn u w im 5 r.yuwtbwr= ➢OYIDe�k awr..m�enri / ib nwmu.ww 712 _W #AA_,...,_ a_ w.... Norton• I.meEh.f.•nn.l.e•..9.0 x.:Y ®. �IcasS.y.. i..uM• Y 85yyMN5M. P.1MF. W.on. 4f • •Mobile msc. corerege swore Pwsantl Cowm"Chwk x.Tw' YeYa6�SYeooiwcu:.:msry Isn orae Q] axmwrwvew. nhmBLW xv.rnu.+w i..Y..:w. waw umarrrw. � i n.w ..e .. r. 9....:......«.: a x.,...... W r.wux.rcw .� .....�. ��,........•.. yl we.,aio....na.ax a, owM - ATTACHMENT E Information Pertaining to Wireless Facilities BRINGING YOU BETTER CONNECTIONS Frequently Asked Questions Cell Phone and Wireless Facilities - Tustin Q. Why does Tustin need more cell sites? A. Many Tustin residents experience dropped calls because new technologies being offered on cell phones and other wireless devices have placed greater demand on existing wireless networks. These technologies include television, video conferencing, applications and games which reduce the capacity of the existing system. Both reduced capacity and increased demand can result in poor service. In order to provide better service to customers, wireless carriers need to increase capacity by establishing new cell sites. The infrastructure of our nation is increasingly being based on mobile communications. Residents and businesses have cell phones, smart phones, blackberries, and iPads, and they rely on being able to get voice and data coverage wherever they are. Q. Where can these new sites be located? A. Cellular site locations are determined based on current demand and anticipated future demand from residential customers, business customers, and the estimated return on investment from facilities built on a cell site. The City, through its agent, ATS Communications, works with wireless carriers in finding optimal locations on City -owned property for improving service and ensuring an efficient network which will not interfere with park activities. The City's Wireless Master Plan approved by the Tustin City Council on August 4, 2009 identified the areas within Tustin with the greatest service gaps and Tustin Ranch as having the greatest need for new wireless locations. Several potential sites identified by ATS Communications are on City -owned sites, such as Cedar Grove Park. Q. Who owns the Wireless Cell Carrier Facilities? A. Facilities, such as cell towers, are owned by wireless cell carriers. The wireless cell carrier is responsible for financing, constructing, and maintaining the facilities pursuant to City standards. On City owned cell sites, the City continues to own the land on which the facilities are located. When a license expires or is terminated, the cell sites will be returned to their original condition. There are also wireless sites that may be requested on private property. Q. Can a cell site be denied? A. Yes, a cell site has to follow the City's codes and requirements with respect to zoning, siting and architectural design, and alteration of the public rights-of-way. 1 The City also maintains control over the actual real estate licensing and business terms and conditions under which a cell site on any city owned property would be subsequently licensed by the City after it is location and design is approved by the Community Development Department or legislative body as may be required pursuant to City codes. However, the City may not reject a zoning approval of a cell site or tower due to health concerns under federal law. Q. Are there health dangers from cell sites and/or towers? A. There is no credible U.S. scientific evidence which attributes negative health effects to exposure to wireless transmissions from cell site and towers [www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.htmll. The federal government also regulates wireless transmissions through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In 1996, the FCC adopted guidelines for evaluating human exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields from fixed transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular sites. These guidelines are used by all wireless carriers in testing to ensure their compliance with OSHA and FCC requirements. The FCC guidelines for cellular sites are identical to those recommended by third party agencies, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)and similar to guidelines recommended by American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 created the regulatory environment that provides for ubiquitous wireless coverage in the United States. Because the Telecommunications Act was enacted by Congress and because federal agencies regulate wireless transmissions, federal law pre-empts any State or local laws concerning telecommunications. The Telecommunications Act provides that cell tower applications may not be rejected by municipal governments on the basis of health concerns, in part because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that cell towers present risk to health. Although residents may have concerns about.health effects related to cell towers, the City cannot legally reject zoning applications based on this factor. There have been numerous studies done measuring the levels of radio frequency exposure near typical cellular and wireless carrier installations, especially those with tower mounted antennas. These studies have concluded that ground -level radio frequencies and energy power densities are thousands of times less than the limits for safe exposure established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Safety guidelines already in place establish minimum requirements that must be followed by the cell carrier industry. This makes it extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to radio frequency levels in excess of FCC guidelines due to cellular or wireless antennas located on towers or monopoles. FCC guidelines establish Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) for use by the wireless carriers in the development and placement of their antennas and 2 transmitters. The FCC's guidelines are identical to those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) [http://www.ncrponline.org/I, a non-profit corporation chartered by Congress to develop information and recommendations regarding radiation protection. The FCC's guidelines also resemble guidelines recommended by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)[http://www.ieee.org/index.htmll. Additional information regarding these studies can be found on the websites of each of the above organizations rhttp://www.osha..qovISLTClindex.htmll [www.fcc.govl. Q. Do cell phone towers emit radiation? A. Cell towers emit radio frequency (RF) waves. These are the same RF waves found in everyday appliances, such as, microwaves, televisions and baby monitors. A cell site and/or tower must meet minimum Federal Communications Commission (FCC) standards as it relates to RF exposure as is noted above. Q. Why cell sites in parks? A. The benefit to licensing wireless facility space in parks is to make the wireless network throughout the City as efficient as possible and reduce the proliferation of cell sites throughout the City. Another benefit is to provide coverage for residential areas which are using cellular devices in increasing numbers. Any Wireless facilities proposed to be located in parks, are located with the goal of minimizing the visual and functional impact of wireless facilities while still permitting the park to continue to operate as originally intended. Q. Will cell sites take away from the beauty of Tustin or its Parks? A. Tustin's Council and City staff are very proud of Tustin, providing our citizens with the added benefit of better cell will not come before our strict aesthetic zoning standards. In developing a wireless communications facility, the surrounding environment is taken into consideration. While earlier attempts to mask or hide cell antennas on private properties are noticeable, new designs have become much better. New technologies and advances in design allow wireless cell facilities to be integrated and well disguised within the location they are placed. These technologies include the design of wireless facilities that replicate a variety of tree species, and other designs such as incorporation of the wireless facilities within buildings and structures including as clock towers, light standards for sports facilities, flag poles, obelisks and in other portions of construction. Because the majority of cell sites will be located on City property, the City works diligently with carriers to ensure the designs do not take away from the public's enjoyment of our parks and open spaces. In the case of Cedar Grove Park, the design of the proposed cedar tree cellular monopole incorporates colors and textures of the park to best simulate a cedar tree in keeping with the majority of the Cedar trees located at the park. Visits to the park site were made with samples to make a visual comparison between the proposed surrounding environment and design and the actual tree to arrive at a design that would best blend in with the surrounding trees. No trees will be removed to accommodate the facility. The location of the facility was sited in an area to best seclude the facility and place it out of the way of typical activity at the park and residences in the vicinity of the park site. A rendering of the Cedar Grove Cellular Tower proposal is available for review with the City's Community Development Department. Q. Why can't the City place these towers alongside the 241 and 261 Toll Roads? A. Currently, there are numerous cell towers alongside both of the Toll Roads. These towers were designed solely to provide cell phone coverage for the drivers that utilize the Toll Roads on a daily basis. Based on the Wireless Master Plan created by the City's consultant, ATS Communications, the Tustin Ranch area has a need for new wireless locations. Simply placing additional towers alongside the Toll Roads will not provide the needed coverage that the residents in Tustin Ranch need. Q. Why can't the City place a cell tower at the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) facility on Jamboree Road? A. The OCFA facility is located in the City of Irvine and it does not belong directly to the City of Tustin. It is owned by the Orange County Fire Authority and they would have to agree to put a cell tower on their facility and it may not be the optimum location for reception desired by all cell carriers. Q. Do Cell sites or Cell Towers Decrease Property Values? A. There have been no definitive studies completed that show that the presence of cell phone towers in a neighborhood decreases property values. The contrary is also possible; the presence of wireless coverage may enhance property values. As more and more people work out of home offices, the need for wireless communications in residential areas has grown rapidly, and many of our citizens are asking for more adequate cell coverage. In fact, there are certainly some people who look at cell coverage maps as a consideration in where to rent or buy a home. There are several articles on the internet pertaining to the perception of cell towers and home values, but it's hard to determine the veracity of the research or the methods of testing. The fact is, there are no such studies that come to this conclusion that the City could find, just anecdotal statements from owners (no appraisers, however), stating that this is so. There is no research or information available on this subject that the City could find from the Federal Communications Commission's web site. Q. How will more cell sites and towers benefit the residents of Tustin and assist in Emergency Response? A. With more families (especially teenagers and youth) utilizing cell phones as their primary phones rather than land lines, having good cell phone reception is advantageous for residents and property owners. In addition, as more people work from home, good reception allows workers to conduct their business from home. Nearly twenty five percent of the population has removed their home landlines over the last few years. Residents have become more dependent upon cell phones to ensure adequate notification and response to emergencies resulting from personal emergencies or from natural disasters. This is particularly the case in areas such as California where there is high fire risk and high earthquake risk. Residents and Businesses want to know that emergency communications will be available when we need it whether there is a 911 emergency or another slightly less urgent emergency. Cell numbers can also be registered to receive updates on major disasters and what to do at http:www.AlertOC.org. Unfortunately, large portions of the northerly segments of Tustin, in particularly in Tustin Ranch, do not have adequate cellular phone reception, thereby, hampering emergency contacts and participation of cell phone owners in countywide emergency contact resources. Q. Does the City make money from licensing Cell Site Locations? Where does the money go? A. Yes. Where cell sites are located on City property and the City licenses sites to wireless cell carriers, licenses are obtained at market rates comparable to wireless facilities located on privately owned properties. Revenue from cell licenses goes into the City's General Fund which allows the City to operate and maintain parks and other municipal facilities. This is important given the more recent economic conditions and reduced revenues that have been available to cities. If you have questions or would like information regarding specific cell site applications, please contact the Tustin Community Development at (714) 573-3106. Contact (714) 573-3124 for any real estate questions about the City's licensing of cell sites or cell towers on public property. 5 Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular & PCS Sites Search I RSS I Updates I E -Rin I Initiatives I Consumers I Find Peoole Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau FCC > C B Home> Consumer publications> Human Exposure to RF Fields Guidelines Page 1 of 2 I FCC site map Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: FCC Guidelines For Cellular & PCS Sites Consumer Facts Background Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and Personal Communications Service (PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, water tanks, and other elevated structures like rooftops and sides of buildings. 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 50-200 feet 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 a cell site, the total radio frequency (RF) power that can be transmitted from each transmitting antenna depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) that have been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 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. Guidelines In 1996, the FCC adopted updated guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF fields from fixed transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular and PCS cell sites. The FCC's guidelines are identical to those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a non-profit corporation chartered by Congress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation protection. The FCC's guidelines also resemble the 1992 guidelines recommended by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a non-profit technical and professional engineering society, and endorsed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a non-profit, privately -funded, membership organization that coordinates development of voluntary national standards in the United States. In the case of cellular and PCS cell site transmitters, the FCC's RF exposure guidelines recommend a maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square htto://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.htm] 12/08/2010 Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular & PCS Sites Page 2 of 2 centimeter. This limit is many times greater than RF levels typically found near the base of cellular or PCS cell site towers or in the vicinity of other, lower -powered cell site transmitters. Calculations corresponding to a "worst-case" situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that, in order to be exposed to RF levels near the FCC's guidelines, an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam and within a few feet of the antenna for several minutes or longer. Thus, the possibility that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote. When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on rooftops, RF emissions could exceed higher than desirable guideline levels on the rooftop itself, even though rooftop antennas usually operate at lower power levels than free-standing power antennas. Such levels might become an issue for maintenance or other personnel working on the rooftop. Exposures exceeding the guidelines levels, however, are only likely to be encountered very close to, and directly in front of, the antennas. In such cases, precautions such as time limits can avoid exposure in excess of the guidelines. Individuals living or working within the building are not at risk. For More Information For more information on this issue, visit the FCC's RF Safety Web site at www.fcc.aov/oet/rfsafety. For further information about any other telecommunications -related issues, visit the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Web site at www.fcc.gov/cab, or contact the FCC's Consumer Center by e -mailing fccinfoCcDfcc.aov; calling 1 -888 -CALL -FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1 -888 -TELL -FCC (1-888- 835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to: 11/08/07 Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Consumer Information and Complaints Division 445 12 St. SW Washington, DC 20554. For this or any other consumer publication in an accessible format (electronic ASCII text, Braille, large print, or audio) please write or callus at the address or phone number below, or send an e-mail to FCC504(d fcc.aov. To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through the Commission's electronic subscriber service, click on htto.Y/www. fcc. coy/cab/conta cis This document is for consumer education purposes only and is not intended to affect any proceeding or cases involving this subject matter or related issues. Federal Communications Commission • Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau .445 12th St. S.W. -Washington, DC 20554 1 -888 -CALL -FCC (1-888-225-5322) - TTY: 1 -888 -TELL -FCC (1-888-635-5322) • Fax: 1-866-418-0232 - wwwJcc.aoy1cab1 last reviewed/updated on 11/09/07 FCC Home I Search I RSS I Updates I E-FilingI Initiatives Consumers Find People Federal Communications Commission Phone: 1 -888 -CALL -FCC (1-888-225-5322) - Privacy Policy 445 12th Street SW TTY: 1 -888 -TELL -FCC (1-888-835-5322) - Website Policies & Notices Washington, DC 20554 Fax: 1-866-418-0232 - Required Browser Plug -ins More FCC Contact Information... E-mail: focinfo@fcc.gov - Freedom of Information Act http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure.html 12/08/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health v'``� ��, World: Health va '� 4�% Qr�dlll�dtl941 Fact sheet N0304 May 2000 Electromagnetic fields and public health Base stations and wireless technologies Page 1 of 3 Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed internet access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in homes, offices, and many public areas (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the population. Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range from 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment. This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters. There has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the RF fields produced by wireless technologies. This fact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from continuous low-level human exposure to base stations and other local wireless networks. Health concerns A common concern about base station and local wireless network antermas relates to the possible long-term health effects that whole- body exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> l °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF heaters. The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health. The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source; and diminishes quickly with distance. Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent surveys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) are normally thousands of times below international standards. In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person's. height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established. While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modern wireless telecommunications are using digital transmissions. Detailed reviews conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations.. Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. It should be noted that, geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause. Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be: obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long -tent animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF fields, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks. Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health effects in individuals exposed to RF fields from base stations. This is because orthe difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on die RF exposures of mobile phone users. Human and animal studies examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF fields, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than those associated with general public exposure from base stations or wireless networks, No consistent evidence of altered sleep or cardiovascular function has been reported. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/print.html 10/29/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health Page 2 of 3 Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from base stations and other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity", EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these symptoms. From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them. Protection standards International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005). National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded. Public perception of risk Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe. Several reasons for public fear include media announcements of now and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Other Factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack of control or input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability. Conclusions Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. WHO Initiatives WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature,to evaluate the health effects from exposure to EMF in the range from 0 to 300 GHz, to provide advice about possible EMF hazards and to identify suitable mitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International EMF Project has promoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In response national governments and research institutes have. funded over $250 million on EMF research over the past 10 years. , While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations. and wireless networks, research is still being I promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2006-2007 and the International EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007.2008. Further Reading ICNIRP (1998) www.icnirp.org/docummts/emfgdi.pdf IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" Related licks For more information contact: WHO Media centre Telephone: +4122 7912222 E-mail: mediamquiries(r�@t who.int http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/print.htm] 10/29/2010 11/2/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and publ... v�641 yv World Health `v Organization Fact sheet N°193 May 2010 Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones Key facts • Mobile phone use is ubiquitous with an estimated 4.6 billion subscriptions globally. • To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use. • Studies are ongoing to assess potential long-term effects of mobile phone use. • There is an increased risk of road traffic injuries when drivers use mobile phones (either handheld or "hands- free") while driving. Mobile or cellular phones are now an integral part of modern telecommunications. In many countries, over half the population use mobile phones and the market is growing rapidly. At the end of 2009, there were an estimated 4.6 billion subscriptions globally. In some parts of the world, mobile phones are the most reliable or the only phones available. Given the large number of mobile phone users, it is important to investigate, understand and monitor any potential public health impact. Mobile phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a network of fixed antennas called base stations. Radiofrequency waves are electromagnetic fields, and unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays, cannot break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body. Exposure levels Mobile phones are low -powered radiofrequency transmitters, operating at frequencies between 450 and 2700 MHz with peak powers in the range of 0.1 to 2 watts. The handset only transmits power when it is turned on. The power (and hence the radiofrequency exposure to a user) falls off rapidly with increasing. distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30-40 cm away from their body - for example when text messaging, accessing the Internet, or using a "hands free" device- will therefore have a much lower exposure to radiofrequency fields than someone holding the handset against their head. In addition to using "hands-free" devices, which keep mobile phones away from the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also reduced by limiting the number and length of calls. Using the phone in areas of good reception also decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power. The use of commercial devices for reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not been shown to be effective. Mobile phones are often prohibited in hospitals and on airplanes, as the radiofrequency signals may interfere with certain electro -medical devices and navigation systems. Are there any health effects? A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use. Short-term effects Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body. who.int/mediacentre/.../printhtml 113 11/2/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and publ... A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or "electromagnetic hypersensitivity". In contrast, research has clearly shown an increased risk of road traffic injuries when drivers use mobile phones (either handheld or "hands-free") while driving. In several countries, motorists are prohibited or strongly discouraged from using mobile phones while driving. Long-term effects Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields. Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing, including case -control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. To date, results of epidemiological studies provide no consistent evidence of a causal relationship between radiofrequency exposure and any adverse health effect. Yet, these studies have too many limitations to completely Wile out an association. A retrospective case -control study on adults, INTERPHONE, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults. The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. Researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation. While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established from INTERPHONE data, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway. Exposure limit guidelines Radiofrequency exposure limits for mobile phone users are given in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) — the rate of radiofrequency energy absorption per unit mass of the body. Currently, two international bodies 12 have developed exposure guidelines for workers and for the general public, except patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment. These guidelines are based on a detailed assessment of the available scientific evidence. WHO'S response In response to public and governmental concern, WHO established the International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, WHO will conduct a formal health risk assessment of radiofrequency fields exposure by 2012. Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to review the carcinogenic potential of mobile phones in 2011. WHO also identifies and promotes research priorities for radiofrequency fields and health to rill gaps in knowledge through its Research Agendas. WHO develops public information materials and promotes dialogue among scientists, governments, industry and the Public to raise the level of understanding about potential adverse health risks of mobile phones. who.int/mediacentre/.../print.html 2/3 11/2/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and putil... 1 International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection — ICNIRP. Statement on the "Guidelines for limiting exposure to time -varying electric, magnetic and electromagetic fields (up to 300 GHz)", 2009. 2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE Std C95.1— 2005. IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. For more information contact: WHO Media centre Telephone: +4122 7912222 E-mail: mediaineuiries clZi who.int Contacts I E-mail scams I Employment I rAOs I ,Feedback I Privacy I RSS feeds 0 WHO 2010 whotint/mediacentre/.../print.html 3/3 ATTACHMENT Resolution No. 4163 RESOLUTION NO. 4163 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 09- 033 AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 65 FOOT TALL MONO -CEDAR FAUX TREE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT ALONG WITH A FUTURE CO -LOCATION FACILITY WITHIN CEDAR GROVE PARK LOCATED AT 11385 PIONEER ROAD. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for Design Review 09-033 was filed by T -Mobile West Corporation requesting to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a sixty-five (65) foot tall mono - cedar faux tree with nine (9) panel antennas, one (1) parabolic antenna and its associated equipment along with a future co -location facility located within Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road. B. That the site is zoned as Planned Community Residential, designated as Community Park by the East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan; and designated as Planned Community Residential by the General Plan. C. That the Community Development Director forwarded the Design Review application to the City Zoning Administrator in order to allow for a public meeting to accept comments from the general public regarding the proposed project. D. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held for Design Review 09-033 on October 20, 2010, by the Zoning Administrator. E. That on October 27, 2010, the Zoning Administrator vacated the decision on the subject project and deferred the matter to the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 9299b of the Tustin City Code. F. That Cedar Grove Park has been identified in the City's Wireless Master Plan as an optimal location for a wireless facility. G. That the proposed wireless facility complies with Tustin City Code Section 7260 requiring Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Property and in the Public Right -of -Way and with City Council Resolution No. 01-95 establishing Design Review guidelines for aboveground utility facilities on public property and in the public right-of-way. Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 2 H. That the location, size and general appearance of the proposed project as conditioned is compatible with the surrounding area in that the faux cedar tree would be of a stealth design to blend in with the existing perimeter trees and all associated equipment would be screened within a stucco block wall enclosure. The project site is also located within an area of Cedar Grove Park that has low visibility from the public right-of-way due to extensive tree screening of the proposed facility. That the proposed project has identified the potential for co -location of additional carriers on the wireless facility. J. That the proposed facility will provide wireless coverage to an area that is currently deficient of wireless reception. K. That a license agreement with the City is required prior to installation or operation of the proposed facility in accordance with Section 7261 of the Tustin City Code. L. That the location, size, aesthetic features, and general appearance of the proposed wireless facility will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the community as a whole. In making such findings, the Planning Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk, and area of proposed structure — The proposed wireless facility is designed as a tree to replicate existing trees within Cedar Grove Park. The mono -cedar is of a height similar to the existing trees within the park. The proposed equipment enclosure which contains accessory equipment would be located adjacent to the mono -cedar (faux cedar tree) and occupy 330 square feet. An additional equipment enclosure for a future co -location carrier would be connected and occupy 440 square feet. 2. Setbacks and site planning — The project site is located in a remote area of the park that receives minimal use and has a sloping condition. The facility would be located approximately 350 feet from the closest residence and more than 500 feet from the closest street. 3. Exterior material and colors — Materials of the proposed mono -cedar are designed to replicate a cedar tree and are comprised of synthetic bark, needles and branches in shades of green and brown. The block wall equipment enclosure will be painted to match other structures within the park. 4. Towers and antennae — The facility will be designed to replicate a cedar tree. Nine (9) panel antennas and a parabolic antenna will be located at a top height of 60 feet on the mono -cedar and arranged in a Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 3 circular method. Future co -location antennae would be located below the proposed antennae on the mono -cedar. 5. Landscaping and parking area design and traffic circulation — The proposed facility will not impact the parking area or circulation. No trees will be removed as a result of the project. Vines and shrubs would be provided at the perimeter of the equipment enclosure to screen and soften it. 6. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure — All accessory equipment would be located within a block wall enclosure. Only the mono -cedar pole structure would be freestanding. 7. Physical relationship of proposed structure to existing structures — There are no existing structures within the immediate vicinity of the project site. 8. Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares — It is not anticipated that additional structures will be constructed within the park. The project site is located within a landscape area consisting of multiple trees and not an open area. There is an existing hillside buffer between the project site and the closest residences within Tustin Ranch Estates. 9. Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council — The City Council adopted Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment which the proposed facility complies with. M. That the proposed wireless facility complies with the City Council Resolution No. 01-95 (Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment) in that: 1. Location — The project site is located within a remote and minimally used landscape area between two walkways within the park. Little to no interference with public use of the park is anticipated to result from the proposed facility. The project site is also a considerable distance from adjoining properties. 2. Stealth Facility — The proposed wireless facility is of a stealth design that replicates a cedar tree. The branches, bark, needles, and overall design of the monopole has been engineered to blend as closely as possible with the existing trees in the area. Antenna socks may be used to further screen the individual antennas. 3. Co -location - The proposed facility can accommodate additional carrier to co -locate onto the facility. The additional carrier would place Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 4 antennas on the mono -cedar below those of T -Mobile. The additional accessory equipment of the carrier could be placed within a block wall enclosure adjacent to T -Mobile's and of the same material and finishes. Co -location eliminates the need for other providers to establish additional facilities within the area. 4. Colors — The colors of the facility would be non -reflective and incorporate natural colors of greens and browns in order to replicate a tree. The equipment enclosure would be coated with a graffiti resistant finish in the color of other public facilities within the park. 5. Screening — The proposed facility would be screened by a grove of trees and is not within a highly visible area of the park. There is an existing mature redwood/cedar grove which effectively screens the facility from the east and north. There is a hillside with eucalyptus trees immediately to the west of the project site. Views from Pioneer Road are limited due to the extensive distance to the project site from the street. Younger trees surround the project site and will fill in to further screen the facility. 6. Landscape — No trees would be removed as a result of the proposed facility and the equipment enclosure would be landscaped with shrubs and vines for screening purposes. The vines and shrubs would serve to screen the block wall enclosure as well as soften its appearance in the park. 7. Signage — Only signage related to certifications and warnings will be allowed at the facility in accordance with proposed Condition 2.5. No advertising would be permitted on the facility. 8. Accessory Equipment — A block wall enclosure would contain all of the accessory equipment for the facility. The block wall enclosure would be partially below grade due to a sloping hillside condition of the site. 9. Required Removal — Upon termination of the license agreement, the proposed facility would be required to be removed. 10. Undergrounding — All of the utilities servicing the project site would be located underground. Utilities are proposed to run along the western boundary of Cedar Grove Park adjacent to the park trail. N. That this project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act). II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 09-033 to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a sixty-five (65) foot tall mono -cedar faux tree with nine (9) panel antennas, one (1) parabolic antenna and its associated equipment along with a future co -location facility located within Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 5 Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of December, 2010. JEFF R. THOMPSON Chairperson Pro Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4163 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of December, 2010. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4163 DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped December 14, 2010, on file with the Community Development Department, as herein modified, or as modified by the Community Development Director in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the Tustin City Code or other applicable regulations. (1) 1.2 All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. (1) 1.3 Design Review approval shall remain valid for the term of the Lease Agreement or License and/or Right -of -Way Agreement including any extension thereof or as long as the Encroachment Permit is valid. Upon termination or expiration of the Lease Agreement or License, Encroachment Permit, Right -of -Way Agreement or upon the failure of Grantee to build the facility within 180 days of its approval, the Design Review approval for the facility shall become null and void and the facility shall be removed within thirty (30) days from such termination or expiration. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Design Review 09-033 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk -Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval' form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Section 1162(a) of the Tustin City Code. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTIONS Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.7 The Community Development Department may review Design Review 09- 033 annually or more often to ensure that the project is in compliance with the conditions of approval contained herein. The Community Development Director may initiate proceedings to amend or revoke Design Review 09-033 if the project does not comply with the conditions of approval. (1) 1.8 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.9 The frequencies used by the wireless facility shall not interfere with the Public Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS). (1) 1.10 The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported. To ensure continuity on all interference issues the name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments shall be provided to the City's designated representative upon activation of the facility. (1) 1.11 The applicant shall ensure that a lessee or other users shall comply with the terms and conditions of Design review 09-033 and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of the applicant to comply. (1) 1.12 Radio frequency emissions shall not exceed the radio frequency emission guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as such guidelines may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department a pre and post -installation test showing compliance with the guidelines established by the FCC. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 3 USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 2.1 The facility shall be limited to nine (9) panel antennas, one (1) parabolic antenna and associated equipment. All antennas shall be located as depicted in the approved plans and associated ground mounted equipment shall be located within the proposed block wall equipment enclosure. (1) 2.2 No trees shall be relocated or removed to accommodate the project. The applicant shall make a note to this effect on the plans. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for replacing any trees that may become diseased and/or die as a result of the installation and operation of the proposed wireless facility (1) 2.3 The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any required approvals or clearances from the applicable easement holders for work in any easement areas. (1) 2.4 The structure and all related facilities shall be regularly maintained and inspected for safety and aesthetics by the applicant in accordance with the approved plans. (1) 2.5 The equipment shall not bear any signs or advertising devices (other than certification, warning, or other required seals or signage). (1) 2.6 Utilities associated with the proposed facility which are not contained within the proposed block wall enclosure, such as but not limited to telecommunication and power supplies, shall be located underground. (1) 2.7 At building plan check, the applicant shall submit a plan identifying hardscape, landscape, and other improvements that will be removed under the proposed plan. (1) 2.8 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain a license agreement with the City. The project plans shall make reference to the license agreement. (1) 2.9 The applicant shall evaluate all requests for co -location on the facility by additional carrier(s) and make a good -faith determination of each such requesting carrier's compatibility with the applicant at this location. If, in the good -faith determination of the applicant, the co -location is technically compatible, then the applicant shall accommodate such additional carrier if applicable business terms can be successfully negotiated. All requests for co -location shall be reviewed and approved by the City and require a separate license agreement. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 4 (1) 2.10 The applicant shall file the accessory equipment identification number, company name, person responsible for maintenance of the accessory equipment, and the phone number with the Public Works Department. (1) 2.11 Aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed or treated with appropriate materials which discourage or repel graffiti and the applicant shall be responsible for removing graffiti from accessory equipment within forty-eight (48) hours. The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary enforcement action related to graffiti removal. (1) 2.12 Any removal of landscaping necessary to install the aboveground accessory equipment shall be replaced with landscaping materials similar in number, type, and size as approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. (1) 2.13 The aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed of a material that will be rust resistant (i.e. stainless steel, etc.). The utility provider shall be responsible for treating any rust by either repainting or any other method recommended by the manufacturer that eliminates the rust. (1) 2.14 Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond with the City to ensure that facility is built to the specifications and design as represented in the approved Design Review and building plans. Final design and materials are subject to review and approval by the City. Irel I±� (1) 3.1 All construction operations including engine warm up, delivery, and load inglunloading of equipment and materials shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. (1) 3.2 Noise emanating from the equipment, if any, shall not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance. BUILDING DIVISION (1) 4.1 At the time of building permit application, the plans shall comply with the latest edition of the codes, City Ordinances, State, Federal laws, and regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 5 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (1) 5.1 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan (WRRP). A. The applicant/contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public Works Department. The WRRP must indicate how the applicant will comply with the City's requirement (City Code Section 4351, et al) to recycle at least 50 percent of the project waste material. B. The applicant will be required to submit a $50.00 application fee and a cash security deposit. Based on the review of the submitted Waste Management Plan, the cash security deposit will be determined by the Public Works Department in an amount not to exceed 5 percent of the project's valuation. C. Prior to issuance of a any permit, the applicant shall submit the required security deposit in the form of cash, cashier's check, personal check, or money order made payable to the "City of Tustin". (1) 5.2 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way (within Cedar Grove Park and within any public streets), an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department. (1) 5.3 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit for construction within the public right-of-way, a 24 x 36 construction area traffic control plan, as prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer, or Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan preparation, shall be prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for approval. (1) 5.4 Any damage done to existing landscape, irrigation, pedestrian walkways, parking, and/or utilities shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer. ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY (OCFA) (5) 6.1 Special Equipment and Systems: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a plan for review and approval of the lead acid battery system. The plans shall be in accordance with Chapter 6, Section 608 of the 2007 California Fire Code." The applicant may contact the OCFA at (714) 573-6100 or visit the OCFA website to obtain a copy of the "Guidelines for Completing Chemical Classification Packets." Exhibit A Resolution No, 4163 Page 6 FEES (1) 7.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payments shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a. All applicable Building and Planning plan check and permit fees and Orange County Fire Authority fees shall be paid to the Community Development Department. b. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above -noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. ATTACHMENT G Tustin City Code 7262 Resolution No. 01-95 lu r from Page I of 2 PART 6 -DESIGN REVIEW OF ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FACILITIES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY I 7260 - PURPOSE AND FINDINGS 7261 - LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRED 7262 - DESIGN REVIEW REQUIRED 7263 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 7264 - DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS 7265 -APPEALS 7266-TERM/ABANDONMENT 1 7260 - PURPOSE AND FINDINGS The purpose of this Part 6 is to maintain a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment in the public right-of-way and on City -owned properties by regulating the location, color, screening, and other aspects of aboveground utility facilities. Aboveground utility facilities come in avariety of forms that include, but are not limited to, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, and antennae to transmit, receive, distribute, provide, or offer utility services. Their accessory equipment typically is contained in enclosures, cabinets, artificial rocks, or boxes to house a variety of uses such as controls for signals, electronics, and wiring for cable television and telecommunications, or power sources. Often these facilities are located aboveground on existing structures such as utility or light poles and have the tendency to proliferate to ensure user coverage. Such proliferation can result in visual clutter, blocking visibility to signs and other structures, preventing access for the disabled, distracting motorists travelling along the right-of-way, and creating noise. Reasonable regulations for locating the aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment are necessary to promote the health and aesthetic welfare of the people of Tustin. Reasonable compensation for permitting private use of public property and the public right-of-way is also necessary to offset the right-of-way maintenance costs. (Ord. No. 1272, Sec. 2,12-3-01) 7261 - LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRED No person shall place, construct, install, own, control, operate, manage, maintain, or use any aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment in, above, beneath, or across any public property, exclusive of the public right-of-way, without first obtaining a Lease Agreement or License in accordance with the Design Guidelines. Franchises and Right -of -Way Agreements for telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way are governed by State and Federal regulations and pertinent provisions of Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec, 2, 12-3.01) 7262 - DESIGN REVIEW REQUIRED No person shall place, construct, install, own, control, operate, manage, maintain, or use any aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment without compliance with the Design Review requirements in Tustin City Code Section 9272 and with this Part 6. This requirement applies to existing and future franchisees and any other person who wishes to locate replacement or new aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment on public property and in the public right-of- way. Aboveground utility facilities located within Redevelopment Project areas shall be consistent with the respective redevelopment plans. No Design Review approvals or any permits can be issued unless the Redevelopment Agency can make a finding of conformity. Existing aboveground utility facilities and accessory equipment installed prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not be subject to this requirement. (Ord. No. 123$ Sec. 2,12-3-01) httD://library.municode.com/Drint.aspx?clientID=11307&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2f%2flibrary.munie... 12/09/2010 Municode 7263 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW Page 2 of 2 An applicant shall submit a plan of the proposed location of all aboveground utility facilities including their accessory equipment located in cabinets, enclosures, or boxes to the Director of Community Development ("Director"). Information shall also be provided as to the dimensions, proposed colors, screening materials, noise levels, and whether there will be interference with the public radio system anticipated. The applicant shall pay a fee to cover the anticipated staff time to review and process the application as established by the City Council for a Design Review application. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec. 2,12.3-01) 7264 - DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Upon the application being found complete by the Director, or designee, the Director or designee shall review the plan (the "Plan") using the criteria set forth in the Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right-of-way adopted by resolution of the City Council. If the utility facilities are to be located within redevelopment areas, then a finding of conformity by the Redevelopment Agency would need to be made prior to the Director's consideration of the Design Review. The Director may conditionally approve or deny the application. Amendments to the Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director concurrent with or prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit, Lease Agreement or License, as provided for in the Design Guidelines, or Right -of -Way Agreement as defined in Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code. The aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment must be installed pursuant to the approved Plan. The noise generated from the aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, shall comply with the City's noise regulations. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec, 2, 12.3-01) 7266 - APPEALS Any person may appeal any decision of the Director in accordance with Section 9294 of this Code. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec. 2,12-3-01; Ord. No. 1366, Sec. 16,11-17-09) 7266 - TERM/ABANDONMENT (a) An aboveground utility facility is considered abandoned if it no longer provides service. If the use of the facility is discontinued for any reason, the operator shall notify the City of Tustin in writing no later than thirty (30) days after the discontinuation of use. If no notification is provided to the City, the facility shall be deemed discontinued. (b) Aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, that are no longer being used shall be removed promptly no later than ninety (90) days after the discontinuation of use. Such removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements. All affected areas shall be restored to their original condition at the operator's expense. (c) The Design Review approval shall remain valid for the term of the Lease Agreement, License, Right -of -Way Agreement, or as long as the Encroachment Permit is valid. If the Lease Agreement, License, Right -of -Way Agreement, or Encroachment Permit is terminated, notice and evidence thereof shall be provided to the Director. Upon termination or expiration of the Lease Agreement, License, Right -of -Way Agreement, or Encroachment Permit, the aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, shall be removed from the public property or the public right-of-way. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec. 2,12-3-01) http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientlD=11307&HTMRequest=http%3a%o2f%2flibrary.munic.., 12/09/2010 RESOLUTION NO. 01-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 99-84 BY ADOPTING DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FACILITIES AND THEIR ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That telephone, internet, cable, and personal wireless telephone (cellular) servicing the City are expanding and upgrading their services and will require installation of additional equipment such as aboveground accessory equipment, antennas attached to utility poles, street light poles, or other structures on public properties or in the public right-of-way. B. On December 6, 1999, the City Council adopted the Aboveground Cabinets Design Guidelines. These guidelines regulate aboveground cabinets for power supply equipment within the public right-of-way. These guidelines do not regulate utility facilities located aboveground such as antennas attached to utility poles, street light poles, utility towers, or other structures within the public right-of-way. C. Currently, there are no guidelines in place for aboveground utility facilities on public properties such as parks, community facilities, or othePo.City-owned properties. New comprehensive guidelines are needed to establish design criteria prior to installation of aboveground utility facilities on public properties or in the public right-of-way. D. That guidelines and development standards are needed to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and preserve and enhance the quality of the City relating to the orderly development of aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2001, and the Planning Resolution No. D1-95 Page 2 Commission recommended approval of the Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right -of -Way and Ordinance No. 1232, F, That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held by the City Council on October 1, 2001, and continued to October 15, 2001, November 5, 2001, and November 19, 2001. In adopting the Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Property and in the Public Right -of -Way, the City Council finds and determines: ' A. That the guidelines provide standards that mitigate impacts typically associated with installation of aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment on public property and in the public right-of- way, including measures to reduce their visual impact. B. That due to the potential for over -concentration and proliferation of aboveground utility facilities, particularly in residential neighborhoods where these facilities are highly visible and thus may impact the visual character of the neighborhood, the criteria established in the guidelines are necessary to promote the welfare of the community. C. That the guidelines require approval of an Encroachment Permit and/or Design Review process which would ensure that aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment are developed in an orderly manner with respect to location, size, and screening. D. Traffic signal controller cabinets are exempted because they are different in nature and function and provide essential services. The traffic signal control cabinets by nature must be located where traffic can be controlled at intersections. Irrigation controller cabinets are also exempted because they must be located in close proximity to available power sources. E. That street light poles being used solely to provide illumination are exempted because the nature of the service they provide must be located aboveground and that they provide essential services for the safety of motorists and pedestrians. F. That fair and reasonable compensation shall be secured for permitting private use of public properties by utility providers. Resolution No, 01-95 Page 3 G. That it is appropriate for the City Manager, on behalf of the City Council, to accept discretionary applications for use of public properties and/or public right-of-way. H. That the Director of Community Development should be authorized to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Design Review application in accordance with the Design Guidelines adopted herein. For projects located within redevelopment project areas, the Redevelopment Agency shall make a finding of conformity to the respective redevelopment plans concurrently or prior to consideration of the Design Review application. No Design Review approvals shall be granted without a finding of conformity by the Redevelopment Agency. A Final Negative Declaration has been prepared and adopted in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). III. The City Council hereby amends Resolution No. 99-84 by adopting the Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right -of -Way attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to be followed when considering an Encroachment Permit and/or Design Review application for the installation of aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment on public properties and in the public right-of-way. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 19th day of November, 2001. Gz� ' Tracy Wil orley Mayor --Onco2's�-A �) Pamela Stoker City Clerk Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right-of-way EXHIBIT A DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FACILITIES ON PUBLIC PROPERTIES AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of these guidelines is to implement Part 6 of Chapter 2 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code (Ordinance No. 1232) and regulate the placement and design of aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment in conjunction with any City - permitted use of public properties and public right-of-ways. These guidelines are intended to protect the health, safety, aesthetics, and welfare; and secure fair and reasonable compensation for permitting private use of public property. SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS For purposes of these guidelines, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless the context of the sentence in which they are used indicates otherwise. "Aboveground Accessory Equipment' or "Accessory Equipment' means any aboveground equipment located in enclosures, cabinets, artificial rocks, boxes, or other structures to facilitate the operation of their associated utility facilities, "Aboveground Utility Facility" or "Utility Facilities" means any aboveground public or private plant, equipment, and property including, but not limited to, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, antennae, utility poles, 6tFeet light poles utility towers, or other structures and their supports, electronics, and other appurtenances used or to be used to transmit, receive, distribute, provide, or offer utility services. This does not include street light poles being used solely for providing illumination, but includes facilities fer such as personal wireless services as defined in the Telecommunication Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). "City" means the City of Tustin. "Council" means the City Council of the City of Tustin. "Co -location" means the locating of more than one aboveground utility facility provider on a single structure -mounted, roof -mounted, or ground -mounted utility facility. "Director" means the Community Development Director of the City of Tustin. "Grantee" means a person who has been granted a Lease Agreement or License pursuant to this policy and guidelines. "Interference" means any instances of interference with public safety radio equipment preventing clear radio reception which includes, but is not limited to, static, unwanted signal, and distortion of sounds or reception. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 2 "Lease Agreement or License" means a contract agreement between the City and a person pursuant to this policy and guidelines. The contract may be in the form of a lease if the City owns a fee interest in the property or in the form of a license if the City has a leasehold interest in the property. "Modification" means an alteration of an existing utility facility that changes its size, location, shape, or color. This is not intended to include replacement of a facility with an identical facility or the repair of the facility. "Person" means and includes, but is not limited to, corporations, companies or associations, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies, and individuals and includes their lessors, trustees, receivers, and successors in interest. "Public property" means any property in which the City of Tustin and/or the City's Redevelopment Agency holds a legal interest, except the public right-of-way. "Public right-of-way" means and includes all public streets, sidewalks, and utility easements now or hereafter owned in fee or easement by the City. "Public Works Director" means the Director of Public Works of the City. "Right-of-way Agreement" means a contract granted to a person pursuant to Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code as follows: (1) a license in the case of a telecommunications provider that will not serve areas or persons within the City, or (2) a franchise in the case of a telecommunications provider that will serve areas or persons within the City, as it may be amended. "Stealth Facility" means any aboveground utility facility which is disguised to appear as another natural or artificial man-made objects such as trees, clock towers, score boards, etc. that are prevalent in the surrounding environment or which are architecturally integrated into buildings or other concealing structures. "Utility Provider" means and includes any person that proposes to or does own, control, operate, or manage plant, equipment, or any other facility on public property or in the public right-of-way for the provision of an utility service. 'Utility Service' means and includes any electrical, gas, heat, water, telephone, pipeline, sewer, or telegraph services or commodity, where the service is performed for, or the commodity delivered to, the public or any portion thereof. SECTION 3: APPLICABILITY These guidelines regulate the installation of new and replacement aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment on public properties or in the public right-of- way. Exhibit of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 3 SECTION 4; PROCESS 4.1 Application Process The City Manager or designee may accept a discretionary application for use of public property and/or public right-of-way for aboveground utility facilities and process the application in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9272 related to the Design Review process. At the City Manager's sole discretion, a request to submit an application may be denied. Authorization to submit an application does not commit the City to approve the proposed use. Upon the application being found complete by the Community Development Director ("Director") or designee, using the criteria set forth in these guidelines and. Tustin City Code Section 9272, the Director may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. The Director reserves the right to, or if required will, forward any application to the Planning Commission and/or City Council for consideration and action. For projects located within redevelopment project areas, a finding of conformity to the respective redevelopment plans shall be made concurrently or prior to consideration of the Design Review application. No approvals shall be granted unless the Redevelopment Agency can make a finding of conformity. Upon the approval of the application, the Grantee shall obtain all applicable permits prior to installation of the aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment including, but not limited to, Lease, License, Right -of -Way Agreement under Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code, electrical permit, building permit, Encroachment Permit, owner authorization, and other required permits by the City or any other agencies such as Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Communication Commission (FCC), Public Utility Commission (PUC), or other County, State or Federal agencies. However, existing franchises or agreements need not be reconsidered by the City Council unless the franchise agreement requires such consideration. 4.2 Design Review a. Design Review approval in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9272, shall be required prior to the placement, construction, installation, operation, establishment, or modification of any aboveground utility facilities on public property and In the public right-of-way. b. A Design Review application shall be accompanied with a statement to Indicate that the utility facilities will not interfere with the public safety radio equipment. If interference occurs after the installation, the utility providers shall take immediate action to eliminate the interference and pay all associated fees for compliance. C. Design Review approval shall remain valid for the term of the Lease Agreement or License and/or Right -of -Way Agreement including any Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 4 extension thereof or as long as the Encroachment Permit is valid. Upon termination or expiration of the Lease Agreement or License, Encroachment Permit, Right -of -Way Agreement or upon the failure of Grantee to build the facility within 180 days of its approval, the Design Review approval for the facility shall become null and void and the facility shall be removed within thirty (30) days from such termination or expiration. d. Design Review approval for aboveground accessory equipment associated with the operation of the utility facilities shall be considered in accordance with the process and criteria as outlined in Section 7 of these guidelines. e. In addition to the information requested in the Development Application Form, the following items shall be required for an aboveground utility facility; 1. A statement providing the reason for the location, design, and height of the proposed aboveground utility facilities; Evidence satisfactory to the City demonstrating location or co - location is infeasible on existing structures, light or utilities poles/towers, and existing sites for reasons of structural support capabilities, safety, available space, or failing to meet service coverage area needs; 3. A photo simulation of the proposed aboveground utility facility in true scale; 4. A site plan showing the locations of all proposed and existing aboveground utility facilities; 5. A screening plan showing the specific placement of landscaping or any other proposed screening materials to be used to screen the aboveground utility facilities, including the proposed color(s); and, 6. A signed statement that the applicant agrees to allow for co - location of additional aboveground utility facilities on the same structures or within the same site location, or whether such co - location is infeasible, and the reasons for such infeasibility. Comprehensive Manual for Aboveground Utility Facilities, A comprehensive manual may be submitted in lieu of a Design Review application for new or replacement aboveground utility facilities that meet each of the requirements of Section 5 of the Design Guidelines. The manual shall contain sufficient information to verify compliance with Section 5. When a project Is located within a redevelopment project area, the comprehensive manual submitted to the Community Development Department shall be Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01.95 Page 5 routed to the Redevelopment Agency for a finding of conformity to the respective redevelopment plan. Upon approval of the comprehensive manual, the applicant shall comply with Section 4.1 with respect to obtaining applicable permits. 2. Installation of subsequent aboveground utility facilities in accordance with an approved comprehensive manual shall not be subject to a new Design Review process. SECTION 5: DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Aboveground utility facilities on public property and in the public right-of-way shall be placed In accordance with criteria listed below. Aboveground accessory equipment located inside cabinets, enclosures, artificial rocks, boxes, or other structures shall be subject to criteria listed in Section 7 of these guidelines. The following criteria shall apply: a. Location: Aboveground utility facilities on public property and in the public right-of- way shall be placed in locations where there is little or no interference with public use of the properties and the rights or reasonable convenience of property owners who adjoin the properties. b, Stealth Facility. Except for street light poles being used solely for providing illumination, all other aboveground utility facilities shall be designed as stealth facilities with concealed antennas to be placed within, on, -or attached to existing structures such as buildings, utility poles, light poles, utility towers, freestanding signs, score boards, towers, or fencing and shall blend ,into the surrounding environment or be architecturally integrated. C. Co -location. Aboveground utility facilities shall be co -located with existing aboveground utility facilities where possible. Whenever any existing utility facilities are located underground within the public right-of-way, the utility providers with permission to occupy the same public right-of-way shall co -locate their utility facilities underground. d. Colors. Any part of aboveground utility facilities visible to public view shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials which blend with surrounding materials and colors and shall be covered with an anti -graffiti material, when appropriate. e. Screening. For building- or structure -mounted facilities, screening shall be compatible with the existing architecture, color, texture, and/or materials of the building or structure. f. Landscaping. When landscape screening is proposed or required, the landscaping shall be compatible with the surrounding landscape area and shall be a type and variety capable of screening the aboveground utility facilities. All landscaping areas shall be adequately maintained which includes, but is not limited to: trimming, Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 6 mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. g. Signs. Any signs attached to aboveground utility facilities shall comply with the City of Tustin Sign Code. h. Accessory Equipment. Accessory equipment associated with the operation of the utility facilities shall be designed, located and be made part of the structures (i.e. as part of the base or support structure) or be located within buildings, enclosures, or cabinets in accordance with Section 7 of these guidelines. i. Required Removal. The City, in accordance with the Lease Agreement or License, Right -of -Way Agreement, or Encroachment Permit, as applicable, reserves the right to require the removal or relocation of any aboveground utility facility when determined to be necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare by giving ninety (90) days notice. Undergrounding. The City reserves the right to require that all utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, be placed underground when technologically feasible. SECTION 6: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development standards, including height limits for any aboveground utility facility on public property and in the public right-of-way, shall be determined pursuant to the Design Review process. SECTION 7: ABOVEGROUND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT Aboveground accessory equipment for aboveground utility facilities located inside cabinets, enclosures, artificial rocks, boxes, or other structures shall be subject to the following criteria: 7.1 Process a. Replacement Aboveground Accessory Equipment that are the Same Size as Existing Aboveground Accessory Equipment. Installation of replacement aboveground accessory equipment shall be approved in conjunction with issuance of an Encroachment Permit, provided the replacement aboveground accessory equipment is the same size or smaller than the existing aboveground accessory equipment and the aboveground accessory equipment complies with the height requirements set forth in Section 7.3 herein. b. New Aboveground Accessory Equipment or Replacement Aboveground Accessory Equipment that are Larger than Existing Aboveground Accessory Equipment. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 7 Installation of new aboveground accessory equipment or replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than the existing aboveground accessory equipment may be approved in conjunction with issuance of a concurrent Encroachment Permit/Design Review application, provided that each the following requirements are met: No aboveground accessory equipment may be located adjacent to a front -yard area of a residentially zoned or used property. 2. The aboveground accessory equipment complies with the height requirements set forth In Section 7.3 herein. 3. The aboveground accessory equipment complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. No aboveground accessory equipment may be located in an area that obstructs line of sight at an intersection, driveway, or alley. Comprehensive Manual in Lieu of a Design Review. A comprehensive manual may be submitted in lieu of a Design Review application for new or replacement aboveground accessory equipment that meets each of the requirements of Section 7.1(b) above. The manual shall contain sufficient information to verify compliance with the above requirements such as type and size of the proposed aboveground accessory equipment. When a project is located within redevelopment project areas, the comprehensive manual submitted to the Community Development Department shall be routed to the Redevelopment Agency for finding of conformity to the respective redevelopment plans. Upon approval of the comprehensive manual, the applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit. The Community Development and Public Works Departments shall review the Encroachment Permit application. 2. Installation of aboveground accessory equipment in accordance with an approved comprehensive manual shall not be subject to a Design Review process. New Aboveground Accessory Equipment or Replacement Aboveground Accessory Equipment that cannot comply with Requirements for Concurrent Encroachment Permit/Design Review [Section 7.1(b)]. Installation of new aboveground accessory equipment or replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than the existing aboveground accessory equipment and cannot comply with the requirements for a concurrent Encroachment Permit/Design Review [Section 7.1(b)] require a Design Review prior to issuance of Encroachment Permits. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 8 e. System Upgrades System upgrades which require substantial installation of new and replacement aboveground accessory equipment shall require Design Review approval prior to issuance of Encroachment Permits when Design Review is required by these guidelines. A comprehensive Master Plan depicting the locations of all new and replacement aboveground accessory equipment shall be submitted concurrently with the Design Review application. 7.2. Development Guidelines Location, size, and screening of proposed aboveground accessory equipment will be considered by the Community Development Department in accordance with the following criteria: a. Location 1. Whenever feasible, accessory equipment should be installed underground. If it is not technologically feasible to install accessory equipment underground, the utility provider shall submit a letter of explanation regarding the hardship associated with or infeasibility of underground installation. One letter may be included in the comprehensive manual described in Section 7.1(c) for all proposed accessory equipment within the manual. 2. When underground installation is not feasible, the following order of preference shall be considered for aboveground installation of accessory equipment of any size: a. Aboveground accessory equipment should be designed as stealth facility. b. Aboveground accessory equipment should be located adjacent to non-residential properties in an area where no modification to the existing right-of-way would be required and existing landscaping is present to screen the accessory equipment. C. Aboveground accessory equipment should be located adjacent to side or rear yards of residential properties, preferably on major streets where no modification to the existing right-of-way would be required and existing landscaping is present to screen the accessory equipment. d. Aboveground accessory equipment should be located as closely as possible to the shared property line between the Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 9 front yards of residential properties where no sight distance from driveways would be obstructed. 3. Consideration shall be given to the number of existing aboveground accessory equipment within a particular area and over - concentration of aboveground accessory equipment shall be avoided. Over -concentration is defined as more than one (1) aboveground accessory equipment installed adjacent to the same side of a property. If a sufficient distance separation is not technologically feasible: a. Aboveground accessory equipment shall be located as far as possible from existing aboveground accessory equipment; and, b. The accessory equipment owner/installer shall submit a letter of explanation regarding the hardship associated with or unfeasibility of installing the aboveground accessory equipment at a sufficient distance from existing aboveground accessory equipment. 4. Aboveground accessory equipment located in parkway areas should be located at the same distance from the curb as other aboveground accessory equipment along the parkway to create a uniform setback distance and appearance. 5. Aboveground accessory equipment shall not: a. Obstruct line of sight requirements at intersections or driveways; b. Obstruct or hinder opening of vehicle doors; c. Obstruct disabled access along public sidewalks to the extent that a minimum of four (4) feet clear sidewalk would not be maintained; d. Interfere with any existing or proposed improvement projects. 7.3 Height a. The height of any replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than existing or new aboveground accessory equipment to be located adjacent to the front, side, or rear yards of residentially zoned properties may not exceed the permitted height of fencing as determined at the property line in residentially zoned areas. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 10 b. The height of any replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than existing or new aboveground accessory equipment located .in non-residential areas will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 7.4 Screening a. In residentially zoned areas, aboveground accessory equipment shall be enclosed or screened to match or complement surrounding features such as fencing, buildings, or landscaping. The use of a matching accessory equipment color or applied paint, texturing, or faux finishing, or other techniques shall be applied in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. b. The use of crash posts is discouraged. However, if shown to be necessary, the exterior finish of the crash post should be painted the color of the aboveground accessory equipment. C. Access openings shall face away from street frontages whenever feasible. 7.5 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a. Noise emanating from aboveground accessory equipment shall not exceed the City's adopted Noise Ordinance standards. b. The accessory equipment owner/company shall file the accessory equipment identification number, company name, person responsible for maintenance of the accessory equipment, and the phone number with the Public Works Department. This information may be included in the comprehensive manual described in Section 7.1(c) of these guidelines. C. The aboveground accessory equipment shall not bear any signs of advertising devices (other than certification, warning, or other required seals or signage). d. Aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed or treated with appropriate materials which discourage or repel graffiti and the accessory equipment owner shall be responsible for removing graffiti from accessory equipment within forty-eight (48) hours. Accessory equipment owners shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary enforcement action related to graffiti removal. e. Any removal of landscaping necessary to install the aboveground accessory equipment shall be replaced with landscaping materials similar in number, type, and size as approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. Landscape materials located in a public parkway shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner and landscape materials located on public properties or in the public right-of- way shall be maintained by the City, unless provided for in a Lease or License Agreement and/or Right-of-way Agreement. Exhibit A of Resolution No, 01-95 Page 11 The utility provider or accessory equipment installing entity shall be responsible for reconstruction of in-kind facilities within the public right-of- way that are damaged or modified during Installation of aboveground accessory equipment. Prior to installation, the utility provider shall provide notification to adjacent property owners within a one hundred (100) foot radius indicating the type, location, and size of aboveground accessory equipment that will be installed and the estimated start and ending dates of construction. The aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed of a material that will be rust resistant (i.e. stainless steel; etc.). The utility provider shall be responsible for treating any rust by either repainting or any other method recommended by the manufacturer that eliminates the rust, SECTION 8: ABANDONMENT An aboveground utility facility and/or its accessory equipment is considered abandoned if it is no longer in service or is in default pursuant to default provisions in any Lease Agreement, License, Right -of -Way Agreement or any other applicable agreements or licenses. A written notice of the determination of abandonment by the City shall be sent or delivered to the Grantee. The Grantee shall have ninety (90) days to remove the facility at the Grantee's sole cost and expense or provide the Community Development Department with evidence that the use has not been discontinued. Such removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements. If the use of the aboveground utility facility and/or its accessory equipment is discontinued for any reason, the Grantee shall notify the City of Tustin in writing no later than thirty (30) days after the discontinuation of use. Aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment that are no longer being used shall be removed within ninety (90) days after the discontinuation of use. Such removal shall be in accordance with health and safety requirements. All disturbed areas shall be restored to original conditions at the Grantee's expense. If the facility is not removed within the required ninety (90) day period, the City shall be entitled to remove the facility at the Grantee's sole cost and expense. The Grantee shall execute such documents of title to convey all right, title, and interest in the abandoned aboveground utility facility and its accessory equipment to the City. SECTION 9: LEASE AGREEMENT OR LICENSE All persons wishing to construct, attach, install, operate, maintain, or modify a aboveground utility facility and its accessory equipment on public property, exclusive of the public right-of-way, in which the City has ownership, easement, leasehold, or any other possessory interest after approval of a Design Review application shall obtain a Lease Agreement or License and any other approval required under these guidelines. A Lease Agreement or License shall be subject to approval of the City Attorney's office and the City Manager's office as to the specific terms and conditions required. City of Tustin RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) RESOLUTION NO. 01-95 I, PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, hereby certifies that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; and that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 01- 95 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19" day of November, 2001, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Worley, Thomas, Bone, Doyle, Kawashima COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None Pamela Stoker, City Clerk