Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 DR 09-033ITEM #4 Report to the Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: APRIL 26, 2011 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 TUSTI N THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT A REQUEST TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF THREE FLAGPOLES. DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 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 three (3) flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet and underground equipment located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road. BACKGROUND The applicant, T -Mobile, was proposing a facility which consisted of a mono -cedar faux tree located within a landscaped area in the northern portion of Cedar Grove Park. The application for a wireless facility has since been modified and now consists of a multiple flagpole design located within the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park which was submitted by the applicant on March 3, 2011. Sections 7262 and 7264 of the Tustin City Code require submittal and 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 has been deferred to the Planning Commission for consideration. On October 20, 2010, the City of Tustin Zoning Administrator held a public meeting and approved the previously proposed request (mono -cedar faux tree design). 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. On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public meeting on the item as previously proposed as a mono -cedar faux tree design. At that meeting the Planning Commission received public testimony on the item and, at the request of the applicant as well as a member of the public, continued the item to the January 25, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. At the December 14, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission identified a number of concerns regarding the previously proposed project. Since the meeting, the applicant held a public outreach meeting on January 6, 2011, performed a number of field tests including a height installation and drive test, and redesigned the proposed wireless facility. At the January 25, 2011 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested that the item be continued to a date uncertain to redesign the proposed facility. The Planning Commission opened the public meeting, received testimony from the public, and then continued the item to a date uncertain. DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 3 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 April 14, 2011. 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 April 14, 2011. In addition, email notifications were sent to members of the public who had provided their email addresses 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 • Revised Design • Planning Commission Concerns • Design Review (Design Criteria and Required Findings) • Other Related Information and Requirements Project Site Location and Surrounding Properties The proposed wireless facility would consist of three (3) flagpoles that would be placed in the parking lot at Cedar Grove Park located along Pioneer Road south of Peters Canyon Road. The wireless facility is proposed to be located in the landscaped circle within the parking lot where two (2) current flagpoles exist (Figure 1). Figure 1 DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 4 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 with the closest residence 200 feet away from the project site (Figure 2). There is an Orange County Fire Authority fire 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 320 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 830 feet from the northern property line of Cedar Grove Park which abuts the school. Classrooms and the modular units within the school are farther away. To the southwest of the project site is Pioneer Middle School, the nearest school building is 800 feet from the project site. Figure 2 Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 provide existing views looking at the proposed project site to the south, east, north, and west. As mentioned, the proposed wireless facility would be located within the parking area of Cedar Grove Park. DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 5 Figure 3 (Project Site Looking South) Figure 4 (Project Site Looking East) Figure 5 (Project Site Looking North) Figure 6 (Project Site Looking West) Revised Design As proposed, the wireless telecommunications facility would consist of three (3) flag poles and associated equipment located within an underground vault. Two of the flagpoles will be of the height 40 feet with the third (middle) flagpole, 43 feet in height. Each flagpole will contain two panel antennas. The individual flagpoles have a diameter of 14 inches. The poles will be constructed of metal with fiberglass portions near the antennas for radio frequency transparency. The poles will be painted in a flagpole grey color. The proposed flagpoles with wireless antennae will be in the same location as the existing flagpoles. The vaulted equipment will be located behind the flagpoles near the middle of the landscaped circle. Additional landscaping will be provided in order to screen the entrance to the vault as well as the vents (Figures 7 and 8). DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 6 IBI T-IFEtld CU ANff01YS MTI ( I TINY m lKTVII b' STA* I NOME AT A At AY NMiI IN' RA@gE AT b gMAlifi. PTD. IBI T•f16AE MIB. AIIfVM1A _ — _ _ — _ _ _ _ _ — _ - 47f ATi4 Nd T-Mmlli iT) tAIB. ANiBIN9 MRI (T) Tth td EECTQ V: VT.YJt ROMTFp MRMi A rBv tl MGH FTp RAOgE AT T1V' KIMlIV. MST" Ze TALL ME TBE. MmMI'"G«'VDN— MN 1-1VA "x If+l aGNTRELLI GMMnl8I7 IVIGAIL[ 1GM FGIIYIle1f Nd T -Mill[ (I) BUG1Gd 161= Aoad ®11TBti CAM" =m IsMI A Nd MWAOMo VAM.T Figure 7 MM T'IYdIE Gp Nfi &IM tClM6) d A Mp NM6 Poll N T-ANRNW MIM (T) m V.YTd'A VTARt tq.MFD MfIM A N MA R./i94E AT W KM1IN. IBI (!) V X C TUN (1) LRT MAf1 (I) UV Fl!4 AMD (I) CALIMpEA TVi _ _ TD. Nd T-MLTILE tNIL AYIaNA _ — _ �V1D diIFR A MN T•I%6LE II16 _ i\\ VAO ORER 6 Nbl T.MmIf PMI6 3(•i AGE. IBI T- E (I) a No PIAlJ11E. MM T- Lff (2) Wd N RATA01!! TO IB1Aa FETING (G) w NNN lUOGIi. mETMG ragxaE ovre _ Figure 8 O. Figure 8 DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 7 The pictures below show photo simulations of the proposed wireless facility from various views. Full size pictures can be found in Attachment C. Proposed View from the East to the West DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 8 Existing Proposed View from the North to the South t Y ![ t r ''I + _ '�~r I �; •.� , e a ice. P, `� � I .r _ _ - -'-'1 00 C .—.■ail, 1 _ 41- - DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 10 Existing Proposed View from the Southwest to the Northeast DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 11 Planning Commission Concerns On December 14, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the previously proposed project design (mono -cedar faux tree design) and listed a number of concerns which included topics such as: health concerns, alternate location analysis, potential hazards, architectural/aesthetic impacts, public outreach, impacts to the park, effect on property values, and how other cities are addressing wireless facilities. While not all of these concerns are related to Design Review required findings or within the purview of the Planning Commission on making a decision on a Design Review application, the following responses are provided: Concern: Potential health risks associated with wireless telecommunication facilities. 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 are required to comply with the standards established by the FCC. The radio frequency emission produced by a typical cell site is a small percentage (.0001%) of what the FCC allows (Attachment C — T - Mobile Handouts). 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. Radio frequency exposure is measured in megawatts/cm2 where the following devices have the typical exposures: Police and Mobile Radio 250 megawatts/cm2 FM Radio Transmitter 100 megawatts/cm2 Cordless Phone 15 megawatts/cm2 Baby Monitor 1 megawatts/cm2 WiFi Router 0.13 megawatts/cm2 Cell Site 0.1 megawatts/cm2 There are many 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. DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 12 Concern: Alternative locations should be properly evaluated. Response: The applicant, T -Mobile, has relocated the proposed facility to an alternate location. In January, T -Mobile performed a number of field tests and simulations to evaluate the proposed wireless facility. In response to these tests and simulations as well as public comment, an alternative location within the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park was chosen. The applicant performed a drive test to analyze the need and effectiveness of their signal within the area. This data provides the most accurate information which assesses real field situation. Based on this data, T -Mobile has been able to confirm the need for the facility in the immediate area and was also able to adjust the location in response to public concerns. The results of the drive test are contained within Attachment C. A suggestion to use micro -sites was made and the applicant has evaluated such a proposal. It was not found feasible due to the number of micro -sites that would need to be provided in order to obtain coverage goals. There has been discussion regarding a proposed wireless facility (Vista Towers) at the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) facility located at 1 Fire Authority Drive. Public comments were provided indicating that T -mobile should locate their proposed facility at the OCFA site instead. This facility is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Tustin and not under the purview of the City. The City of Irvine received an entitlement application for the proposed Vista Towers wireless facility on April 8, 2011. The facility is proposing two mono - eucalyptus faux trees that can each accommodate up to three wireless carriers for a total of six carriers at the facility. No comments or approvals from the City of Irvine have been issued as of the printing of this staff report. Concern: Potential hazards associated with a facility of this nature. Response: The proposed facility with flagpoles would require building permits and structural calculations certified by a structural engineer to ensure structural safety/integrity and compliance with current building codes. The equipment associated with the facility would be located underground within a vault in a landscaped area. The Orange County Fire Authority would also perform a plan check of the proposed facility to ensure compliance with their codes and regulations. Concern: How the proposed facility will affect the aesthetics of the park and where a co -location facility will be placed. DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 13 Response: As previously mentioned the facility will no longer be located within the park itself, but instead has been moved to an alternative location within the parking lot. Three proposed flagpoles will replace the two existing flagpoles in the same location. The existing flagpoles have a height of twenty-six (26) feet and will be replaced with two new flagpoles in the same location with a height of forty (40) feet. A third flagpole with a height of forty-three (43) feet will be placed behind these two flagpoles closer to the center of the landscaped circle (See Figure 7). The diameter of the new poles will be fourteen (14) inches compared to the six (6) inch diameter of the existing poles. The new flagpoles would also have larger flags (8' X 12') than the existing (3' X 5') in order to maintain the same scale. The flagpole designed facility would no longer allow opportunities for co -location of additional carriers at the site. Concern: What impact will the facility have on park use, historical significance of the park, and intrusion on the Redwood/Cedar trees? Response: The proposed facility should have no impact on park use or intrude on the existing Redwood/Cedar trees as it would now be located within a landscaped circle that is located within the parking lot. As proposed, the wireless facility consisting of flagpoles will not prevent the public from using any portion of the park. The proposed facility would no longer be located adjacent to the redwood/cedar grove. Concern: Not enough public outreach has been done. Response: After the December 14, 2010, meeting before the Planning Commission, T -Mobile held a public outreach meeting on January 6, 2011 at the Tustin Public Library. General information regarding wireless telecommunications technology and their impacts were provided to the public (Attachment C). T -Mobile representatives also were available to answer questions from the public. Correspondence between members of the public and T -Mobile representatives has continued since the December 14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Staff has attached all public correspondence received since the December 14, 2010 meeting within Attachment D. Concern: What effect these type of facilities will have on property values. Response: Any correlation between wireless telecommunication facilities and property values is difficult to measure. However, it should be noted that the proposed facility would be located in a City owned park and the closest residence would be approximately 200 feet from the project site and located across a street and parking lot. There are other DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 14 wireless facilities within the City of Tustin that are closer to residences than the proposed facility would be. The Orange County Division of the League of California Cities has produced an informational pamphlet as a guide to managing quality cell service for city officials and residents (Attachment E). There is a section on home values which indicates that real estate appraisals have shown that property values are not impacted because of cell sites nearby and that strength of wireless signal has a significant impact on a buyer's selection of a new home. Concern: What are other cities doing with these types of facilities? Response: Wireless facilities are regulated differently in each city/jurisdiction. Several cities allow wireless facilities to be located within public facilities and in residential areas. The proposed flagpole design for the wireless facility is an existing design which has been installed in other locations throughout Orange County. 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 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: 1) Height, bulk, and area of proposed structure — The proposed wireless facility designed as a set of flagpoles, each with a diameter of fourteen (14) inches with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet, is compatible with the existing pair of twenty-six (26) foot high flagpoles that would be replaced. Accessory equipment DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 15 would be located adjacent to the flagpoles within an underground vault with vents screened by landscaping so as to not be visible. 2) Setbacks and site planning — The project site is located in a landscaped circle within the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park where the proposed flagpoles would have the same location and setbacks as those existing. 3) Exterior material and colors — Materials of the proposed flagpoles would be metal with a fiberglass portion near the antennas for radio frequency transparency and painted grey to match typical flagpoles. 4) Towers and antennae — Each flagpole would contain two internal antennas for a total of six (6) antennas at the facility. Antennas would be located towards the top of the flagpoles and completely concealed so as not to be visible. 5) Landscaping and parking area design and traffic circulation — The proposed facility will not require any modifications to the parking lot and thus have no impact on circulation. No trees will be removed as a result of the project. Additional landscaping would be provided to screen the vents of the underground equipment. 6) Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure — AII accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault so as not to be visible. Any utilities such as meter pedestals would be screened with landscaping. 7) Physical relationship of proposed structure to existing structures — The proposed flagpoles would replace existing flagpoles at the site to minimize any potential impact. Flag poles are common in public parks and consistent with public park purposes. 8) Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. The flag sizes would be in proportion to the new flagpoles. 9) Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council — The proposed facility complies with the City Council's adopted Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment. • Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right of Way (TCC 7260 and Resolution 01-95 — Attachment H) 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. DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 16 1) Location — The project site is located in a landscaped circle within the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. This area within the parking lot is not used for park activities or recreation; therefore, no impact to the public's use of the park is anticipated. The project site is also a considerable distance from adjoining properties. 2) Stealth Facility— The proposed wireless facility is of a stealth design as flagpoles. The facility will in fact replace existing flagpoles with new ones. All accessory equipment will be located underground within a vault enclosure. 3) Co -location - The proposed facility cannot accommodate additional carriers as currently proposed. 4) Colors — The flagpoles would be painted gray to match the color of the existing flagpoles at the project site. 5) Screening — Accessory equipment would be located underground and vents for the vault would be screened by landscaping. 6) Landscape — No trees would be removed as a result of the proposed facility and additional landscaping would be provided to screen the vents for the underground vault. 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 — All accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault adjacent to the flagpoles. 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 from the right-of-way near the intersection of Pioneer Way and Pioneer Road. 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. DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 17 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 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. Deed Restriction A concern was raised by a resident in the area, Ms. Jennifer Wierks, that the existing Grant Deed for Cedar Grove Park restricts use of the park for a wireless facility. The Grant Deed for Cedar Grove Park, which was deeded to the City of Tustin from the Irvine Company on August 8, 1989, identifies restrictions to the property (Attachment F). One of which was to provide plans for review to the Irvine Company of the "Initial Park Improvements." This was done at the time of the development of Cedar Grove Park. The restriction is specific in stating, "This requirement shall apply to the Initial Park Improvements only and not to any subsequent improvements, reconstruction, repairs, replacements, additions or changes." The Irvine Company concurs and indicated that no release or approval is necessary from them. The City Attorney has provided an opinion on the matter related to a public inquiry which is contained within Attachment G. 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; DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 18 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. 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 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 H. A decision to approve this request as conditioned may be supported by the following findings: 1) The proposed project is consistent with the City's Wireless Master Plan. 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. Wireless facilities are considered utilities and typically located within the public property and 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 flag poles would be of a stealth design and replace existing flagpoles in the same location. All associated equipment would be located within an underground vault with venting screened by landscaping. 4) The proposed facility will provide wireless coverage to an area that is currently deficient of wireless reception. 5) The project site is located within a landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park and away from public recreation area. The proposed flagpole facility in the parking lot will not interfere with the public's use of the park and will not exclude the public from any portion of the park. 6) The proposed wireless facility is incidental to the use of the property for park purposes and would not divert Cedar Grove Park from its intended use as a public park. DR 09-033 April 26, 2011 Page 19 RyatAwiontek Elizabeth A. Binsack Associate Planner Community Development Director Attachments: A. Location Map B. Land Use Fact Sheet C. Submitted Plans and Photographs • Photo Simulations from various locations • Improvement Plans • Maps of Height of Existing TMO sites and Distance to Proposed Candidate Location • Drive Test Data • T -Mobile Handouts D. Public Comments since December 14, 2010 E. Information Pertaining to Wireless Facilities • 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 • OC League of California Cities Pamphlet F. Grant Deed G. City Attorney Memo (Cedar Grove Deed Restriction) H. Tustin City Code 7260 et al and Resolution No. 01-95 I. Resolution No. 4163 ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP __ ca ICN ,Maa 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: RESIDENTIAUFIRE 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: PGR 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 LANDSCAPED CIRCLE WITHIN THE PARKING LOT 12. STEALTH FACILITY: DESIGNED AS 3 FLAGPOLES WITH UNDERGROUND EQUIPMENT 13. COLORS: GREY FLAGPOLES 14. SCREENING: SHRUBS TO SCREEN EQUIPMENT VENTS 15. LANDSCAPING: ADDITIONAL SHRUBS TO BE PROVIDED 16. ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT: TO BE LOCATED WITHIN AN UNDERGROUND VAULT Forms: Land UseAco lication FactSheet ATTACHMENT C SUBMITTED PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS LOCA GN; w fir^ o..:. v_ - J• -_-�-n - 1 _- -:: a.. 3` ItM frpm site ` r. - � s 340' from site LA33842E Cedar Grove Flagpoles 11385 Pioneer Road Tustin, CA 92782 1LCDCATION MAP r1 2 175' from site (+/-) 0 Existing 20'(+/-) Light PYo!4115' ffrrgr, I -11P 416' fromsit�(+ Completed March 23, 2011 APPLICANT CONTACT T -Mobile West Corporation Sequoia Deployment Services_ __ BLUE WATER DESIGN 2008 McGaw Avenue Monica Moretta a � bluewater-design.net Irvine, CA 92614 1 Venture, Suite 200 Blue Water michelle 9? bluewater-design.net Irvine, CA 92618 DESIGN p 714.473.2942 p 949.241.0175 P sl Uu n "curacy is based on infomutlm pno del to Blue WaFer Design by Me appUcanG K . r1 2 175' from site (+/-) 0 Existing 20'(+/-) Light PYo!4115' ffrrgr, I -11P 416' fromsit�(+ Completed March 23, 2011 APPLICANT CONTACT T -Mobile West Corporation Sequoia Deployment Services_ __ BLUE WATER DESIGN 2008 McGaw Avenue Monica Moretta a � bluewater-design.net Irvine, CA 92614 1 Venture, Suite 200 Blue Water michelle 9? bluewater-design.net Irvine, CA 92618 DESIGN p 714.473.2942 p 949.241.0175 P sl Uu n "curacy is based on infomutlm pno del to Blue WaFer Design by Me appUcanG LA33842E_ lar Grove Flagpoles 11385 Pioneer Road Tustin, CA 92782 T#toblle wort corporation 2008 AkGi w Amh e Irvine. U 95614 Seq.*M oeptoyMene 5ervkea Monica 116eretb 1 Ventu%sulee 200 Irvine, G 92618 1, 999,241.0115 bluewater-design. net Michelle® bluewater deslgn.net PROPOSED (3) FLAGPOLE LOCATION —`p.-`�.. _. .. PROPOSED=' -1 - EQUIPMENT a, /L�_. LA 3 3 8 4 2 E LO AuLON Cumpfeh Much 23, 2011 APPI.ICANf corhAff I Cedar Grove Flagpoles 6111E WATER DESIGN TMoe11e Were Corponflon scauol. DepWn,- tservfces i _; 11385 Pioneer Road 2008 M Av MONm Ma hluewafcr4esign.nef .,. mieheneO Nucwarer dtsl9n:nd '- Tustin. CA 92787. JrAre CA 92614 1 vmm , Sume 200 Blue atef w4m, CA 92610 p 714.473.7942 1,949,)4 i.J 175 M.'Yawu..Y.mayl.usu.YMvwWnpwWtwM LL�ll�yrYyA��s �� W y i f N d . IN � I I 1 1 Jr - 1 �it;r -----------F foneer ca nrYP N stip, CA 927 _ tivft w U 938t4 1 V, i _ _.... EXISTING . • T . -Mbbile- PRoro;en LA33842E C..;II ed 11123, 2011 APPlIt'AN1 CC)P1TAl-d -y.' 1 Cedar Grove Flagpoles BLUE WATER DESIGN 11385 Pioneer Rodd EMoblle Wen Corpora0an segao a Ocploym Servkes '��= bluewaterdesign.net Tustin, CA 92782 2008 MI Avenue IMm, CA 92614 III AbMia 1V.mm, suRa 200 Blue` Ater mlche8eO blue ter deslgn.nct IMrre, U92618 -�.�i�- p714.473.2942 �jF [r' dal 41 0 "'19 hI LV l /S nw wmh.-n rce.... r u r i ui w.,.rYn paYy b y utw, 4VT M M M • m Mobile .b SITE NUMBER: LA33842E CITY: TUSTIN fPCXITECTe- NC. LVS FORFSi . G RY1 SITE NAME: CEDAR GROVE FLAGPOLES COUNTY: ORANGE Fm SITE TYPE: RAWLAND JURISDICTION: CITY OF TUSTIN tusUOIA PNOJ6VEENANV: EQl _ HPPfMF rn �' Rti-yNpgy wR w eaYw mmrsuPWm �,�mISoeNx�s SXEEf INGIX: T-2 2 cOxN11m6 of AW WN 4a 9xMa �.�YRv1.aNr km FPNonNNwm®Y -,,. mclm IV NAP: =.. f e -"` j Y!s ^e ,- y re x¢ WIB/11 RaR IDe�OR P. Y R]/Yf/if imR IIb ioP IEN.,e• J! 3 in6 EmfMMaGrl uII .MmRflRv$4s6OWmCNnRs4VS 6E 0"w.,.M i1Rm� Ww °mt�QoNl. Ro,L.�w cTeap v -...-. ;f i]i � —14 msw+ N,N_ReNa:mMxc3�Nw+, ®se�s'��N--,NezZw -.IIXP"PNPKuS"am7+SsNO« a,—m1ioAir c•lu�N«1�waNA-aN:gN.,g».N ana ]m.N Q k9A�m a DilNAbW1161 � .v`.{.l f"t�. PRO,49CT �•{{•; ..,`�� '�'-3 AREA �R I3842E Np0.e w@asa49 CEDAR FLAGPOLES m GGNFlGUMTIGN UIFGHNATIGN-U"P TIMlime uuea9y /cm R�xuas CGNSULTINGT .. APPNGVAL9: u'xuwrrt / v xnvNtss .wrtnw Raga i I PF' m x urea cPV oiae>[R W,Sw]m �IF�mnw u. ��.ax-/a/a'�9AM'6 ,�W-q¢IS eN• - ME FWcxnr. WwRnP6p x¢v-a..mHlwww.La1 ..si T6F �OHm�pNPa s%�e � u. ` p y�iw an'�"""sllilE eim c.>,:A- vgna:wxallosein mur�urm'�0 n�im�m� "a `� a (]NI >N�N-+ N"aw, bXl nawr`�N6 wn my>u IM gYWW�o-➢MN¢I!M �'NF N Nmrca' mi w. wmc EBOT. tlINE SfdNLIBE L1iE �y�Nppp R ' - Iff Lbl61GUMTON IIffONNATIGN-LGWBI TEII Nre misai-I-vnma ar. salm uNum NrtasIME p aV�FANFa unFNN• uom 1 I a my wp ttNY owlmn mu lencm m Na >T IN N-1 >/r a� a!� m®'reNma� Nx PX) m>-isre MCR 6PxxsT. INSP- ®aY 9Y.i-WALNM SXi' v.�¢ �wr-�ixM �i ym�>NNvwaxc mani'e�im bl x/mi N un ,w PP¢ - Ria RN. I'- PIRm YO NRM@6 e0.Wioyll6: lwa �>q� TITLE SHEET APPLICNBLE LGG6& 2NIUNGMG{ 'Ai1NNYNv4b a1] PGWEN&mco UTIIIIV CGimA SaB/Zmm .1aim wiz V. 4-aNur� T-1 POR LOT 23 wonoww�p yrx_� POR. L APHIMJT-0/ OT 23 T Mobile• _ ro nsam[ Y/ i^vv� / / wmuz •u. Get more from lifer s w mx ✓-.asxe'rziueY6 r va / / "".E�r � � • rema::o- w. FOR LOT 23. w mn eoww r �,/? PORLOTP..LoT p W tt • rwa nueYr / I // /�j�\\/ /' •�x rcla za wr.[ w4v ise®t LVS iRifST U 9Gi0 0 W . W+rt r ,�jj8 / y Mh91 Wh IBFIEN[E PL's, (919) Ti-Wq ?/g TRACT NO 13627 r,\\33.LL ruc lwc3art�es N � n 9 swnne r.w Id /XJM M M. 644 / 1-20 / R` / omra we Vi. w'n'ummma�i uw u w, uID [w mm uMv �Y/{�/ / � / ocvvaewuv 2- Iruml 0uui � n may- xm.ww • wu la 4 / / wsn.rz uou / Y ' umwi a.w.wzl 1/�yp�9lVElINC 8 MAPFING _ / s f !f\ , / lm[ wwaR p1111F1GMF iR'. WrPDR. L f 22 r zm»aLOi`w"�'..^"'m•""mn,.m . u . wmiwm � 1 f.VHslr°r75 I I /' '6� POR LOT 23 uvemn � • ®y°rz mmu. wwownrzw..mv+ t /.rH.mr9els —w` FOR. LOT 22 TRACT NO. 16184 }q�4 /'091, gOOJ M M 811 / 10-19 / / FOR LOT 22 / I MJLS@-lfl'S / ' 99fi e,^ya wwn � �v1¢ � LOT "J" .VHSOf1Tm !?f�'y/ / r O aemenl FOR LOT 22 4 uw`.w=ur r�mnµi sO1o.'@:v°Sivu"gv.'"u. uxav-c1a + / /9lFEr trS FOw DETIL !i r sr u i' .wwaw.nr CEDAR GROVE FLAGPOLES fi �' '�' /i y / � / � o–w.rz 9� Wsco.,. zo ®. a vo�n•m� LOT 'G" �,PA �'�o-x•"Ne® .:r+s a»"0°a°r. MH>t0'nW4e / J i . ora im Hamm wimx '' " nb _ %� � uxxc wm nmulxr � '°".n"4 wirei.. ow�ws wi ice,.• � "fl TOPOQRAPHC SURVEY `�— m x«/Ixuo me 'xiuey4 —i a�A 4vry'nRm'ry I 1 naS I �� 0 muxnn xm ff � ren vlw. Nwgs_ eG sW murY S L T J oa4 r.M[Y ��Exxq vm .LL. 6 Mr9 C l mE W Gw4Ex .I. uWr sm�u an�tt miar xebmim' I mel-•�nr SEE SHEET C-2 FOR SITE DETAILS �� T . •Mobile= Get more from life` 7 HAM .9 CEDAR GROVE Po a e m�xaw°9iE � a^ ■ .w �s e um. wsum el�ns[roo FLAGPOLES... :� "''u•_ LA3384M PIONEER g_v�__ __ TOP'OGRAPFIC 811flVEY Y« SEE SHEET C-1 FOR BOUNDARY AND TITLE INFO. �_� NOTES: �i sbl r+muEm�rr.)�ersar wo .uTYNP] ImFF fast Q Id i-IFdI£ (y n�a w« Aro p) e' Ivul FlAGFtls M'p I1GTdl R IFN T-ICtlIE (f) PA'FL MTMYb TOffL O !GY T-I6ffiF N"YWR IYFd9Y9YE Yl%PLIE ©10V T.fYNF 1O1-E<Ild1F PAHKr Y'!E © IXBIEi P%AR(T LLVO © Pris1IIN,a TFAW*W O FiISTxY Wb1ElE 9d Lbe OE dlSiRli ^"- I1L\. Q dsnlN racedY «rm O d6TnG pR! MM O dYrTMG `J8N�91. ® dtlrpG PIRt 9WIA14. O0 M411YG NItA'N3 X loran TREEf rTvrx © WTIIn 1HLJ rvL1i.Vd Xfiu PddL POL RR T6W O d6RL f61M'NWD3l G5tliffi /M NFN t-IYP!£ P.OL fW giE1L O MHV T�rfEE cpEPa18F9 KM4R AWlFlfO aN n axr T18t]I ren aXx w,fdu ro r�+muY IxaLE AaA (� frL Lannll. m xaf r-rduK umFallo inert pux rim FMRaG RMK4091 TO N31 Ridl 9F9fIl (M4GX f]L IHniN) O Ibl T-IYEAE FY PK WL�GBMY jnffl Tadllr aN wm Easnxs Tara nANda ro IBa T-dWY A40Y (A'WIC WI IHNM). ® 181 T-IYd1E IT •YTL`a Mf yfL O NBI T-�L8 9NiF IEI®19pvTAL IMWIPOfdbBL ®Am msnm anrar-r rx Qa PN6TIIG Am nw+o.s � AWSE 91E. PIII,4 f W,rRYIIL n. mIrILEPNG NRnN..aAMt® Ta+ERFtt (IcalarusE mmdnlu SYIIk M1AV®NM1wfY (P416}IpE IiSUdIVl EASf.nNELP atabin flc.EssrI�IGFmmw 16M1 P4'flm � (YLMES)-0EE IIF91WfIU1 SITE PLAN 4Tdcc T. lwrmr vGs aEGoortuvn xxaw YLv aYn'Y xM4 Fff R4 dST. BYf SLY rIB'n et4 aL4 TRACT NO 16184 bM 811 / 1q -le LOT "J" APn a]2 qtm r PO1 LOT 23 - - nPxsce-a5,2a! POF: LOT 23 AIN WR-ISFYE' \ FOR LOT 23 AAN WR -0.4y - ■ FOR LOT "PP APN SU!l•A-Y3 � acXrtGCTG-INC. f \ LRffYJ flIIEIPRIY III[O I U%e f[PBr, G Sim / PILNE. (MI)TG-qp f V. TRACT 4 1 12 s � M M. 651 % I-200 e msw. xumwr: FOR LOT 23 PN5 ESR SEQUOIA §.A GT 22 AP W tl0. G FOR LC7 22wa x `\ P^ MN L4FI¢Pl N Jf yl ) 1y ] vRuii PSR ecoFs tls FOR LOT 22 a py]o/tt auwr �+ensoas tic . APN ffi'IAAJ gVE � ' "a\� 5 q/U>/11 tt'FNf AL`.l9na�E GI$ 6 R � FDR- LOT 22 ate. N54 aaun'evr. ` T -MOBILE ural v sL Pr. QP,µ - IwWIW.cg16 CEDAR GROVE o Q / FLAGPOLES ' - LAUME 1.1 n n ffi.P - W E AD ImE, SITE PLAN ll�;. BIIaFTM1YYA� A-1 ' vu ra W. we ww evlus gym? z• Tuvrawr am,e ro �I.ia v arv��) ry wa rUeruu Q' o6X¢rs mlim�w`oe�"s �r n�vwiT �i� merml � wr um. 'O X61 i-ILYux Y4xX?fMlpIID IXMPfi(i ® IN TiOt@)vub..Wl9W5 WIH fU TM4 PIX snu •c xw roxlm Xlwl AN6,tlIN1 w. , _ �-71 b \ � \ i 1 �A�,`. .iY^Q 1 ■ wxy111iccTe-11.y. flMJ6EAr Y YwIM ©IYIIT„Y2YF I'U Y.OY9. N11BM1.M11N Ir)ltV.4 PYA i 4�- � • Y,'N BIIEWRIY'f!O I.bi M1FfA 9%VI 'SiQF Y AIIX If]NI® W11A111b10' MIW M 6KLE Ai tl AWNY OT (R) PN6 AY,XLF IPfN I3) TN.Y PA _ � � ': �' flML M'911% (4Mw))1 FAY. (M)TI-fAtl �wT3�I1F •C 6TM[NMmMIMM AIBItlMlJ19! �. \ ��� �. �� RWPE AiflC KIMIM y OO IBY T-1LH'IE Iw.'aM.W /!/.Y G69L R1W R1 gy�rxv�xumXuax,a /XR+el zv � / \� 1 e mei r��mwl.wrrAwemxvd Lsm. 0ler r-rmlz,...eaz ww rvn x+wTelr rxvns m rwe. Av1vw (Amex tl row 1nTu). �4. _ r==•• /(� 1�/ w�. z � pnv6Txc (zIfWOF LYNISm.'BIW. $� Yt�-T-7-1 w z w/w/11 '�ENd'�p 'N O4 pbIMGfMRIF WMMr: ®tA6rMfr W,IAMIVJF MFI. fi r'l ^ Y� mil• 1` / L- _ .• ` , 3 O!/1B/11 41EM WcY9].K R . wiJon, a,6lr AfNw61k x x�61..�n)u�•�A�a xG 6.011E wrX � ©Xw TMeE2'VMFm 4NTWrodNXOXgi A1Ie1C4Mf(ARdMICI1TA4Rm51Ed'i O XG i-bF'tl'WMEI'fR ¢Nlb'11ID LNIXOIXd! � � _- ` r� / � �. ewue4m l,mlra MNif P101®evm Qa 1eX r-nxez as eneeu. mgrm w re+6naus 1 -- � ` �„� T � � � �. � ® me111c wArolawx � • /� V II CEDAR GROVE 1 F. FLAGPOLES IJS3842E N TM1E: ENLARGED SITE PLAN ENLARGED SITE PLANA -L J/B•y�V rbl T-rceu �r.� anew, uml nl Tom. IY 92t(R b' NG i-Imue as.uTeeu mnn® m p5 N.. RISI.m MIIWNAIbI AY Nil IW flNUl AT 4'I A➢NN WANBIRK FQE �FE MNLEP@M'm. j �l/AE-i. IPY A)M CM1YA (I)9R 0.V'• 'ENT-tVaE (1)VN&1 /M9w5 WN f9J T4Y Mqp I J , O)M nK YO (I)41iPEl.AK Np p/gQ[AT �NNIW A{Bitl c o. BR0 A TA.IT-tWSPA_YB. MTWN _� 4TTT -- — __ ra.lel r-Imo rA�AVIT4a -� -� e.l....mer, /' ANU0�619i TifME P4G M'IBNI 'r rl� .r I ®nRKId T-M17NHTN6 / prvrtE ■ - rTn. \ wRl �xl�iwe�va e�etw •E 4 f1L�� _ Y _��E—_ cYo®rtaalBi r-ema[sMa M CTtl .INC. z 1 A•� [ xia mann wmw.xaltl Nuel nel�__—� u�r�u�eo /' y WJI IR WMq£ATYAw11L �'� 3f.T Al.1 xs raNwa vaeM -Axe i 1 nmE ru u 41 I N¢ nrm fE1OD1 '( .l=n i _ lei r-emlt nllw FlA<rt1H HmA� WOM . LTNM®IRBII NI TRI RTKE dSIM< MJ E xw nAoxa. IT eTrlNC Taw eluf ce / I, -.Y xEr-ITxus eNTAxm�al vane `E'°"1 r' �- SEQuoln �PLTi49Bx4plBl GHnX6 Mle®PN£LL,T <T n.<M6 lWR�r I. `�\ E/le/1T aeml 'R _� kMr-M1SIE T.YYeK OMIMIID dWL@BIf NN9E RR ®IMOIT <AIEII. - YY'¢ID Ftll Z' E/3</11 aMPa Il' .1 OEM/li U&Ni PENekW R NBY i-ICPL£ (A) tRICTM Rff L{ � < W/]Y/11edaf nfNAi1L9 Jf pWq eeVRZVf 48NPIe I[Gial 1 � � -� IWE R Ki NP@N]M YMLi e <t/PI/11 CYEM 0. IX6 W9 NORTH ELEVATION xnE IBI r-rmlrasxnew. mart® a <lsl ac me MI IBI T-IrHP(31 rMR MIRNV.s WTx iel nul9 Ta'B E♦Dfh$. xcru w ecaI mm®ml<l A la.v wl en Nai rymux (aJvuut ulrews Iatu 9[SRRHR/C. met®WIIYI ALIBI tlY fIKGE ATtlhMInL MW PW MSeF Ai 31T .yWIN. _ _ T.a IBI T-IkBIL Y.NB allelY -_ - Ia rrmw vola. Avrww �A<L &moi CEDAR GROVE FLAGPOLES � ' --_ uo mis a:.xe. Tamce.nwa '-4aB^nelJ LA33ME nNMLaNeir-rmurATy .. Liu¢y¢a C xal Yrmu(ax'4 nrABa 1BI {31 tl. R aKS II) RR rVfy WRI IV TNNVAIB.T MWT ;, (o ENu<aa n)WurwuA� �, �3tl T� IBi T-rvxN�nl a-«a,l w.rmi, ww rs,N,rrA®n _ anoaT ro rm.rc salla nl . _ - � -� wa�eawiW 1, 4' W4 NNgM \ / Twat anmNT ' � e4Rxc4xmww d16TIK FlXBm W[EIlY6 AT R_A<g8 -�- L �� � � 7aT•dAH'sLT- e n•.. a�V,r Y^'�>�a, m ARCHITECTURAL _ ELEVATIONS NG� 1 gM�tlIIT&(rJ♦y�LL ILGR�a _ WEST ELEVATION eGIB Nsnxc Y TO S TNl YaE IPEB Po4fWa (alT¢R 4PA SOUTH ELEVATION MG TSI'd1E (aJ eN8 MTMWa 1{ml n11N1 RR `ERR 9' BIIQ MM® WIIBf P 10;1 d N'91 pT Fl/GAl I.T WI IIIaTI. ®net ff 10N T+eeotw+a s y4�V1 mn]ee a rel r-rmurvw0. ' Ta0•Y PlYIAR TIIX2__� r x� rra>aLL ('Up4' xia evaws ro •-�- xna¢amnxc to aa•ww nAvoa EIM!Ma SxW.ffimyl-� IR. T m. "I M II'K 91NIY1atIf RA`40L IR Ip T,YpIP m..xLL AV19N�e wm nl nut rel saTae re� paG manor Nmw w xG d I-1 Re reeve u m amen a.nmu------------- � IBI iiWlE (y P.414 aMeaAS WIM ('U Teq�, IW ffiTG'C 9lIQ mMm XI11ax A Xp1O Nfll pP fl1O01 Ai a#IIIYIN. IXCINa A TNl R1'E }RE TA Ip THIP P.Nflx11wA —_� ND0nP6xei T-ry-EP \ zvmNAaswaTmg__ nom- _ui Wa 4N(R a px T-IILIb PM6 diTxe 4' xmx wwz BWA4� AlY NK. ro w R.. p! / P1r.lY xaf NAlr a+xu fUm wc.wo N [uaveaa. XPc T•n xea TXaHIPrMp NnvEw c � YM 01196103Y TX®IE PN6 9tY At�� —� .TI N... �MN Til®xE (iJ p-0 IfOI FlI41Y581O 0@IlR PEIWO IR) Y' N]I FlIGas �g61X1G'J W VY�-i 016tYi 1111LW LP.1LE 4kVtl Ar F{AG M�E1. _ x8i TipME Y -Y x P-9 fMIMIFp • 9h1niY0xT MYXRL•` IIX �Illro!! Gyps Ilfl._ �� NW. DE RpWPA m�1pH0 NLL R @G'ID. A-II®m �R V XlTe=vT9 � ING. bf10 fNl@iPl9E Y0 UNE FWFST� K 4L R Wk'+ CM) fli-YM rue (qw/ zn-,nn CEDAR GROVE FLAGPOLES LA33842E �N�XQe10�IlOx ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS A-4 181v 1t76liFu'f5II1 - i 3 N� CM1IR � - m[Fwffn Mw . • 3 IMC. wro vtrExrx� um R ro vuAr r7 mnnrren U PA06 uxe Fwar, a acn nlaE (w) ra-Wq FAY. (4M) M-iAr WmJITM 9tilalG NMr SEQUOIA SEQUOIA METER PEDESTAL i DETAIL z oWTAIL� m` e ayax/n. +avx�Fox � ae/ea/n pmn xev�oxs axnu/+� wdr xcvus h a aim/a� miwr xtmrve as CEDAR GROVE DETAIL x 9. DETAIL „ 8 DETAIL' 8 FLAGPOLES LA33842E �aFlwtranaw uti�u,uva< axxvrrne UTILITY CABINET DETAILS M�ea.xweexC DETAIL ena� 7 xsc DETAIL w� 8 DETAIL scxe g A-5 1.11esm[ xa w Tura uruExAiwc sw�wlxzr a Nu 14,FNWLiPexNfST,}8•wd aw qN� �,��RdR �� 6fr/H's THE nne [F fAlrx+crllK• X&BW No Es: PLANT MATERIAL KEY uR.rRMwTE RR TxE INSTA4ATRI W TE WOIJAK AS 1BF11 W N4NPN1111G Oj la T-rmXF (w] xi Fr) Yawmrt Aw Op vnmCYr (R/ FYwaLE Ixxr6 ro mWN. sues mrAV __ W91L'.LBtE `�. {0e¢ WSIRtd TIE p.rmGs fru .MIFIW'+Il[HlY tlIFA I I.i,. .. i_� ' ].1T]IIICI[R 51W1 QWmI FAIMPTCXIREPMRTOIOE IO/EINSf�WiE AT N NG4£ P®JbT%AV WY49,If MlLOVRf TO CATM 61 MVI4M O mbTPG 0FL1PN11 P.LL 9T' Y XBI T-M1B'I.Ei •<. O ()tl-C VMW ftA4P1E9N OQ19rIK lPWEIE L`A FYLTM tl191�T0. RFttV1 SiGMGY. Ne'I.YF i:6111L (Y) YY 1Y4N fLIp.NE 'lJ ® xBl T'rCH6E (U R'Lbll lm9 LY wmN FQJIR@If O 6151N6 (L14P.E1E 4UVflUT ('p\ omen wwa.+Tm wsuaxav usRma;xn vier. ® mRRK CRfANMGi^E AEA L vsnxc wM�rovE NRAMm �' P1ANSsl@M®.Mu I.M nus uo9ax�nr.MlM6'NF WI wWATII€ IFMle6IM YImRTE P1115 xn %YYAiO6AOR NYJIMT IY9tRAiM`Yn Mi RM MCMs ®TI RLLG MaL '✓l e O.xLi T- -T-Y' XIIldIW1FG M1R111d! 6 I$'I T-t®LE EIA7[IE II®R. rtWpP Re FM'x1M fJBME16 PITWkP Mm'rnitlnd xim Nallm' bW 6 ■ LA MI RLIOI SWtEMd%V1�w1N RW'v M0 Af6 © XEII T.KdL (YI M1Ve1. IMMNs w1N (Y) R.IA 19t If 49Y T+YaIE (I) 0' NIW fLYdR£ gTW `A'RILx IRM(m wINPIA 1BId WW fl! 16 FXLlM6i bWRB 10 BF pyp®. 1RCNITLOTG-INC. LTlfpI0.CIM SY1l OBY Nn IBni .YL 4116tl1L NR'AImMMPOf flML NE m1RIR[eswluwE�vxrleue I>ro'm xi wmYxa m swi Nsuafi FlM6E AT 69 lLRIY. '14110IXIFRiWL9E 6fN INwxasn 0.m RAY,FMT. Am wraTV RYARnm wumamm i , nvmrx[wa xrmnlxrmmem wo vxnmmA�ermavm.11e ©ww TaYslu fN)Pw[L AvrmttaR wNsl m(s)e,rnaw rel bsmebxrn elwmm wmx Axlw lu ula FatEST GI um wm xuxm�wxrmN xil®aUrlmlwNa mEEIaL rueweawA6nml. rHWu (wRj Te-4id c nEwlMqu xol.p ru MNTPi 1RaM, R'IWL,xWH&R, YFTmuL IR6AP'31®R11E ROr RW IfMLf nkwmr4Yeuna Re AVfMS6MI OY X&T-1ed1E(Y)PAWL AYiBN6u MN (Y)TINY 18 FAY.( -AV P11-fAl el�l'.E!!®®OL NF mNpKia5W1 GVRlI(tJgRf WWM.Sti'IE(YIIYA[t�i TW".I'mMlm MITM 110t d wW fW XMAV£FT YN .CMYM fiCN6Y 611PP u4 W ®0..R n0. V ICw1Ei®, aW u [-9 [ 181Loa�:e'Z1R[aTwRR 9mLC0f W N68tw Ne414id M lumni O6 101 T-IPffiE WRKm10 oMX UPAF %N PRfei 01onB11' NL'wY¢mCYA u6lmelxowa to WaiPmsr]I6 a6@AeI Am�E W 41v1 59IX6ESRR0aHYF➢TKRlwm1IP.1[I(61Y9'91W 14£SIE Mb i1[9n] -R®FNN 91E d01lip4 MNl51HY VILL VBEpBNOCII&x[IW MI61Wi 41®sE MG To fu0Px6 (M%I[b 4eG111). ON6I TJYYLFk4LL RWNCERfi IWALMp 16 x4i11YH1 YYNi $4UIIRL TIFILLL [F R,. e '^ SEC2UOIA nx: 6Rmwnnalaawuru ra4xxrt waN�.�u aM nE �NRr r -mane [ax cros 6W Rml s+In+ewr ualers To ffxn� mIIIIwrEa n@xL11R1maNllaw ]R01IpClp6lRns1 N6 r9sla ANR6W NA'6 AYIBNAS (ARAM aro`s•t>w:]x) _ -- �"•"° Rxbfi lAarowwur ase,RJTx[ ].[�6xf0Ca xWLgfuV MCy rt0.4L 1&81'xi .sni __ 0.o _ - �. Nu Wm4: m IW Nn 69x4 Ibf E4]SIY'ID AS W/NY.NA'sF /_. ! _ w 1 OR// 18111 0.46@8111 ilp�yy-�wne 1 w � f. n �� -- � Ot/[1/ll lL0 YOs. JY 1aNee• Rl�wu. wre]Ic rortTarvarw.6 owa.xlN[uwwR xiail W w1Wu1R1mncu 1 ll' - T oY/YL/It CIIENl 1C:Mpxs Wl[1cY1rc 11o1a fsllllF lmWtl. Ar N).mmw. N�:asLw[MumRUN A`Oa Fannw wmmmAZ Rmmro6Ru , �{�, \I �J� �_� �-: Ps . m/x/il d)txr �s',axs m 1x[Iswnlsxo ownv¢uxehA]manLRAA SaeaanlveYZ Nmn, Rloim eEmwlw cweaw4eaxawo ma6l'xuw rss '_ _ _ � -•l `\ S I.WYI{I. LP xL9RPofW1CIHIaMml6klf M18LLiW ndN. C_)f Y 6 84/W/tl CllR?gF.T®mS 66 nmll®1mn.®i6oet .mro. NVs 0Y8Ow1mR81 n� 6u,. P19TA16-�-.s 16. .Ir n � s � , I - 1 �OVQNI8R5 ALL W6 flW.Ex11u11Yi AY/s xB6YR PX9E F� i� �. iNW1E n8MIAlwlawtaMIRIOR IAIW1 u611W xwaEl RtRm ' / MIM41dI V.1[14 r 9 Id11A6V W]n RW16NYcflAVIm MR.Wr11C TY1 IL 1EG lwQ MY1 P.W( mnuawmAmURrxa]rtlmrt Rrvw carols uvraaxm mmaRi 0. /�O �,\ NkRTWI'NS WnW+caxNl®If.ria 61119811. (9WB5 wlr). i ML MY1y 81WLH MINW IR649i�0iR WR111C 8MI(ILRR. � A"_ __ 111M1WR PBAIT M W1MY6 MIMrt A q0 WTIX � -_ LTAL1'�I 9:�4LT4D�I lOt�� ��ImIIlMx 4191161Tiffi 191 CEDAR GROVE 6.AMFi WmK Wx M]184Li4WOl AN L.QI}II M1PYl.4fta 45 xYYn 6EwT]R smuUa Nmreru rMYlm N�wlexulmr Ru xapolw Naf - FLAGPOLES BWknFlmR, iCNNeM nmr asnx msn, wA•rts xaim0.srE0. _ T _ - - J�•:. 1A3 LiW mNTa GTl:wit iK OxR1[NX Nw.Pfa1£YfQLNM IY(NtxF IM MPIRI INCLL MYSIA m11(xD ImPFMma.ILL �x41IXWi Mr YO% 'y �' - 0. � �O/ �) �� �.i MJ3&izE 11]tN01®41Wp ngTxm, aa�RSNiu ovrn®ma.navlvw6+mEler m]sr R61n1 _. I' - �� ' � '� � � - ]umwwor wU s�kwafielwlnmelxuswcm meMas Tent wuaoT9lmem ro uneNa UAu[vaq r_ mrmk nEtalW.ia9WL1@8xA64H1GErRtw �xnY --- �1 - O ' �=_/ X14- ll£P.RmOaTE 60IDW CVa4'F I6 [OFETNG Mdl\T. 68OCa9WLIxQ wLYffim! M10186] mrR LImATa mKnNe xa i `1 \ n j 41RRAfMY@NMlIYI61. I _ �` �:. _ L iN951VL Wrt �xuI1N F1E NciNHIia 816E+1®mmTEMC Ili % U � •5 N1d8Y.1RxYM-nNGt I 6 ,' LNOCWOIm6fW1�9Te FLMY wxMI• 45 eM.mll61[1[RSWl /A C2Am RS�CEwR ND N15i R51B1b uxkssum ndser -� .� N Imum, M1WIIY'ID, xn lws romx]nRL Rin PYIQ lNR1BA@ROI RANy RD SMO V]IIDIWIL RIWBI®F.ti!$1Rf li ,�E Q M9 MIAOEiEV � 81f6T➢!LG 101nx[Im SWtdMMT4ImtM[wWt EO9R<'dE la 1140:0 W 6RINW aC y mMxnae9 Rv1v oL iamms wAam.'�www xwwE cella - - - ®+^m9A�asawwxux2swteemx®nrexm GENERAL NOTES AND S /IIf BINE MTRVL iNRN==MFMM WTPI[IR61MY&15TNIAIO19YIlY -_ \\� %%% PLANTING PLAN lalA®mmnvclu AxOxOICYi rmTroasn _. _ __ - - - -. � 5 iNEmlw'clu sou 4mxnusrsrn wxn merrR wsTtieYxmw�nR FMR Re AIIOLRCbA1fi 18Yl yL pmX@Bif9wlHMZ m01161[Ia.Y __ _ _ NWaFm. A'JRIIYNNMYFfi _ M1R WICNIL YaIPLLB AV VHYII�IIX(MRUI$MI 8 6 L-1 GENERAL NOTES 2 -------------------- PLANTING PLAN. IRRIGATION 5TM50L5: NOTES: , T _ .. Oi va u9PRt 1itl6e wF Y�F4P d W 6 ® ©1dz wo+srx9n: Hcvart6x v , I-} _.. , WAiPV. O4.roP�mXGRW14TiwOL 11115 dfiliG IpOGTO19PRT Ws NaC-e OT IWtlIE WPRL VN.VE 11NlLK (R).e C - f '_ _ _ N4 fl®.Wbl xana 0.lfd0 f� 91RMB®.di Olgl $9AT �eF W. TrflGL4 (f). Ld O TOYm Pl6lME 1if19:LIRY wsfFll f1.VelOO m I1tParcJ tt rlbawP vPem,rPe1 d liF mm11c GY6i0+(raRr£Weurvwl AVYWF) PF/S 4Nk116E 4PX AT Ibi V4K ©�{. Ate. ww Li OW3L XTMm LR�PAlId LPilm lE0.e 9O XiGmuPF 0.4X 9YUIW. WTNL d FWA 1 msm W mnwume PdrF¢soi sledmw\zaw vl3l tr sKr MVEn O MMI1D N5i0 aA lmMmiPrll Pux6miPAX®N: ■ R6HITECTe INC 14PPo BRFN'RI5E iE[0 uiF FCRFSi, u9""' NI'Ht+ (919) 91L99b FP%(9p1)RI-(]® u1m vio Ees R1Ni wnRz. vuvF N ®9 TiB FbA,Xd yyyE D 16P n MPwa PRWIIW qqq ® oiwe aim WP ®WIIp1e� ®µ.�L9�}} 44�'R Yp MW CdIB�LTX4wXW. .may,__ i1.i P.0 IYi6 MYN:NIOL SEQUOIA * �b i Wr4nvemad _ YIIDbIPI®gx:rl) .n _ex iW=---IX ml ea/16/t1 m/z, „ Ilrax zm FM e / xLYIII I M1tNM Y{4i9N WlR"iMY(MB1 � �� MIId YL9[PA'259V1Ld R4ldYtC N59NAlE VIMM//1WE MO UTMLl1F m8Y64WL SAPL'iri16TKE (9f)M0.YE191W _ � � ] @I1811 TE Pb{mKfB,ID. m11NLNE5GhY. E+WLYBiitlBlf9Y rtR MVIDAN �% u � � /�.-� _ !1 / i PT FSMSNM Ri , ¢l,]O,I, CIIFYI NENSWNS ff x� um� 1soi 418 PAWi9Wl.t@YJpPBEg P.0 PFE xp 9VIL 6145}/L® � \ � `�• 3 d/N/11 ti1FM PEN51CN5 6S 31R SI65 SWLfMRl lO 11¢E ibMdllk"dWYY61b 96T11VfYlUd9WLt9ffi ` ��5� IILLri PBinYm�M61�IRJPPm.P VSP 665 MYHMRwm Y1 dAZ9IIL � 1 IE61NME 94LLSP9WID WT P[611EAi TE TR dSID PE6TW 4�>�mnwlouPA mrtxLL@sYu�MM/®Bl wifSxmwltm '"s _ __�_ _= iIMIWCId 9tW XVAF P03ik RR fPIIPiIm.l•@dl6 !J11N[Id5V11 {fryd � � iii u WrdrPP wm lmSru romnxala bsenr. l 6. .. F iu sena m�m'alxaea]Pemwnu,wm waw ora axes muwlrtemnm. _ t� z wuwem.nem ui Pn19x1 xva Am nus wx anln rwsra wm lMnu irel .,'\ awr P1m,laxS 6PP!Iq xxt eP - -.- ` �.\ Yw1xi(XdxiIPX: mICMB, IWAIni VIwlS. IdibblilWLS Sm[1t�me811115. 11E YKgRX � �l CEDAR GROVE rmwnW slue xeue d m9Xa RL nam ovvFm er In fnd �� t%RIIWW4Lr p6iML TE SXnai941bme WlIE RI.Wd Nd R6Q1V]6M 'R_ - -1 FLAGPOLES ,IxEn6,WT �Pw�nX,dddWW iPPi� meinnmm slur rnrrxx dl4 emlm®aPaw emrm4F. m1a5,s¢Ivm ` 1 a �� �y 33892E d morels wune[mwRmnF ArlMna wlKPwmbmvMw A7wz wxRBMlf16 L1 1 o Icw Gtl ,T[1mG1W 0PMCi[R YW .WPE ML v _ ` l rve11M4ixm _ � � •— NM1 M91(6814YWNTXOf O118eE 4EiN1m W4YF®SIWLYAUfIL®tlP9 � � '�' f � �� ILL ItVIHLP1651194fBIGjg6MD@4NAIY(U 9� �.� _ I mW ms�TArlaP Id NPINW LETNI®MWNTd � � �%� 1 � - 6 ¢MIII-RGG VLLlB(.W/.)b9WIpTXE dT.W5 Mi W1. PE fN IlL 1YXG. w&8m I PIIIWPlf11'RO MT/L'ATO{ M NIwK1m 9lU. MP1R1m d P64x0�. : m a Mo PFdB1ZdN MLBWIgE RTie91 TE NGP.:f IEONO TF IYCI KW dmIIF N 6OIPI MVALL89Wt 9E pmrw4m PallF mxL 1 _ �� �, MS JE9?' 6 LIKWIMM W NY. VILYS EiL !Wi YNNX PAiFL NEv ti KR LSw Pb4>xm1 sur m P1vLa ummlm F wMP6F. Affb ko-rra,-a�z nF - rmnrreldxw.In-Are+unbsPawPAcm. 4wF ralevmX x4u.1mr,1F dAT<wEslx6 0fbnaenwra sleet l _ WE '� m�re� Mrz ��F s'®zxanF viol wealm, wsrmA _ - - — ' lFwm fm sds awIXAEifd4A1N6 vrw dx aoAm vbrz Px) Pmrnr Prilnwul � onm ddPld Fac snwF biuilc varecxaaiwx,o srATm sore, _ _ -_ s IRRIGATION NOTES AND �IA9ali Snip M5AT[WHfllm Z1ffi IIPY lNE 6lAmlwCspF: XpIIF}M Plumax9®rtAmFnalimT IRRIGATION PLAN m.W6U1CI Jl.IP4H a0 V4K W1-0IIV IAEmd®d1011E 1FIPBi iWd. - � _ '..-_' �• Y Ml dYe 4WYIeM] 9WL £MlM® W. V Pl% WEV lIlddllO AVY WA'ME MPVt IYF. - - ixiF XIINBEx. IRRIGATION NOTES =21 IRRIGATION PLAN Y 0..Yan �F� Qmvv-xn,s ©rmm wRtt R3) Qmw acne QO WHEi fBWEMA IxR 3 QRiGTR 1waIE PN �. m Oru�nm�vxria y.� i. vnrui e,aatwxtin'aiR x3 xfllAap 9f ^^ tmr=xm uw,6x caxxrteft vr,mr urw riaYwwmis mR ro YaIxW]YM. ox.m�,saa.�w a �c wwaa� .wr ©wcsatlu .ux,atlmmr of /�"/ gPK z,91H ue 9l '] ,RC 4191k TE ] , ] ' QI .FYG a.,,F oY�e6mxnx,wxnmRn �a��m� �w,w ow= c rto sxm» ©w -mo, rx s]lmxms ] QVl-MI4�96m Qp y.MW 6i6Y .{amaL! ®rc emtlta.Ra mQx mQ,QY u]ewm ©{-MH a:9.tl'iffAVF rxienA T :,�, .]�C [-�i =weum6er6-iNo. ]H1V 9rtWMI6FW P1iTlE'(xxN la'99a muvxwow w EQL101A DETAIL nisei= gTf105PHERIC VAGIUM BREAKER xlsxT= RISER WITH SPRAY OR 8U13B! --xis ROOT WATERING SYSTEM Iva gm= J�j. � w191 WY w A� �YIb316Nd wimc pxµ wn Nmd:EEOYG4Bt ]rmEUN.YlKYf rnY'ez wiwu r'wwaE umx wxYo a un wYux,G fsF rnf mFai U.., .a o � � �]]� �� Ivl Q O pd��' QQ ,xixa x'xip��m , 8 , `""mrex 13 3 T l%f1®I WNIVI4l RlmOl OlNfl fdlW V/I.YE axle f W1N„ AOx� mx mJv m/vMf eu6xr xewaxs -,,, d x cwm x n 5 P]/mI11 mSNi �xxS :616 ®1IQ 514RU8 PLANTING DETAIL 1..A V� WlM TM£ND HMAER BE SYRm IM R111RC1gIVY o-�xrtmu=. reY>r x6>Inx m,r mwrz ora xis n»Yrrms wre6��, Ymu�mmxN iuYnux aen6ns xnw a.Ysxe xa rwa Pl6 6j='ElRRr1E N[ q! NYf VIxE 9A6YE M'MIx 3m3 rt�F Nm y.6,m,. � � ,ms PIPE AND WIRE TRENCHING max]= , {IIGIpI1 BZ 3 TOIOIBt axq.T � ©N@14TRT xxow«xit (el'Pn4 ,eaxr unx a6mp ` Q+ wx soeaf MrgYl• V80IT M1N Rlal) 3 WALL MOUNT CONTROLLER �xr= '. pQY Rt MIaIME PF � QRC ®li iY£R 91 u s n x :"p"3x"�yY"�Y3��rry L'�4W]I Wa®GYVfLR REMOTE CONTROL VALVE «".xla CEDAR GROVE FLAGPOLES -0' --0 QxYm-xwnWraoxw6 3Qarie xswwx,��re 9x xiTM Mi mtl wa, �. { � muYa sxi, wr »a xrsae m, ro x wcm xi -y wort nrxEro 6•a>:r+r6 fuF r�l . wa eYwm mr a av ae6 gym. LA33842E flfmx,ntu II I i � p Q, uTFa=ui verve, 6a iasm. ' �\>J ^� 5 WMN904LL M°.IMN 4SA9 Hfl1Nd�N � - , . Qs mstix6� T ua oeru Nro. mo- ° ©xumtic mnvG Aa po p ] TDE WtAO 6 oo v6D OBIdR.9xTIX15{.BiP 9i ,,,,-.T. LANDSCAPING DETAILS xPYE ° °. 'Qxxrorz wmi. m, i6anarxum l=nuwu ac msw Rw.ruxRuinwi verve Qn wmsw6rxvar, wxr miALLAT W96 xld-'-'i6 wYBME EwE�wixLL VHVE RF®1!@NB?'. VMm P2Y xi'II60 VSNL VLL4ER'IXIFY l4 A51®Mlda iO /OILL%1A19tYK4E O a-q�90lk T. Y16LW=rRIAT Nx1 uVE le1N. x6R ,Xffix L-3 ISOLATION VALVE YtxEYr= DETA{L atFxt= a mMobile • Height of existing TMO sites and Distance to Proposed Candidate �. 1�1 IJ 1 Location ..:v: , .Mobil£`. A yw• a ✓ d rr Height of existing TMO sites and Distance to Proposed Candidate Location —Current Coverage Map 7` mnsi I^� Cedar Grove Part; ' .a Vee. v s .�- Overage Legena � >Sl nem iCdbwf aM1ogAII Jltbtl� a N Oa CL . m o 2 CL a) 00) w w Q) U4) o' a � o 0 o CL0 �i i I I c 0 o :4 U O C J N Zj '� Cd N w `C1 O r+ td -c U Y / per• i // r, N % yy MoxblR'k�!rP � TteRAUU � �. � � •� �Y Qy �'V Ir NiNi 17gW� w Dnaw,re�: - �,jl of��'4 i¢;;c�`'"+ .6 •' ,� ,bp Ly wS �� / 43 Vd fiunIL11 yg" .Y �iy `GW' f1 LyarFc P•1 ,y�1j.�`� 'rS / I l aayL N�A � d G ",�°t\)"Ja "yea ' .• dei p �!' 1a mac. a`.e+N' \ d� ,io0¢rv^1- '•'. ;��� die .�• Q,b'+l rel '.ate Lc ya'�^ \f�,r d, �9 V� \•rJ. � 6„ u9,d'n myl 4) G� 48� �5 p'. u•L' s tf ,� Dr 'rj 3°'rL4�6� d' A'c'.a d .;PA' i -i �y " .- o "R^l I y> 00' •F � .o "a �%• tr i a • .. 5�SY-rra' Dt'.:. 4« r.` ♦j4. - w � � 7 8 9 3 8 Y / per• i // r, N % yy MoxblR'k�!rP � TteRAUU � �. � � •� �Y Qy �'V Ir NiNi 17gW� w Dnaw,re�: - �,jl of��'4 i¢;;c�`'"+ .6 •' ,� ,bp Ly wS �� / 43 Vd fiunIL11 yg" .Y �iy `GW' f1 LyarFc P•1 ,y�1j.�`� 'rS / I l aayL N�A � d G ",�°t\)"Ja "yea ' .• dei p �!' 1a mac. a`.e+N' \ d� ,io0¢rv^1- '•'. ;��� die .�• Q,b'+l rel '.ate Lc ya'�^ \f�,r d, �9 V� \•rJ. � 6„ u9,d'n myl 4) G� 48� �5 p'. u•L' s tf ,� Dr 'rj 3°'rL4�6� d' A'c'.a d .;PA' i -i �y " .- o "R^l I y> 00' •F � .o "a �%• tr i a • .. 5�SY-rra' Dt'.:. 4« r.` ♦j4. - w T a sMobile, V Current Coverage Map l!—A33 2 Ea ?•✓� `, A4 Cedar Grove Park y,y f LA02317A (LA.02952A .4.8 Coverage legend \ !�ff ' v� �� ■ `�7e a8m lln Bmkmpl' r � aaaemm.waed,lm�r�r,��xl .84Sm�144!dOmlOUwwl 91 dem ldwmaa Msi9 inairolknel 0 T Aobile', Current Drive Test Map 60-_w y� `fI LA020 t J ^ti I Cedar Grove Park Drive Test Legend LA02317A • Up to -78dBm (indoor Coverage) -84 to -78 d8m (In Vehicle C overage) -91 to -84 dam (On Street Coverage) • Below -91 d8m �� ow �W� '1 �lobilev� Current Prediction and Current Drive Test M ® I 4 aps ver OF 1.YA2A LA02317A ��►' �JJ�, LA02952A 13 r L■P63 3 2 E', IV Cedar Grove Park ,-I.m urive lest t_egena • Upto-76dBm (IndoorCoverage) -84 to -76dBm (in Vehicle Coverage) -91 to -84 dBm (On Street C overage) • Below -91 dBm ' T,,Mobily, Solo Coverage Map i.. 46 9 Cedar Grove Park LA02317A Caerage( nd �h, _. iff `�„��f,� ■<•i6aemlttleuiNogl, `� � _ �,�` ...itl tl&dlo•El dem IM VHIK,'el. .. � f ��r+ ■ Addemm�9tdeml�ukoal � yr`�r � � >9tdem10uWarMerynalmnme) LA02( Solo Coverage Map i.. 46 9 Cedar Grove Park LA02317A Caerage( nd �h, _. iff `�„��f,� ■<•i6aemlttleuiNogl, `� � _ �,�` ...itl tl&dlo•El dem IM VHIK,'el. .. � f ��r+ ■ Addemm�9tdeml�ukoal � yr`�r � � >9tdem10uWarMerynalmnme) ill, T 1 oftile, I I Solo Drive 'fest Map LA02317A 2952A LA33600A �k y- Cedar Grove } � ` �� � `� Park �• `� LA 2320A, ,fk•' tr1`r'ti % !J Drive Test Legend • Upto-76 dBm (Indoor C overage) =84 to -76 dBm (In Vehicle C overage) -91 to -84 dBm (On Street C overage) • Below -91 dBm 1 a mUk, Solo Prediction and Solo ®rive Test Maps Overlap T,,Mobile, Proposed Coverage Map MANY FACTORS DRIVE TECHNOLOGY CHOICE The choice of which technology to use is driven by a variety of lecfr tical requirements, Including, • Reliability of service. • Coverage objective. • Present capacity and future expansion capabilities. to meet customer demands. • Ability to meet federal and stats requirements for emergency services. • Ease of service and maintenance in the event of an earthquake, fire, flood, or other catastrophic event. • Ease of installing system and service upgrades. T - •Mobile: To meet customers' increasing demand for reliable coverage, wireless carriers must continually expand their networks. When doing so, carriers carefully evaluate which technologies and operating systems will best meet the needs of the network, while also considering factors like location and municipal requirements. T -Mobile and other wireless carriers have a federally protected right to make this technology choice. There are two primary options—a standard wireless telecommunications facility and a Distributed Antenna System (DAS)—each of which is effective in specific situations. Different environments require different technology solutions Carriers design new sites to deliver optimal service improvements while complying with all pertinent, federal, state, and local laws. Choosing the right technology does not conform to a one -size -fits -all approach. Every neighborhood has a unique set of characteristics—such as population density, topography, and public safety needs—which affect network performance. Carriers take all this into account when designing a network and choosing which technology to deploy. Standard wireless telecommunications facility is most versatile technology option A standard wireless telecommunications facility is the optimal choice in most cases, because it provides the largest geographic area of coverage and may be easily upgraded with antennas or cables to meet growing customer demand. A standard cell site consists of antennas and associated radio equipment located on the ground or within a structure. Coverage and capacity: Provides coverage to a larger geographic area and/or increased capacity. Resign flexibility.: Offers optimal design flexibility by allowing for co -location of other carrier antennas, use of screening options like landscaping, painting schemes, and flush mounting of antennas and use of existing above -ground infrastructure such as light and power poles in right-of-ways. Network flexibility: Offers the most network flexibility. This technology Is designed to efficiently handle new technologies and network upgrades, so that the network can meet evolving customer needs for enhanced voice, text, and video capabilities. Network reliability: Is less likely to be compromised In a catastrophic failure—vital for maintaining access to E9-1-1 centers and other essential public services in the event of an emergency or natural disaster. This Is because each cell site in the network is separate. TELECOMMUNICATIONS Distributed Antenna System (DAS) technology is ACT OF 1996 effective solution In custom environments The Federal Communications Cnmmission A Distributed Antenna System (DAS) is a technology originally developed for in -building (FCC) is responsible for Implementing the areas to contain the signal to an Interior area that Is typically difficult to cover. DAB Is a Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under these rules,' licensed wireless carriers fundamentally different technology than that used for standard wireless facilities. It's effective are entitled to make technological and in unique environments, such as airports, malls, stadiums, casinos, and corporate campuses. operational decisions free from state Coverage: Depends on surrounding physical characteristics—same as with a standard and local governmental interference. FCC regulation also requires that these wireless facility. But because DAS nodes are typically the height of a second -story window, governments act In a competitively coverage is extremely limited, and the technology requires more antennas and above -ground neutral and non-discriminatory manner infrastructure, What's more, major roadwork and sidewalk construction may be needed to towards all telecommunications locate a fiber network underground. providers. The result isthat while state and local governments can make Capacity: Does not effectively scale for increased capacity. Because there is limited power in determinations regarding the placement, the system and each user on a DAS system must share this power, the coverage area in a construction, and modification of wireless DAS network is dramatically reduced. The more power that must be shared among users, the facilities, the choice of technology is weaker the signal and the smaller the coverage area. left to each carrier to determine, in accordance with applicable FCC rules. Network flexibility: Cannot be expanded as easily as standard wireless facilities, because of the limited capacity of a DAS system. When all positions are taken, co -location or expansion within that system is no longer possible. More nodes or a new system will be required, which means many more antenna facilities. And network performance may be affected. Network reliability. May be compromised or experience catastrophic failure in the event of a public emergency or natural disaster. This is because DAS networks use a single fiber network to host varying numbers of client uses over a large area. STANDARD WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES VS.I rhr IIIIIII IIIIIII�IIIII/l���l' Standard base station a� LEARN MORE �� 1. ■i Please visit wwwt-mobile-iakeaction.com DAS base sail hub LEGEND, i_) Homes t Utility poles = Fiber-optic cables ■ Antennas Nodes for access to additional information about wireless communications. DAS typically requires more antenna facilities to match, or come close to, the coverage of a CONTACT US single standard wireless site. If you have questions on the information provided in this fact sheet, please contact natextaffairs©t-mobile. com. T -MOBILE USA Mixed Sources 12920 SE 38th Street FSC ,FederalCommunioatlone Col, ,ntlesl Bellevue, Washington 98006 Teleconvnwlluxtlons Act of Me. See eediorm 253 Urd XI d M nMabllu USA, Inc. I- Mold 4 aleekmlly FoollIratlemi,6enb IIx•map,a,61I.ol 11 oIrWOplarh al Wu9dhe ieleam, AG. SIIaLL WW vpJemaH til i Mobilo USN Inc EXPERT OPINION ON SAFETY OF WIRELESS FACILITIES "There is no convincing scientific evidence that base stations end wireless networks cause adverse health effects." -Word Health Organization • 'There is no reason to believe that [cell] towers could constilute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students. " - Federal Communications Commission' • 'The chance of health problems occurring among people living and working below base stations is negligible." - The Health Council of the Netherlands' • "Cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer." - American Cancer Society" T • .Mobilee ,World IlIth Organlzallon'.'Elect ooragnatc fields and pull In heaIf/eaRe staltnns and wdNtess Iechturlug lPs Facl sheet 604, May 2(1470. nslaml Cgmnwnlcations lcommisel it Office of E U1rI R9II In al ,d TenOnalmgy (OEr), FAO on the .^.aloly of, adfio Iregl.lenry (NPS. updolod 12/11108 • the Health r.."Undl Of the N,fiherbmds. "GSM bele fletens, V%N, I)i Ihllgaf10n 1io,2000/'I@e A,, -,mo Cancar Socmr, ' What Ara CNIII,1In T(W.J a." upflnrdJ' Dl/n' 1UG. Scientists have studied radio frequencies (RF), the kind of energy emitted by cell sites and other common household items, for decades. Hundreds of studies have been conducted around the world with results published in highly -respected scientific journals. These studies consistently conclude that there is no evidence that exposure to the low level of RF signals emitted by cell sites poses a health risk. How cell sites work A wireless network operates on a grid that's divided Into geographic areas or "cells." Within each geographic cell Is a wireless facility or cell site that contains antennas, cables, and low -powered radio equipment required to send and receive calls from wireless devices. In the process of sending and receiving signals; wireless networks emit low levels of RF energy. Some of this energy is emitted by the wireless device, and some by the cell site. This document addresses current scientific findings on the amount of RF signals that people are exposed to from cell sites. FCC regulates RF emissions to ensure public safety To ensure that routine exposure to cell sites is safe, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the level of radio frequency that a site may emit. Note that the level of exposure to RF energy from a cell site depends on a variety of factors, including your location relative to the cell site and the amount of cellular traffic at a given time. The FCC's RF exposure guidelines are based on recommendations from two expert organizations—the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)—and from a variety of US. federal safety and health agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), The guidelines are tested under scenarios presenting abnormally high RF emission conditions, in which a site operates at 100 percent capacity 100 percent of the time. Such an event is unlikely to occur, therefore providing a wide margin of safety. RF IS RADIO Typically„ actual RF emissions are well under safety limits Cell phones and cull sites use radio In practice, the ground-level exposure to wireless cell sites is typically well under the FCC's frequency (RF) energy to send and exposure limits. For example: receive voice, text images, and more, Calls are delivered in the form of radio . When standing approximately 300 feet away from a typical cell site, the RF emission is a very small waves, also called "signals" or "radio percentage, less tllarl i percent of what the FCC allows. At this distance, it would take more than 400 frequencies" This is the same technology cell sites at a location to even come close to reaching the limits allowed by the FCC, that has been used for radio broadcasts since the late 1 Boos. nF signals also • Even when someone is standing approximately 100 feet away, the RF emission is only 1.06 percent of transmit television broadcasts and the allowable limits, and it would take more than 90 sites to reach these limits. enable common devices in your home to work, such as wireless routers, cordless At a cell site, signals are directed from the antenna toward the horizon, and RF energy telephones, and baby monitors, dissipates exponentially with distance, So the height of cell site antennas, the fenced-off areas around them, and their low power levels combine to assure that the actual RF exposure Is a fraction of the FCC's limits for safe exposure. What experts say The RF level that cell sites use to transmit phone calls is very low. It's much lower than the levels emitted by radio and television broadcasts and common wireless devices like cordless phones and baby monitors. In addition, the RF emitted by cell sites is what's called "non-ionizing" energy. This kind of energy is too weak to produce molecular changes that can lead to damage in biological tissue. Independent organizations concur with FCC guidelines Doctors, biologists, engineers, and other scientists from leading independent organizations throughout the world have conducted or participated in studies of RF energy over the last fifty years. These organizations include the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization, and the Health Council of the Netherlands. The results of these studies have been replicated and their findings have been published in notable scientific journals that are reviewed and/or scrutinized by scientific or academic peers prior to publication, The consensus of these studies, which is consistent with the FCC's findings, is that there is LEARN MORE no evidence that the level of exposure the public receives from cell site RF emissions is hazardous to health. For these reasons, It is considered safe for people to live, work, and Please visit wwwr-mobile-takeaction.com for additional information about wireless play near a cell site. communications and links to the American Cancer Society, CTIA, FCO, and others. CONTACT US If you have questions on the information provided In this factsheet, please contact natextaffairs rr't-mobile,com T-MOBILE USA 12920 SE 38th Staeat Bellevue, Washington 98006 4i Rlll1A l�Mb GI im Inc rm, ib lr.awtt,dly lOIII h^tlln3rkmmAt. arq 11tH mrpenla rpla lAetlCtlCll,�xdGbl,ItL'10 TdeMum Ae.9lVxug,'91ar5amylnme,i vad,mmA.ol f-M Ma'L15A.n JUST WHAT IS A CELL SITE? A cell site, or wireless facility, consists of equipment that is mounted to a structure In order to provide wireless service in a parliculai area. Roughly two-thirds of T -Mobiles cell sites are built on existing structures like buildings, water tanks, and utility poles, The equipment includes: 1. Antennas Antennas let your mobile phone send and receive calls. The number of antennas varies per site—typically 9 to 12, Antennas range in size and may be mounted on top of a structure, on its side, or even within it. 0 2, Cables Cables connect the antennas to the radio equipment. 3. Radio equipment A cell site typically includes two or three radio cabinets that areapproximatelythe size of an average refrigerator.. T . .Mobile.. There are many ways to design a cell site so that it blends in with the surrounding area. The right structure for each location varies, based on the network's requirements, customer needs, local laws and ordinance, and the nearby landscape. T -Mobile works diligently to find the best solution for each circumstance and to provide people with the best possible service and value. Cell sites can be effectively disguised when placed on existing buildings Because customers increasingly use their wireless devices at home, cell sites need to be in residential neighborhoods. Often they can be located on existing buildings, as was done on this historic Tudor -style apartment building. The antennas and supporting structures were painted and positioned to match the existing fapade. Multiple wireless carriers are co -located on this site, further minimizing its impact. Other tall structures can also house cell sites effectively For good, reliable communications, the laws of physics require an unobstructed line -of -sight radio signal path between a customer's phone and the cell site. This means cell sites often need to be on structures that are taller than most of the surrounding ones. Church steeples are a great option. They provide the necessary height, and the antennas and cables can easily he hidden inside their spires. Flagpoles work well, but have special requirements and limitations In areas where there is no infrastructure, a flagpole can be a good solution if it complements the surrounding area. In windy conditions, flags create noise disturbances, however, there are workable solutions. Placing a community flag on a flagpole instead of a U.S. flag eliminates the need for special lighting. And using a flagpole without a flag on It eliminates the noise problems. CHOOSING THE RIGHT DESIGN IS A BALANCING ACT T -Mobile works hard to build the least obtrusive, most technically feasible sites. It is important to understand that a site must be acceptable from a radio engineering perspective, as Well as leasing. zoning, land use, and construction perspectives, To achieve the right balance, T -Mobile works closely with planning boards, citizen groups, public service commissions, landlords, and other municipal representatives to discover the most effective solution for each locale. Weare committed to resolving issues in a way that satisfies community needs and also enables us to provide the highest -quality, most technically -feasible services. LEARN MORE Please visit www.t-mobile-takeaction.com for additional Informal about wireless. communications. CONTACT US If you have: questionson the information provided in this fact sheet, please. contact National External Affairs at natextaffairs@t-mobile.com. Artificial trees can hide wireless fa while blending in with the Iandscar Fabricated trees are another structure that can effectively house cell sites. They can be designed to resemble a wide range of trees—pine, fir, palm, cacti, and more—and when placed in the midst of real trees, can effectively disguise the wireless equipment. But on their own, artificial trees may be visually obtrusive. Cell sites can also be concealed in or on light poles and other structures Another way to disguise a cell site Is to place it in or on light stanchions and other structures, at airports, parks, parking lots, and other recreational areas. Structures like these are specially fabricated to enable wireless signal transmission and are designed to resemble any nearby structures. Sometimes a new structure is required for height and other considerations Where there aren't appropriate preexisting structures, a new standalone structure may be needed. Often a new structure can cover a larger area, accommodate multiple carriers, and be less obtrusive than a telephone or utility pole. But options like these can have serious drawbacks including adding bulk to the skyline, restricting the property owner's use of the land, and requiring more disruptive construction and maintenance. T -MOBILE USA 12920 SE 38th Street [Bellevue, Washington 98006 020,T.Moble10X,IncTMWM,l%n(.da.lyrx,�lotnIXdtwmmrk,eMtv1o.Vlte rotor iso trademark u t'k IWt Talon,,, q�, REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS Growing demand for wireless service creates the need to add wireless SHOW PRESENCE OF NEARBY communications facilities in residential neighborhoods. While there has CELL SITES DOES NOT been public concern about the impact these sites may have on property ADVERSELY AFFECT values, to date there is no convincing evidence that there is any adverse PROPERTY VALUES' effect. T-Mobile recognizes that maintaining property values in the vicinity "Cellular phone towers do not have a of a new site is of critical concern to homeowners. We carefully consider measurable or identifiable Impact on residential property values " the needs of local communities when selecting new cell site locations as The valuation Group, Inc. in astudy we strive to meet your needs for reliable service. conducted for Twin Cities 13-County Metropolitan Area, Minnesota and Western Minnesota, January 2007 Importance of reliable wireless coverage to customers • "Not asingle example was found to Cell sites need to be located where people use their cell phones, and people increasingly support the test hypothesis that property values decline after the installation of a use them at home and throughout their neighborhoods for personal communications, WI-Fior wireless antenna." commerce, business communications, and more. In fact, recent studies indicate that more -Taranteuo and Associates in a study of than half of all cell phone calls are made from homes. What's more, according to a study numerous properties and communities from The Nielsen Company, more than 20 million U.S households (17 percent) do not have In southern California, April 2008 landlines and rely solely on mobile phones.' • "There is no diminution In the value of homes with a view of a talecominunl- Dependable wireless service is critical to personal and public safety cations facility, " Another reason wireless networks need to provide reliable coverage and handle high capacity -Lane appraisals, Inc. In a study of Alrmont, New York, May 2006 is because both people in distress and emergency responders now rely on cell phonesin times of emergency. • The National Emergency Number Association (NEMA) estimates that more than half the emergency 9-1-1 calls in the U.S. today are made from cell phones? • Per Pew Research, 74 percent of Americans who own mobile phones said they have used their handheld devices in an emergency and gained valuable help.' Questions about wireless and home values Some homeowners have questions about whether the presence of new cell sites affects their ability to sell their homes, one issue is whether there are undesirable health effects from living or working near a tower. The Federal Communications Commission and independent organizations like the American Cancer Society and World Health Organization consistently say there is no evidence that exposure to the low level of RF signals emitted by cell sites T -Mobile ` poses a health risk. Another issue is the assumption that new towers may degrade views or otherwise be unsightly. Wireless carriers are sensitive to the needs of each community and work to ,Propwiyvaluestudies condocisdaurossmeus for reduce the visual Inipact of a cell site on the local community through design elements like l'-Motile by Indeperdunl nppralsm will, no yeated Interestlnthereavoe.,iiaNleGencompeny",welly camouflage and landscaping. In addition, T-Mobile is committed to minimizing the need Milli, u G. Telq,hona Hnuseolda are wlrane-Only' for new freestanding structures, and roughly two-thirds of our wireless facilities are built on ng/wim ,Nniir,ml2nrz tlorcyNumbwAseocmtbrr wlraiess 9 , ovom""+Pew Researclh centers l'ew existing structures, such as local government buildings, rooftops, and utility poles. Inlarriel & American Llln Prntecl are Ansoolatad Frnsu nnl lu 11 "G'nll Phnua Fnpd:N,'046PVn3 How wireless availability can enhance neighborhoods Real estate professionals continually tell us that reliable wireless coverage is of significant value to homeowners, Many buyers test the wireless signal of a prospective home as they walk to the front door, and most won't consider a home without reliable coverage. This anecdotal Information is reinforced by an article published In the professional journal of the Appraisal Institute. In looking at real estate appraisals conducted in the northeast U.S., the article states, "The advantages afforded by telecommunication facilities more often than not outweigh any negative effects," The conclusion Is that wireless communication service "enhances local communication, education, productivity, work efficiency efforts, and public safety services and security." 5 Increased wireless usage drives need for expanded wireless network Clearly, the availability of reliable wireless service has become a "must -have" for new homes and neighborhoods. In order to accommodate the increasing call and data volume, as well as avoid unreliable coverage, wireless carriers must add sites to wireless networks in local areas. Independent appraisers across the country have analyzed the potential impact new sites might have on local property values. These studies demonstrate that having a cell site nearby does not diminish property values. LEARN MORE Please visit www.t-mobile-takeaction.com for additional information about wireless communications. CONTACT US If you have. questions on the informatlon provided in this fact sheet, please contact natextaffa irs@t-mobile, corn. T -MOBILE USAMixed SourcesIT— c7nomea s. Anclmllo, "The VVlr�eav Persblral -12920 SE 88th Street FSC communications services (PCq nouslryr The BellevLke, Washington 98006 AWMISial Jou Tal. July 2001. letceenc1,19 appraisal findings Tra Rhoda Island and Manwhoso118- V20q➢LM0a1eJ61,_ Ina T MUMie is R r Istansdlmaii nnE llln mixsI dolor Is a IrwimusNol ux,O Ilalinl0mA0 Sial tI is omq,ii tl vatlanmAo[T.M,,We Jl Ina Mobile.. ILE USA _HfhsyW Washingim 9mm e4.41151frc'i1pM1lkreMraryryi9.ertdirs�n�,a.O�M1¢nau=T3:Ob'sxlrz�kmafk rl. RVI¢F?aYFi�mFG 35Yby1Fe�'¢a �!B6tiTJlmmvhd TYtlLYNIlY41¢v h 9 T . -Mobile•' Growing the nation's wireless networks helps us all stay connected to our families, our jobs, our world. a DID YOU KNOW? Wireless If all cell phone subscribers in the U.S. formed their own. country, it would be the fourth most -populated country in the world. For many people, their cell phone is as integral to their daily lives as their car keys and wallet. way we live Wireless use is booming Mors hum 80 percent of all Americans subsrube recall phone service. People of aR ages rely Increasingly on their cell phones to talk. text. send photos, search the Internet. and more. To Tupelo the ever-growing volume of calls and transmission of inforlimlicn, the capabiittles of wiraless networks must cominually Improve. It tokos a robust physical network of antennas, phone lines and epuiprnent to successfully make those wireless connections. Cell phone use overtakes landlines In 2006. call phones became the predominant way Americans communicate tpy phone. That s when minutes of cell phone use began exceeding the. minutesof use on landline phones. Many people are now dropping their landlinesaltogether in four of their cell phones, U.S. government clusters fndiwtd that 136 percent of winless customers in the U.S. rely on Their cell phone as Their amV phone—theybe'cut The cord' and gone entirely wireless. This dramatic Increase in call phone use can put a strain on wireless networks. Unless the networks expand to keep pace with increasing consumer demand, consumers may experience dropped calls, poor tall clarity and spotty coverage. You deserve reliable coverage We rely on our cell phones to connected, which means we need seanilessw hilesscoverage, And greet vnreless coverage takes awelldesigned, robust network of wireless facilities _ across the country. To meet the growing demand for Wireless communications T -Mobile andalherwirtless carriers must ci nilnually expand their networks of cell sties across the country, i.ii How wireless works Cell phone Calls travel by air and rated A wira.ae artwork oparates anagrid thetas divided inia gea9raphic when wan make a one, year can phare sands year Wien or Wireless communication isn't measo,wits.Who. rachgeata mcceell is awnless lacildra, information vie and. signals to mean she seting your area. wnsherind Canters la«paweredratl.egulpmem rewired to send The Call elle than fmwardsyaer. 11 thmcghthewna indrastrulare completely wire -free. ittakes rndrecove Cels. Ih.l leaden. Calls use. wireless technology and a A.01MeLaws aresmittars and receivers; connected no antennas, Your call aces tea cemral facility, celled aaretch that ide aides physical infrastructure to send In pravida sewee within He coverage area. shorty, the areas covered the destination loryour Call and mrealds h via the puhlk udephena by nwh wall ace wa&,on..11 can area aeamleaey ream ane. all retamk,ue'udrashucturethei laMline call a w. Year cellwiga and receive your cell phone calls. site to around as a Callrr mwn eeauad. dieNy, to a larAilee phone or Ws headed to another cell phone, it will travel to anmher worth, a cell site, and than be delivered t the call phone vu radio sigMl. 0 "JIM)w- 4ft CELL RILE b New capabilities, fled -and -true technology Cell phones might seem like the ultimate sign of the new millennium, buteinaccas wrta unications rely on a technology that'sbeen around for more than 160 years Your call phone sends information—whether it's voice. text, images. music or mare—in the form of radio waves, also called "signals" or `radiofrequencies' (RF). This is the same technology that delivers radio and television broadcasts and thatmakes cordless telephones. baby monitors and wireless maters work in your home. Providing reliable coverage Ifthem are gaps between coverage areas or when demand exceeds the capacityof a cell she's antennas. the wireless signal may he Inst It the network call have enough cell sites to handle call volumes, a cell phone call may be dropped (you lose signal)or blocked tyuu can't make a call). Wireless signals travel primarily by line of sight: so there must be a clear path between your phone and the nearest site to transmit and receive calls. Wireless service may get disrume d because obstacles like buildings, hills and Vers block the signal. To have reliable wireless service iOL n your home, a cell site must be located reasonably claw to your house, Closer than If you anly use your cell phone autdoom. ETV. .7 T-Mohile's goal is to avoid losing connections by filling in coverage gaps and ensum our network can handle call capacity—so our customers can make calls indoors, outdoors and on the move With the fast growth in cell phone use and capabilities, providing reliable coverage demands that our network infrastructure be continually expanded and upgraded. tabu rithesafery oohing or irlgneariewhali essfacility? ti orsah ever thetirld curt ... 11, M. potential haahM1 aeect of aF y. Theses Melly, conclude met is rw evidence that P from Wireless is poses a public beaus Mrse. F solution from s issued cell srte Is resets increases (.110al %I of what next cammmacetiona cammissien albws. liwwM tale sea raltAwanM fes at a locatkn to even mase ukee chug Me Mmes alke dby Me FCC. reraregulatiersaboul PF protect public healthy tmless industry u tightly went" FCC whf eh sols and enforces new waUrG.seienceMsed FIF emission use Is protect public bells. He operates all its Wireless fill Ann MeFCC onau ourre. Typical RF exposvretrom cr Roughly half the 9-1-1 calls mode in the U.S. today come from a cell phone. Wireless communication is increasingly vital to public safety as people in distress and emergency responders rely on cell phones in times of emergency. Wireless and safety anr Cell phones for personal and public safety 7 -Moble typically handles more than 60,000 emeagenq,9-i-1 calls every day across thn countryand That number is grosing rapidly -In many commurit the availablbiy of Chihie cell phone networks enables emergency responders to provide faster assistance 16 those in peed Cell phones are an important safely consideration for young and aid alike. hotly percent of children, apes 12 to 14, have can phones and parents cite safety as a primacy reason they provide cell phones to their chlldreri According to AARP, 56 percent of Americans over the age of 65 ova a cell phone primanly, for personal safety and security. cell phones in emergencies To improve the ability of eme(gencyservices to quickty assist those In need, a caper location system called Enhanced 9-1-1 (1 is being deployed across the country. 'EON I provides three functions to help connect emergency responders end distressed wireless callers more quickly. • Ensures that a wireless 9-1-1 call Is muted to the most appropriate emergency dispatch call center • Provides emergency dispatchers, with the callback number or the caller • Pastures theapproximate location of the distressed caller E9-1-1 requires a strong wireless network T -Mobile is committed to providing the wireless infrastructure required to fully support Eg II capabilitiess. That means placing enough faclldiesthroughout communities to ensure that a distressed caller's wireless phone has adequate signal available to make the emergency call, to stay connected with the 9-1-1 operator, and to be located by emergency responders. I"d" il 21, .� Arasue . - .asp_ -. fire G Peso nervy. Ave .. . Roughly half the 9-1-1 calls mode in the U.S. today come from a cell phone. Wireless communication is increasingly vital to public safety as people in distress and emergency responders rely on cell phones in times of emergency. Wireless and safety anr Cell phones for personal and public safety 7 -Moble typically handles more than 60,000 emeagenq,9-i-1 calls every day across thn countryand That number is grosing rapidly -In many commurit the availablbiy of Chihie cell phone networks enables emergency responders to provide faster assistance 16 those in peed Cell phones are an important safely consideration for young and aid alike. hotly percent of children, apes 12 to 14, have can phones and parents cite safety as a primacy reason they provide cell phones to their chlldreri According to AARP, 56 percent of Americans over the age of 65 ova a cell phone primanly, for personal safety and security. cell phones in emergencies To improve the ability of eme(gencyservices to quickty assist those In need, a caper location system called Enhanced 9-1-1 (1 is being deployed across the country. 'EON I provides three functions to help connect emergency responders end distressed wireless callers more quickly. • Ensures that a wireless 9-1-1 call Is muted to the most appropriate emergency dispatch call center • Provides emergency dispatchers, with the callback number or the caller • Pastures theapproximate location of the distressed caller E9-1-1 requires a strong wireless network T -Mobile is committed to providing the wireless infrastructure required to fully support Eg II capabilitiess. That means placing enough faclldiesthroughout communities to ensure that a distressed caller's wireless phone has adequate signal available to make the emergency call, to stay connected with the 9-1-1 operator, and to be located by emergency responders. mvlmgarxgsbeimsralled In eighbprhppolmpegmy ertyvwue? nota appraisals shoe, Nal NoOeny aren't impepad bxaoao a cel l uvby. And geatity ui niredecs eia kr. W be a raper with s oanided ng a Mme psxhaY. roam aper, o run u. an, mean Ina e,seen pmneN wan rookie, npecVw new Immo, aaryg ihuy rhornswiN SlrayMrcreosaervrse. How new sites° Growing demand for wireless -t service and new technologies can overburden wireless networks leading to unreliable coverage. ---. T -Mobile and other carriers must expand their networks to maintain the quality that customers rightfully expect. are selected When a new cell site is needed Determiningwhen and where a new wireless facility is required to improve service is a rigorous process based on scientific analysis and modeling, as well as customer input T-Moblle analyzes manycrileda, such as the following factors. • Network performance data Rr engineering experts conduct �hwtiwlpus scientific analysis at T -Mobile's network, examining network performance data, call volume and usage parents. • Customer satisfaction surveys and feedback: Customer feedback and research by independent organizations help Tel assess wireless service quality and determine where improvements are needed. • Reakfime drive test data: T -Mobile engineering teams and independent researchers simulate our customers' cel experience by driving through service areas with advanced testing equipment. They collect network pedormence statistics to gain precise, real-time measurements of network quality. Selecting the best site OnceT-Moble determines that anew cell site is needed in a specific area to provide reliable caysrageand handle call volume, an exam insist of the area is conducted. A T -Mobile team visits the am to identifyfeasble locations and potential ailesareevaluated tram the fallowing perspectives to pinpoint the hest location for the new see. • Scientific analysis: RF Engineers Identify whlrh location offers the best technical solution to address coverage gaps and wireless service needs. • Zoning and permitting: Zoning specialists ensure that all local zoning, permitting and holding codes, plus all state and federal regulations, can be complied with at a local • Real estate: Site acquisition specialists look for viable leasing arrangements, such as an amenable landlord and mundaheclock site access for tech riclans, • Construction: Construction managers ensure that the proposed site can be constructed safdty and will meet all municipal building codes and safety standards. PenniNing and construction Once location that best meets all creed. is selected, T -Mobile conducts duediligence to confirm that the selected site is Truly the hest option—from scientific, zonhp, leasing, construction and permiding perspectives. Then TMobile works with brat officials to obtain all required permits and negotiates a lease with the properly owner. Once permits have been Issued by all local, state and formal agencies, T -Mobile builds the facility, starting in closecontact with the landlord and local building department through the construction process. I areeaiawd..66haes edinranilabEaiareas4 m needwbelaana.ka,a ewe.call nnile andistas elr pFwrss i�rcraslrtglyartaxne �mvghaui mw neigMwmn W e. rss amen meas adtl nbY.snes ro ianwAsln tlrex areas ro I,wMle xxxtingaananaaara..wme. T -Mable works m cu{anate on an existing onuentne halon erecting a new sWcl.ev Ilk. this monopole. Buildings work will as locations to minimize the visual impact u nretennos TMoblle paenea.0 insinidpal governments In lease space ami locate am.nnas on lea hEi s like werartanks. T -Mobile then parcers On schools, hospitals and places at warship as locations f rreall Stas. Existing Wilily infrastmgwe,Yach as a ImnseNssion tower, makesan excellent location for cell sites Cell sites to fit every landscape Cell sites come in all shapes and sizes. They're all around us. They're what provide the call quality an coverage you need to stay connected toyour work There are more than 210000 cell was installed in the U.S., eccorciinr to the wireless industry associallon. GI ]A. Thanks to conamunl advance in wireless Technototi, The cell sites built today are typically hot as overwhelming as the early radio lower -s. Wireless antennas are also ithern ly smaller than in the past and can be mounted onto existing structures such as utility pales, water tanks or church steeples. Wireless facilifies in your community T -Mobile is sensitive to the needs of each community and works to reduce the visual impact or a call site on the local area. For example, T -Mobile prefers to Install antennas on existing structures at an structures that are shared with olherwheless carriers whenever possible. Roughly two-thirds of T -Mobiles w e lags facilities a, bulk on existing structures including. • Local government-owned properties; such asbuildngs and water tanks • Existing cell sites operated by other carriars • Raohops or sides of community buildings, suchas hospitals, churches, schools and shopping malls • Utility poles and electricaltransmission towers When T -Mobile cannot use an existing structure; we take special care to locate the most suitable property fora freestanding site. We then design the site to have minimal visual impact and work to: allow space for other carriers, to locate on the facility. Learn more The wiroless industry assorrWicn. CTIA. i5 anmellent resource dor mom details oa how wireless lechnologyworke and other wirelesslopics. Visa www;C-RA-org, Lesm nowemorgency responders across the country are Using EB -1-I capaistmosto cannectwith people in disuessmore quickly. VIsk www.lcc.pov/¢911. To learn more about the studies conducted on the potential effects of RF energy on health, visit http:/ evetcl-mobile-takeac5on:com7 important_Imks.html. You'll find links to several independent resources and scientific agencies that conduct studies, such as the Wood Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Contact us If you haw questions about the Information provided In this booklet or want to let us know why relialee wireless coverage is important to you, please contact tellusycumtory@t-mobile.com. Take action for better connections T -Mobile is continually, working to improve the quality of our network Hearing from our customers and supporters is critical to that process. If you supped T -Mobile's efforts to improve coverage in your area, let us know' Complete the post-paid card in this booklet and return f to T Mobile or visit www.t-mobile-takeaction.com. Add your voice to the thousands of T -Mobile customers and supporters across the country who agree that having great wireless coverage in their homes, officesand neighborhoods is important. ATTACHMENT D PUBLIC COMMENTS SINCE DECEMBER 14, 2010 Swiontek, Ryan From: Home Dai [homedai@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Please stop the Cell Tower in Cedar Grove 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. 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 Park. 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. 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 1 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. 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, Yujun S. 2 Swiontek, Ryan From: bobn@babaluba.com Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:00 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: I support the T -Mobile tower Hi - good speaking with you yesterday. This is just to confirm I support the Cedar tree style T -Mobile tower construction in Tustin to help improve the quality of service in the Tustin Area. Bob Nason 155 Pasadena Ave. Tustin, CA 92780 1 Swiontek, Ryan From: chen chen [cheninca1998@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Design Review 09-033 Dear Mr. Biggs, Ms Binsack and Mr. Swiontek, As a resident of Tustin City, I am writting to you to let you know that I DO NOT support installing a wireless telecommunications facility in a residential area and near a school. I would highly suggest you and other authorities to reexamming the design and select a better location for the tower. Should you have any concerns, feel free to contact me at this email address. Best, Chen Li City of Tustin Resident Swiontek, Ryan From: boli stevenson [blackkeysbob@yahoo.com) Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:18 AM To: savecedargrovepark@gmall.com Cc: Biggs, David; cbinsack@tustinca.org; Swiontek, Ryan; citycouncil@tustin.org Subject: 0.01 microwatts per centimeter squared cautionary target level (indoor) of RF emitted by the proposed cell phone tower Dear Residents and City officials of Tustin, I an a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The consensus of Science is that certain levels of chronic long-term RF exposure cause serious damage to the human body, The present federal safety limits for RF exposure have been found by scientists worldwide to be totally inadequate. Therefore, in deciding whether to install a cell phone tower or not, the safety limits that one has to adopt, if one's goal is to protect the health of children and adults, are those that Science has determined to be truly protective of the public health. This is because it may be years before the federal government gets around to revising its safety limits. Below is the link to an important scientific paper that was published last year in Pathophysiology. Pathophysiology is an Elsevier publication. As most practicing scientists know, Elsevier scientific journals constitute the GOLD STANDARD of scientific publications. Each paper published in an Elsevier scientific journal has undergone the strictest peer review process. So, a paper that is published in an Elsevier journal can be considered to reflect the consensus of Science. http://www.ntia.doe.gov/bi-oadband--rants/comments/6EO5.pdf This above paper, "Public Health Implications of Wireless Technologies," contains the recommended safety limits for RF exposure. I direct your attention to page 10. Here you see Sage and Carpenter, the scientist authors of the paper, present the following recommendation, which was derived from research findings of thousands of scientists worldwide: "The recommended cautionary target level is 0.1 microwatts per centimeter squared for pulsed RF where these exposures affect the general public. [This same] limit should be adopted for outdoor. cumulative RF exposure. This reflects the current RF science and public health response that would reasonably be set for pulsed RF (ambient) exposures where people live, work, and go to school. ...An outdoor precautionary limit of 0.1 microwatts per centimeter squared would mean an even lower exposure level inside buildings, perhaps as low as .01 microwatts per centimeter squared." These above target levels are what any cell phone tower erected in Tustin and nationwide should follow. Please keep in mind that what is (presently) legal with respect to RF exposure safety limits is not necessarily what is safe. Sincerely, Bob Stevenson Swiontek, Ryan From: Monica Moretta [monica.moretta@sequoia-ds,com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 11:13 AM To: Swiontek; Ryan Cc: Pete Shubin Subject: T -Mobile's Community meeting Scheduled January 6 ( HOAs) Attachments: LA33842 Cedar Grove Park -Returned Notices-20101230.pdf Hi Ryan: T-Mobite's community meeting is scheduled January the 6th between 6 pm and 8 pm. Notices went out to the property owners who received the notices for the ZA hearing. The attached are the notices that were returned to us, and unable to forward. These notices are the ones send to the Serrano Homeowners Association, Sedona Community Association, and Tustin Ranch Estates. Do you have an alternate address ? Monica Morena I Land Use Planner Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. One Venture, Suite 2001 Irvine, CA 92618 r N- (949) 241-0175 1 A[ (949) 753.7203 Ll monica.moretta@seauoia-ds.com ASave a Tree - Please do riot print this email unless necessary. LISA MLI CLA,S Li �A Z tt, 4k ZWLIT (D Ru z 0 Ln -a Moretta lenture Suite 200 CA 92618. AOOT u4y4o.^�XIZA IARO, 17k. Sry -4R1-40.41.46.4 .48 ca Moretta ienture Suite 2Q0:. CA 92618 APN: 502-634-15,16 J 7 , R-7- Swiontek, Ryan From: Monica Moretta [monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:16 AM To: brittany@crummackhuseby.com; ilemus@keystonepacific.com Cc: Pete Shubin; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: T -Mobile Community Meeting Inviation for the Project at Cedar Grove Park Attachments: X3e_7FDC28624.pdf Hello: Please find attached the invitation for the community meeting regarding the T -Mobile project at Cedar Grove Park. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, Monica Moretta I Land Use Planner Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. One Venture, Suite 2001 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 241.0175 ia, (949) 753-7203 IF4 monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com A00 Save aTree - Ptease de not print this erna'd unless necessary. H 10 O d N Swiontek, Ryan From: Monica Moretta [monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:14 PM To: sschumann@encorepmc.com Cc: Pete Shubin; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: T -Mobile Community Meeting Inviation for the Project at Cedar Grove Park Attachments: X3e_7FDC28624.pdf Hi Stephanie: Please find attached the invitation for the community meeting regarding the T -Mobile project at Cedar Grove Park. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, Monica Moretta I Land Use Planner Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. One Venture, Suite 2001 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 241-0175 � t4 (949) 753-7203 P i monica.moretta@seauoia-ds.com ASave a Tree - Please do riot print this ernail unless necessary. Swiontek, Ryan From: BK [dcpost@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:56 PM To: Joe.thompson@t-mobile.com Cc: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Coverage Maps Hi Joe, You mentioned at the meeting tonight that your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site and that you would forward that over to me. I look forward to seeing that data at your earliest convenience. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Brandon Key 1 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks (jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:35 AM To: joe.thompson @t-mobile.com Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and. limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps an your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? I S. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not—standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Daws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 7:05 AM To: paul.gerst@sequoia-ds.com Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Sw!ontek, Ryan Subject: T-Mobile/Cedar Grove tower Attachments: Resource summary.docx Hi Paul: Thanks again for spending so much time with me last night — I appreciated the information and look forward to going over the packet you gave me. As we discussed, there is just so much information out there on the Internet it is burdensome to attempt to filter through what is reliable and what is not regarding the radiation RF and EMF issues. I appreciate the comparisons you had to microwave, cordless phones, cellular handsets, wifi, and all the other sources of RF frequencies that we are exposed to on a daily basis. Again, I have a hard time with the analogies because to a large extent I see them as apples and oranges when talking about the vulnerability to children and others — these- are transient devices used for short bursts of time compared to a continuous, unending (abeit lower dose) RF. Of course, we personally assume the risk when we use these personal devices as opposed to a risk being thrust upon us by a private company building a tower next to our homes. I was intrigued by your analogy to UHF towers though and I am interested in looking more into that. That is why I agree with the growing scientific and government consensus that until more research is done, a precautionary approach as to placement of sites near schools and playgrounds needs to be adopted. Putting these factors aside, I am still opposed to the placement of the tower in our community park because it just simply has no place in our park. Our park is beautiful, rustic and has historical significance. Installation of this tower will marr the scenic beauty and denigrate its history. I am also concerned about potential safety issues and fire risk. In addition, I am concerned about it affecting my property values and pool of potential buyers should I wish to move from this area. Even the ATS Communications rep said it would affect it by 2%. To the extent you argue this data is inconclusive as well, I suggest a precautionary approach be taken for this consideration too! Let's not do it until we know better! Anyway, here is that compilation of references regarding the necessity of further research on RF affects and the Precautionary Principle that I mentioned I came across (on the Internet) that you were interested in looking at. Just one of many, many things that are available to peruse. I think it was really helpful that you put together your own packet of information from various sources and I appreciate the time and effort you spent on that. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) Resource Summary Healthy Schools Network "Brief of Healthy Schools Network Inc. As Amicus Curiae In Support of Petitioner" (Sept. 2006). On petition for write of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Questions Addressed by Brief: (Please click on the link below and read the brief) - Should the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), in launching a major new program that will risk biological harm to vulnerable children, be able to continue to ignore the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requirement that an environmental impact statement ("EIS'be prepared for all major governmental undertakings simply because scientific warnings of health hazards have not reached the stage of definitively establishing harm to humans? - Should the FCC be excused from performing an NEPA mandated EIS just because a multitude of ad hoc licensing and site- specific reviews are available, as the so called "functional equivalent" of an EIS, which (a) impose new costs on local citizens and governments, (b) are dependant on challenges by potential victims who most often would not know of the risk, and (c) would be based on the scientifically questionable assumption that no biological harm is being caused by long term radio- frequency ("RF") radiation until the certainty of harm is definitively established? LINK: http://www.antennafreeunion.oig/healthy.,schools....arnicus.pdf The EMR Policy Institute According to the EMR Policy Institute, 1500 feet is an Internationally recognized precautionary standard for the distance between a cell tower/antenna site and a school, playground, daycare center or other childcare facility, LINK: http://www.emrpolicy.org/public_policy/siking_7oning/tooLbox.pdf (see page 1) World Health Organization (WHO) World Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet: Electromagnetic Fields and Publlc Health: Mobile Telephones and Their Base Stations. In the fact sheet, the WHO cautions: "Siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds may need special consideration." LINK: http://www.who.Int/medlacenbre/factsheeLs/fs304/en/ OR search in the WHO website for Electromagnetic fields and public health (look under "Conclusions and Recommendations"— 2ND to last paragraph): European Parliament In 2009, the European Parliament voted to recommend precautions be taken to protect human health with regard to wireless technologies, such as mobile phones, Wi-Fi/Wi-Max, Bluetooth, DECT portable phones and cell towers. Below are a few excerpts from "European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields": "E. whereas the fact that the scientific community has reached no definite conclusions has not prevented some national or regional governments, In China, Switzerland, and Russia, as well as in at least nine EU Member States, from setting what are termed "preventive" exposure limits, that is to say, lower than those advocated by the Commission and its independent scientific committee, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Rlsks(7) ," "H. whereas, however, there are some points that appear to be the subject of general agreement, in particular the Idea that reactions to microwave exposure vary from one person to another, the need, as a matter of priority, to conduct exposure tests under actual conditions in order to assess the non -thermal effects associated with radio-frequency (RF) fields, and the fact that children exposed to EMFs are especially vulnerable(9) ;" "8. Considers that, given the increasing numbers of legal actions and measures by public authorities having the effect of a moratorium on the installation of new EMF -transmitting equipment, it is in the general interest to encourage solutions based on negotiations involving industry stakeholders, public authorities, military authorities and residents" associations to determine the criteria for setting up new GSM antennas or high-voltage power lines, and to ensure at least that schools, creches, retirement homes, and health care institutions are kept clear, within a specific distance determined by scientific criteria, of facilities of this type;" "19. Calls on the Commission and Member States to Increase research and development funding for the evaluation of potential long-term adverse effects of mobile telephony radio frequencies; calls also for an increase in public calls for proposals for investigation of the harmful effects of multiple. exposure to different sources of EMFs, particularly where children are concerned;" LINK: http://www.europr3rl.eui,opa.eu/sides/getUoc.do?pubRef= %2Fa/02FEP'9o2F0/02FTEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009- 0216+0+DOC+XML+V0 Vb2F°/a2FEN Resource Summary Children's Environmental Health Network ("The Voice in Washington for Children's Environmental Health") In their 2008 Annual Report (their most recent annual report), CEHN states that they spoke out in support of policies to protect children, including "Joining other organizations in urging the relevant Federal health agencies to address the scientific uncertainties about long-term exposures to electromagnetic radiation emanating from cell phones and antenna base stations, wireless internet, TV and FM broadcast towers, radar and power lines, through an improved research strategy". LINK: http://www.cotin,oi-g/cehn/2008-Ariiival-CEI-IN-fLport.pdf Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) Chair of CHE: Philip R. Lee, MD, Former United States Assistant Secretary of Health, Chancellor of the University of California at San Francisco, Professor at Stanford University. CHE's Working Group on Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) is a diverse international gathering of more than 1.70 health professionals, scientists, and concerned individuals from the U.S. and 17 other countries. The goals of this working group include: 1. Discussing emerging science that links EMF exposure with health effects, 2. Bringing this science to the attention of CHE Partners and the public, and 3. Exploring research and policy opportunities that CHE Partners may be interested in working on either individually or collectively. The link below provides useful resources: -Fact Sheet on Radiation and Cancer: This fact sheet addresses the health effects associated with EMF, specifically ELF (the power grid and electrical appliances) and RF (cellular technology). While the fact sheet addresses cell phones, it does not specifically address cell base stations. Nevertheless, it provides a very useful and thoughtful summary of the EMF issue. (Click on link below, scroll down to "Resources" and click on the 11th item on the list, "Radiation and Cancer — New In - Depth PDF Fact Sheet) - CHE's website includes links to a number of studies that are relevant to cell base stations (some of which are contained in this table). (Click on link below and scroll down to "Resources' LINK: btLp://wwvv.liealtlianderivironmerit.org/working,._gioiAps/errrf San Francisco Board of Supervisors (the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted the precautionary principle in 2003 — we feel the precautionary principal should be applied to the issue of cell base stations near schools) In 2003, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a municipal code on the precautionary principle. The precautionary principal policy statement includes the following text (see link for more information): 'The following shall constitute the City and County of San Francisco's Precautionary Principle policy. All officers, boards, commission, and departments of the City and County shall implement the Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County's affairs: - The Precautionary Principle requires a thorough exploration and a careful analysis of a wide range of alternatives. Based on the best available science, the Precautionary Principle requires the selection of the alternative that presents the least potential threat to human health and the City's natural systems. Public participation and an open and transparent decision making process are critical to finding and selecting alternatives. - Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone cost effective measures to prevent the. degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Any gaps in scientific data uncovered by the examination of alternatives will provide a guidepost for future research, but will not prevent the City from taking protective action. As new scientific data become available, the City will review its decisions and make adjustments when warranted. - Where there are reasonable grounds for concern, the precautionary approach to decision-making is meant to help reduce harm by triggering a process to select the least potential threat, The key elements of the Precautionary Principle approach to decision-making Include:....." LINK: http://library.mtmicode.com/iridex.aspx?elientld=14134&stateld=S&stateName=California LINK: http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-06-19/opinion/17497033_ 1._ sustainable -energy -air -pollution -public-health Concerns Expressed by Federal Agencies about the Inadequacy of the FCC's RF Exposure Guidelines Resource Summary Norbert Hankin, Center for Risk Assessment Radiation Protection Division, US Environental Protection Agency Letter (2002) from EPA's Norbert Hankin, Center for Risk Assessment Radiation Protection Division, to Janet Newton, then President of The EMR Network, stating that the current FCC RF exposure guidelines do not adequately treat nonthermal, prolonged exposures to RF radiation. LINK: http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/nol„_epa..response.pdf Grogory Lob- of the National Institute of Occupational Health & Safety (NIOSH) on behalf of the US Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (a government work group) Letter (1999) written on behalf of the federal Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG) by W. Gregory Lotz of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to Richard Tell, Chairman of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) subcommittee for RF safety. FCC looks to IEEE for primary input onRF safety standards. The letter outlines 14 issues that the federal health agencies find in the IEEE exposure scheme. LINK: http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/exhibit._ a.pdf FYI: According to the Noe Valley Voice (October 1997); "Cincinnati biophysicist W. Gregory Lotz told the Cincinnati Enquirer in August [1997] that he believes cellular phone towers should not be built close to schools or other places where children gather. Lotz is chief of physical agents at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 'To err on the side of caution, you would not put them on school grounds,' Lotz is quoted as saying. 'I can't assure [parents] we aren't going to find something 10 years from now that we don't know now. It's a matter of making a decision on limited research and scientific information.' LINK: http://www,noevalleyvoicexom/1997/October/pacbelu.htmi LINK: See text above for relevant links. US Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (RFIAWG) RFIAWG is a group of federal agency staff representatives that considers the issue of wireless safety for the public. It is made up of representatives from the US government's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the National Telecommunication and Information Administration, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). More than a decade ago, the RFIAWG concluded that "existing public safety limits may not protect public health" with respect to pulsed radiofrequency of this type. On June 17, 1999, the RFIAWG issued a Guidelines Statement that concluded the present RF standard "may not adequately protect the public". The RFIAWG identified fourteen (14) issues that they believe are needed in the planned revisions of ANSI/IEEE RF exposure guidelines including "to provide a strong and credible rationale to support RF exposure guidelines". In particular, the RFIAWG criticized the existing standards as not taking into account chronic, as apposed to acute exposures, modulated or pulsed radiation (digital or pulsed RF is proposed at this site), time -averaged measurements that may erase the unique characteristics of an intensity -modulated RF radiation that may be responsible for reported biologic effects, and stated the need for a comprehensive review of long-term, low-level exposure studies, neurological -behavioral effects and micronucleus assay studies (showing genetic damage from low-level RF). The areas of improvement where changes are needed include: a) selection of an adverse effect level for chronic exposures not based on tissue heating and considering modulation effects; b) recognition of different safety criteria for acute and chronic exposures at non -thermal or low -intensity levels; c) recognition of deficiencies in using time -averaged measurements of RF that does not differentiate between intensity -modulated RF and continuous wave (CW) exposure, and therefore may not adequately protect the public. LINK: http://vvww,emrpolicy.org/litigation/case.,_, law/docs/exhiblt,..a.pclf Cellular Telecommunications Industry's Successful Efforts to Curb Local Authorities' Power to Influence Antenna Siting Resource Summary Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) July 11., 2008 -The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), a trade association of the wireless industry in the US, petitioned the FCC to declare new limitations on local zoning authority as it affects antenna siting. This is the reason why local authorities cannot limit antenna siting based on health concerns. I -INK: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520038471. The EMR Policy Institute September 28, 2008 - The EMR Policy Institute's Comment and Cross Petition in opposition to the above petition by CTIA to the FCC. ' LINK: http://fjailfoss,fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520172536 Study Commissioned By T -Mobile The U.K.'s "The Sunday Times" published an article (April 15, 2007) that claims that an extensive research study commission by T -Mobile was hidden when the researchers concluded that cell handsets and cell base stations contribute to cancer and genetic damage. The following is an excerpt from the commissioned study: "Exposure From Base Stations (p. 37): In human, harmful organic effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields as used by mobile telecommunications have been demonstrated for power fluxensities from 0.2W/n2 (See Chapter 7). Already at values of 0.1 W/m2 such effects cannot be excluded. If a security factor of 10 is applied to this value, as it is applied by ICNIRP and appears appropriate given the current knowledge, the precautionary limit should be 0.01 W/m2. This should be rigorously adhered to by all base stations near sensitive places such as residential areas, schools, nurseries, playgrounds, hospitals and all other place at which humans are present for longer than 4 hours." LINK to article: http://technology,timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech.,.andweb/personal_-tech/article1655012.ece LINK to research study: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/niemr/ecologsLim.php Relevant Research Studies and Statements From Scientists, Scientific Bodies, Voluntary Health Organizations Useful Terminology Regarding Scientific Studies: There are two major categories of studies are used by scientists to assess health impacts of radiofrequency radiation: epidemiological studies and laboratory studies. Epidemiological studies, sometimes called human health studies, investigate the associations between health effects and the characteristics of people and their environment. Laboratory studies, which can include studies on animals, biological tissue samples, isolated cells, or human volunteers, are used to try to determine a causal relationship between a risk factor and human health, and the mechanism through which that relationship occurs. Epidemiological studies, by nature, have certain limitations. They are not good at detecting increases in risks that are small, and they generally cannot, on their own, demonstrate a cause -and -effect relationship. In addition, because mobile phones have been in widespread use for only a few years, epidemiological studies have limited value in providing information about a possible association with cancers that may have long latency periods. Laboratory studies have been conducted to try to determine the effect of radiofrequency emissions on individual human or animal cells, on laboratory animals, or on human test subjects. Studies testing individual cells have exposed samples of human or animal cells to radiofrequency emissions over a range of dose rates, durations, and conditions, and then examined the cells to try to detect any changes. Resource Summary National Research Council (National Academies, includes National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, and National Academy of Engineering) National Research Council Report (2008): "Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communication " The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked the National Research Council (NRC) to convene experts to identify research needs and gaps in knowledge about potential health risks of long-term exposure to RF energy from cell phones, cell towers, television towers, and other components of our communications system. In the NRC's Report (pg 2), on the top of the list of needs/gaps was "characterization of exposures from wireless devices and radiofrequency base station antennas in juveniles, children, fetuses, and pregnant women". Second on the list was "Characterization of radiated electromagnetic fields for typical multiple -element base station antennas and exposures to affected individuals." [Continued on next page] Resource Summary CONT'D: National Research Council The NRC's Report (pgs 11-12) Identifies the following issues as not being covered by existing research and therefore are not addressed in current RF safety policy: • Are there differences in health effects of short-term vs. long-term exposure? • Are there differences between local vs. whole-body exposures? • Can the knowledge of biological effects from current signal types and exposure patterns be extrapolated to emerging exposure scenarios? • Are there any biological effects that are not caused by an increase in tissue temperature (nonthermal effects)? • Does RF exposure alter (synergize, antagonize, or potentiate) the biological effects of other chemical or physical agents? • Are there differences in risk to children? • Are there differences in risk to other subpopulations such as the elderly and individuals with underlying disease states? The NRC's Report (pg 17), includes the following statement on "Laboratory Exposure Systems "Most of the present-day exposure systems used in laboratory studies focus on the exposure of the head. Though exposures to the head are relevant for most cell phone exposures, whale -body exposures due to base stations are a research need. The laboratory exposure systems also need to include ELF and pertinent modulation protocols." LINK: hLtp://www,nal).edu/catalog/12036,litmi President's Cancer Panel May 2010 On May 7, 2010, the President's Cancer Panel issued its 2008-2009 Annual Report. Below are relevant excerpts from the report. Radiofrequency Radiation: Pg 58: "Considerable disagreement exists within the scientific community regarding potential harm due to RF exposure from cellular phones and other wireless devices, and many of the available studies have been interpreted quite differently by researchers on both sides of the issue. As one speaker noted, data on the long-term use of newer equipment still are relatively sparse, and it may be several years before enough data accumulate to reach informed conclusions about the harm cell phones, cell phone towers, and other wireless devices/networks may cause." Pgs 58-59: "Thus, while considerable research has been conducted on cancer risk due to RF from cell phones, cell phone towers, and other wireless devices, the available data are neither consistent nor conclusive, and a mechanism of RF -related cancer has yet to be identified." Pg 29: William Suk, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: "We are not all exposed to a single agent, a single radiation or a single type of radiation, and we're not exposed at a single point In time. It's a cumulative effect..." Children's Environmental Health: P9 5: "Children have many more years of life ahead of them than do adults—more time in which to be exposed to environmental toxics and time to develop diseases (including cancer) with long latency periods initiated by early exposures. At this time, little is known about interactions among multiple exposures over time, but many exposures to environmental contaminants are cumulative and some may have intergenerational effects." Pg 98: Conclusions Section: "Opportunities for eliminating or minimizing cancer-causing and cancer -promoting environmental exposures must be acted upon to protect all Americans, but especially children. They are at special risk due to their smaller body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known or suspected carcinogens, including radiation." [Continued on next page] Resource Summary CONT'D: President's Cancer Panel, May 2010 Precautionary Principle: Pg 103: Recommendations Section (1st recommendation listed): "A precautionary, prevention -oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants in which human harm must be proven before action Is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure." Pg 17: "In 1998, a conference of international environmental scientists, scholars, activists, treaty negotiators, and others convened to discuss implementation of the Precautionary Principle asserted in a consensus statement that'when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically: The core tenets of the Precautionary Principle are: • Taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty. • Shifting the burden of proof to proponents of an activity. • Exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions, • Including public participation in decision making." LINK: http://deainfo.nc.i.iiih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_RepoM_.08-09_50B.pdf (Annual Report for 2008-2009) LINK: littp://www,wasl)ingtonpost:com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/06/AR2010050603813.htmi (Washington Post article) Raymond Neutra, MD, PhD Former Chief, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, California Department of Health Services (retired 2007) Dr. Neutra led the California EMF Program which is housed in the Environmental Health Investigations Branch of the California Department of Health Services. The focus of Dr. Neutra's research, and the California EMF Program, has been on ELF EMF radiation (extremely low frequency electromagnetic frequency radiation), specifically the EMF radiation emitted by the power grid (power lines) and electrical appliances. Dr. Neutra, however, has worked closely with other researchers who focus on RF EMF (radio frequency electromagnetic frequency radiation), which includes EMF radiation emitted by cell phones and cell base stations. - See the following link to a webinar provided by the California Department of Health Services in 2009: LINK: litl.p://www.e[iib.org/emf/pdf/EMF_WLbinai,_CDPH_10._26_09.pdf The webinar focused on ELF EMF (powerlines and electrical appliances) - but in the webinar, Dr. Neutra provides an interesting perspective on health risk assessment/management (he has published books on health risk assessment/management). The following are articles in which Dr. Neutra is quoted on the issue of cell towers. • Short-term cell -phone towers risk seems small; long-term effects unclear. By Pat O'brien, The Press -Enterprise, 10-18- 2005. (Press Enterprise is an Inland Southern California newspaper) LINK: http://www.pe,com/lifestyles/healthandfitness/stories/PE.._Fea_Daily_D., cell1.8.1059814e.html "Radio-frequency fields from cell towers are weak, and evidence so far is inconclusive as to whether they affect public health, according to Dr. Raymond Neutra, California's chief of environmental epidemiology. The state of the science now is that it's not virtually certain there is a problem. But there is some suggestion of possibility of problems,' he said. 'I'm not ready to make a judgment on that. It's an emerging picture.' Neutra, the state chief of environmental epidemiology, said researchers should continue to study the issue. 'Whenever there is a new technology out there, I think we are obliged to keep tracking it,' he said. • Safety advocates gain ground in cell phone debate: Doubts are emerging about the devices' long-term effects on health. By Suzanne Bohan, Contra Costa Times, 09/27/2009. LINK: http://www.einfacts.com/weblog/?p=1170 "I'm not certain if there are health effects from cell phones or cell antennas, but I'm very suspicious," said Dr. Raymond Neutra, one of the panelists and a former official with the California Department of Health Services (now the Department of Public Health) who led a research program on electromagnetic radiation in the 1990s. LINK: See text above for relevant links. Henry Lai, Ph.D. Research Professor Department of Bioengineering, Box 355061 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-5061 Letter from Dr. Henry Lai (Dec. 31, 2008) "expressing [his] opinion and concern about the possible health effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless transmitters": LINK: lil,tp://www.expelcelitowei,5.org/download/WarningLetter.pdi Dr. Lai prepared a white paper : "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Transmission Towers" (2001): LINK: http://www.c.xpelceiltowers.org/dowriload/RFR-...exposure.pdf LINK: See above text for relevant link. Resource Summary David 0, Carpenter, MD Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, and Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health University at Albany In a telephone conversation with a CDS parent, Dr. Carpenter said he would be extremely concerned about a cell tower being erected in such proximity to a school. Below are links to a few research articles on EMF by Dr. Carpenter: Meeting Summary, President's Cancer Panel: Environmental Factors in Cancer. January 27, 2009. Phoenix, Arizona. Summary of Dr. Carpenter's remarks appears on pages 15-17. On page 17, Dr. Carpenter states that "Reduction of exposure to other sources of RF can be accomplished by keeping AM, FM, television, and mobile phone towers far from homes, schools, and businesses." LINK: http://deainfo,iici.riili.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp0l,09/summaiy.pdf Public health implications of wireless technologies. Pathophysiology. Volume 16; Issue 2 August 2009 Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter LINK: hLtp://www.journals.elsevierhealtli.com/periodicals/patphy/article/50928-4680(09)00017-0/abstrart Setting Prudent Public Health Policy for Electromagnetic Field Exposures. Reviews on Environmental Health, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2008. David 0. Carpenter (1) and Cindy Sage (2) LINK: http://www.ncbi.niin.riih.gov/ptibmecl/18763539 Presentation: Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields — David. 0 Carpenter, MD LINK: http://www.yautube.com/watch?v=nSWDsgdgb88 LINK: See text above for relevant links. Martin Blank, PhD Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons In 2009, Dr. Blank submitted a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District's Board of Education regarding the issue of cell base stations near schools. In the letter, he wrote "I am writing in support of a limit on the construction of cell towers in the vicinity of schools". Dr. Blank's letter was prompted by the Board of Education's consideration of a second resolution on cell base stations— it was submitted as testimony in favor of the resolution. See the first item on Page 1 for more information on the resolution. LINK: http://www.cloutnow.org/lausdpdf`/ColumbiaUniversity.pdf Presenation: Electromagnetic Fields and Health Risks — Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia University LINK: http://www,youtube.com/watch?v=a6wLFeIrCtU Dr. Blank was Guest Editor of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): Special Issue; Pathophysiology, 2009. See two rows below for link. LINK: See text above for relevant links. Gerard Hyland, PhD University of Warwick, UK; Executive Member of the International Institute of Biophysics, in Neuss-Holzheim, Germany. Twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in medicine Dr. Gerard Hyland states, "Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate ... Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all Is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests." His report (2002) titled "How exposure to Base -station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans" highlights the way in which this radiation affects brain function — specifically, Its electrical activity (EEG), its electrochemistry, and the blood/ brain barrier - and degrades the immune system. Excerpt from report (pg 2); "Quite apart from their weaker immune systems, children are particularly vulnerable because of the increased rate at which their cells divide (which makes them more susceptible to genetic damage) and their still developing nervous system - the size of their heads and the thinness of their skulls causing them to absorb more radiation than do adults. Particularly vulnerable to interference by the pulses of microwaves, is their electrical brain -wave activity, which does not settle into a stable pattern until about the age of it or 12 years. The use of mobile phones by pre- adolescent children is thus to be strongly discouraged, and the siting of Base -station masts In the vicinity of schools and nurseries resisted: financial gain must not be allowed to be the overriding consideration. It must be appreciated that whilst the intensity to which the Public is normally exposed in the vicinity of a Base -station is indeed very much lower than that encountered during use of a mobile phone, the information content of the signals is the same, so that they are equally potentially noxious. LINK: http://wm,4.notowersnearschools.com/docs/hylancl.pdf (the 2002 report referenced above) LINK: http://www,tlielaricLt.corn/journals/lancet/article/P7IS0140-6736(00)03293-8/fulitext# (2000 article in The Lancet: Physics and Biology of Mobil Telephony) Resource Summary Pathopysiology Volume 16 Issue 2-3August 2009 EMF Special Issue Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): Special Issue. Pathophysiology, Volume 16, Issue 2-3, Pages 67-250 (August 2009). Guest Editor: Martin Blank, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Preface to Special Issue by Martin Blank: "There is an old joke with a well-known punch line about a man who has just fallen from the 86th floor of the Empire State Building In New York. As he passes the 30th floor, he is heard saying to himself `so far, so good'... Most of us laugh because we know where the man is headed, and that he must know too. But, our laughter usually has a guilty edge. We know that many of us are guilty of occasionally displaying a `so far, so good' attitude in our own lives. We think of the smoker who says that about the possibility of getting lung cancer or heart disease and who counts on beating the odds because he feels healthy at the moment. That smoker will not find out if he won the bet until many years later, and by then it is often too late. The'so far, so good' attitude to health is so common that people even kid themselves about it. One smoker told me that smoking would only cut a few years off his life, and that he did not mind losing the last few years because they are usually not much fun anyway. [next page] Unlike the optimist in the joke, whose end is virtually certain, many of us live like the smoker, playing the odds and reassuring ourselves'so far, so good'. Diseases like cancer usually take many years to develop, and we try not to think how some of the things we do casually can affect the long-term odds by compromising the natural processes that protect us. We rely on our bodies to be strong and resilient all the time. Yet, we know there are limits to the body's natural ability to reverse damage to cells. We also know that there may be gaps in the ability of our genetic endowment to cope with damage. At some level, we all know it is just common sense to try to minimize damage to our bodies and maximize the ability to repair. These opening paragraphs provide a quick introduction to the theme of this issue of Pathophysiology and a summary of the point of view of Its authors. The public is currently interested in possible hazards from radio frequency (RF) due to cell phones, towers, WIN, etc. The concern is certainly warranted, but we are surrounded by electromagnetic fields (EMFs) of many frequencies, and there are also significant biological effects and known risks from low frequency EMF. The scientific problem is to determine the nature of EMF interaction with biological systems and develop ways of coping with harmful effects in all frequency ranges, as well as their cumulative effects. The practical problem is to minimize the harmful biological effects of all EMF. The technical papers in this issue are devoted to an examination and an evaluation of evidence gathered by scientists regarding the effects of EMF, especially RF radiation, on living cells and on the health of human populations. The laboratory studies point to significant interactions of both power frequency and RF with cellular components, especially DNA. The epidemiological studies point to increased risk of developing certain cancers associated with long-term exposure to RF. Overall, the scientific evidence shows that the risk to health is significant, and that to deny it is like being in free -fall and thinking 'so far, so good'. We must recognize that there is a potential health problem, and that we must begin to deal with it responsibly as individuals and as a society." LINK: hUp://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/patpliy/Issues/contenL?issue_key=SO928-4680°/02809%7_9X0003- 9 "Electromagnetic Radiation in the Human Head..." An article in Microwave Theory and Techniques (a journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) Electromagnetic Radiation in the Human Head... Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol 44 No. 10. P. Ghandi, Gianluca Lassi and Cynthia M. Furse. Children are more vulnerable to the effects of radiation because their skulls have not yet formed. A study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) found that there was a significant difference in radiation absorbed by 5 year olds (skull thickness .5mm), 10 year olds (skull thickness 1mm) and adults (skull thickness 2mm). Note that this study relates specifically to mobile phone radiation where the phone is placed next to the head, which is different to the radiation exposure from a base station — however, we can clearly see that skull thickness and therefore age play a factor in radiation penetration. LINK: http://Tntt.org/publicationslindex.litm "Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies" An article in Environmental Health Perspectives (a peer-reviewed journal of the National Institutes of Health) Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic. Review of Experimental Studies. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(1) Jan. 2007. Anke Huss, Matthias Egger, Kerstin Hug, Karin Huwiler-MOntener and Martin R66sli "Conclusions: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account. Studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health." * It should be noted that this study focused on cell phones and was limited to human laboratory studies - it did not include epidemiological studies. LINK: http://ehp03.niehs.riih.gov/article/infoU/03Adoi%2FI0.1289%2Fekip.9149 Resource Summary U.S. General Accounting Office Report 01-545: Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues. In 2001, the GAO issued Report 01-545 Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues. One section of the GAO Report addresses "shortcomings" of the FDA and FCC. In particular it underscored a brochure produced by FCC's Consumer Information Bureau that "puts the statement'Cell Phones Cause Medical Problems' into the category of `fiction; noting that 'there is no scientific evidence that proves wireless phone usage can cause cancer, increased blood pressure, memory loss, or other health problems,' though research in continuing." Officials in the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology were asked to comment on that statement. They concurred with the GAO that "this characterization could be misleading, because it implies that the health issue is settled." GAO Report Conclusions — "Scientific research to date does not demonstrate that the radiofrequency energy emitted from mobile phones has adverse health effects, but the findings of some studies have raised questions indicating the need for further investigations ... Given the long-term nature of much of the research being conducted — particularly the epidemiological and animal studies — it will likely be many more years before a definitive conclusion can be reached on whether mobile phone emissions pose any risk to humans health ... Given the prominence of the mobile phone health issue, FDA and FCC need to provide the public with clear, accurate, and timely information so that they can make informed decisions." LINK: www.gao.gov/nc>w.iterns/d0l545,pdf "Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure" An article in Environmental Health Perspectives (a peer-reviewed journal of the National Institutes of Health) ICNIRT (International Commission for Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure (Environmental Medicine Review). ICNIRP (International Commission for Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology: Anders Ahlbom, Adele Green, Leeka Kheifets, David Savitz, and Anthony Swerdlow, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 112, No. 17, Dec 2004 [NOTE: This article focuses on epidemiologic studies and not laboratory studies] Text from article's "General Conclusions and Recommendations": "Results of epidemiologic studies to date give no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF exposure and any adverse health effect. On the other hand, these studies have too many deficiencies to rule out an association. A key concern across all studies is the quality of assessment of RF exposure, including the question of whether such exposure was present at all. Communication sources have increased greatly in recent years, and there is continuing change in the frequencies used and the variety of applications. Despite the rapid growth of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from these and other RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Certain studies that are currently under way have made serious attempts to improve exposure assessment, based on attempts to learn more about determinants of RF exposure levels. A key element in improving future studies would be the use of a meter that monitors individual exposure. In the absence of information on what biologic mechanism is relevant, if any, it is unclear what aspect of exposure needs to be captured in epidemiologic studies. Ideally, the dose needs to be assessed not just as external field intensity but also as cumulative exposure, as well as SAR, for specific anatomical sites. The need for better exposure assessment is particularly strong in relation to transmitter studies, because the relation between distance and exposure is very weak. There is no point in conducting such studies unless it has been established that exposure levels vary substantially within the study area, and measurements of these RF levels are available. In the future, methods need to be developed to Infer exposure based on some combination of knowledge regarding the sources of exposure, the levels of exposure, and location of people in relation to those sources, ideally informed by selective measurements. Although the likelihood is low that fields emanating from base stations would create a health hazard because of their weakness, this possibility is nevertheless a concern for many people. To date no acceptable study on any outcome has been published on this. On the one hand, results from valid studies would be of value in relation to a social concern; on the other hand, it would be difficult to design and conduct a valid study, and there is no scientific point in conducting an invalid one. Another general concern in mobile phone studies is that the lag periods that have been examined to date are necessarily short. The implication is that if a longer lag period is required for a health effect to occur, the effect could not be detected in these studies. Only in the few countries where mobile phones were introduced very early has it been possible to look at use 10 years ago. Much longer lag periods have been examined for occupational RF exposures, however. The published studies include some large occupational cohorts of good design and quality, except that there have been poor assessments of the degree of RF exposure, which render the results difficult to interpret. [Continued on next page] Resource Summary CONT'D: "Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure" ICNIRT (International Commission for Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology Most research has focused on brain tumors and to some extent on leukemia. However, because the RF research questions are not driven by a specific biophysical hypothesis but rather by a general concern that there are unknown or misunderstood effects of RFs, studies on other health effects may be equally justified. Examples are eye diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and cognitive function. Given the increase in new mobile phone technologies, it is essential to follow various possible health effects from the very beginning and for long periods, because such effects may be detected only after a long duration, because of the prolonged latency period of many chronic diseases. Thus, research is needed to address long-term exposure, as well as diseases other than those included In the ongoing case—control studies. Another gap in the research is children. No study population to date has included children, with the exception of studies of people living near radio and TV antennas. Children are increasingly heavy users of mobile phones. They may be particularly susceptible to harmful effects (although there is no evidence of this), and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives." LINK: http://www.imirp.de/documents/epiRFreviewPublishediiiEHPDec04.pdf American Cancer Society (ACS'S "Cell Phone Towers" fact sheet states that cell towers are unlikely to cause cancer. Look, however, at the last few statements on their fact sheet". The American Cancer Society provides a fact sheet on "Cell Phone Towers" on its website. On it's fact sheet, the ACS states that there are "several theoretical considerations suggest that cellular phone towers are unlikely to cause cancer". At the end of the fact sheet, ACS states: 'The Bottom Line: Cellular phone towers, like cellular phones themselves, are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects. In particular, not enough time has elapsed to permit epidemiologic studies. There are some theoretical reasons why cellular phone towers would not be expected to increase cancer risk, and animal studies of RF have not suggested a risk of cancer. People who are concerned can ask for measurements of RF near cellular phone towers to be sure exposures do not exceed recommended limits," LINK: htt.p://www,cancer.org/docroot/ped/content/ped_l._3x_cellular_phone_towers.asp Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:33 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've directed my senior RF engineer to respond to your first 3 questions, but with other issues he's had to deal with today, it doesn't look like he'll be able to respond until early next week. Please believe me when I say that replying to your questions is one of my highest priorities and I intend to do so as soon as I have all the information. Thank you for your patience as I should be able to respond no later than Tuesday morning. You now have my email and direct mobile number so if any questions arise in the interim, please contact me. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights), However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site — can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site — was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks; many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not—standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because ofT-Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCTA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca,org Subject: Follow up from Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas atthe OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site — can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site— was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not—standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night thatT-Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of yourtowers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mo bile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Uaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: FW: Fallow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20113:17 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto Joe Thompson@T Mobile com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20112:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From Jennifer Wierks [inailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve"other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCTA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site —can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site—was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not—standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Doug Polett [dougpolett@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:43 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: dspolett@aol.com Subject: Cell Tower proposal for Cedar Grove Park Mr. Ryan Swiontek Ms. Elizabeth Binsack Dear Mr. Swiontek and Ms. Binsack: I am a resident of Tustin Ranch in the Sedona development directly across the street from Cedar Grove Park. I have a concern in regard to the proposed T-Mobile/AT&T cell tower which may not have been addressed to this point. If the cell tower plans gain approval from the city, beyond the loss of park ground for public use, the 7' high masonry wall to be built around the ground equipment is totally inadequate for two important reasons. First, the drawings on display atthe T -Mobile open house last week fail to show proper ground elevations. The elevation at the northern end of the park, close to Peter's Canyon Elementary School, according to my estimate is at least 7 to 10 feet higher than the elevation where the equipment is to be located. Anyone walking the park path or using the northern end of the park will be looking down on all the equipment behind the wall. When I mentioned this to the representative from AT&T, he said they could just build the wall higher; which would make this structure even more obvious, and more of an eyesore. As far as trash and leaves accumulating inside, he said they could just put chain link fencing across the top, a further eyesore. Secondly, this is a beautiful architecturally landscaped public park, not a green field location, or a back alley industrial site. The cell phone companies do not seem to be offering anything more than a 7' industrial wall and some greenery around their equipment, which is a total travesty to the design of the park. In the Sedona development across the street from the park, a resident can't even paint their house without selecting colors from a pre -approved list. I am concerned that if the cell tower proposal is accepted, against the will of many local people who live nearby and use the park, that T - Mobile and AT&T will proceed according to the existing plan, and we as a community will have failed to demand that these companies build a ground structure which is in keeping with the design of the existing building in the park. The building I am referring to is the rest room facility which is of stucco on masonry wall construction, includes decorative glass block accents, a metal security door of geometric design, and a terra cotta roof. I was told by one of the company representatives at the open house that T-Mobile/AT&T could build a roof over their equipment if required, but it would also necessitate the company to provide air conditioning to the interior for temperature control. They of course would like to avoid having to undertake this extra cost. I argue that there is, and should be, a higher cost to locate industrial equipment within a public area, as opposed to a commercial or industrial site. I sincerely hope that you will give my concerns raised herein, and the many others raised by local residents, the consideration they deserve. I ask you to please forward my email to the planning commission. Thank you. Sincerely, Doug Polett 2890 Schwendeman Ave. Tustin, CA 92782 714-417-9605 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks [jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:45 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1 though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then we are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" —again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 201112:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Fallow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, 1 sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20113:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site — can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site — was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis forthe accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not—standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded —it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1—though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us atthe site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then we are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" — again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was neveravailable as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. li�F.T1ii1!� From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20113:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20112:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca,org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Ccs ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of othertowers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not—standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks [jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:43 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Joe —your email raises a few more questions for me -The Cedar Grove centerline is at 65 feet? I thought the entire tower height was 65 feet — is it even taller than proposed? Can you please clarify? Or is this just a typo? According to my math, and your earlier representations, being that the centerline of Cedar Grove would beat 55' at a 273 foot elevation, and the OCFA 2nd position at 33' at 282 elevation, you are only losing 13 feet, not 23. If the Vista site can be 5 feet higher, then we are talking 8 feet. But if the Cedar Grove tower is going to be taller than 65' so your centerline can be adjusted, please clarify. Now I know you all have this inferior technology but I am reminded in this conversation that Verizon Currently has lightpole installations along Jamboree below the proposed OCFA site which are even a lower elevation than any of this this and their service is great. I assume they are happy with 3" or 4t° position. Also, I thought OCFA was going to be 2 towers. Who is occupying the 2nd tower? 1`t position, 2n'�? If AT&T has already made a binding agreement to be at OCFA then are you modifying the application to suit just a single carrier? Is the Cedar Grove site not a "colocation" facility anymore? It does not make any sense that AT&T would spend money for 2 tower positions just 450 yards away from each other (in a residential area) when their superior technology doesn't require it? Then I would ask why build such a giant tower in our beautiful park for just you? I await your reply to my original email as well as the data and studies supporting this whole pursuit. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20114:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one. I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site.. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below, The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA; our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents, He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.netj Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista isnot putting you #1— though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then we are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" —again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they wouldserve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon, Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks ... w... ..... .. ....-_ From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto.,jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20113:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Fallow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20112:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that then towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox;net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) thatT-Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site — can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site — was the RF analysis done underthe pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not—standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: BK [dcpost0cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:35 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: Swiontek, Ryan; jthompson @ ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoo.ocgov.com; fmooria@gailagherandmoore.com Subject: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? To: Elizabeth Binsack, Tustin Planning Department Jennifer Wierks forwarded me the email today sent out by Joe Thompson in which he states that T -Mobile is not interested in looking at the OCFA site any longer (after pursuing it forjust TWO DAYSI) if they cannot get the top spot on the tower. I am writing to request that you please look closely at the one-sided argument he puts forth in an attempt to reject the OCFA site out -of -hand. If T -Mobile had moved over to the OCFA site in December when the top spot was offered to them we would not be in the position we are today. But now that they have missed out on that opportunity because of their stubborn stance on the Cedar Grove Park site they are trying to throw their weight around to get what they want. I hope you see this tactic for what it is, an attempt to bully the city, the public and the other carriers Into giving T -Mobile the best of everything. I would urge you and your staff to have an independent analysis done (something that the Planning Commission asked you to do at the December 14th hearing) to determine the coverage created by positioning antennas on the OCFA towers at the various heights available. Or, at the very least, obtain the coverage analysis already performed by the other carriers on the OCFA site. I am sure these maps must exist. The other carriers wouldn't agree to put their antennas on a tower without making sure it would work would they? If you can't get these maps from the other carriers then ask Vista Towers for them. Certainly they would have some analysis available. In Mr. Thompson's email to you he states that AT&T has committed to the OCFA site and is taking the top spot on the towers away from T -Mobile. Well, if AT&T is going to the OCFA site, why would they still need to be on the Cedar Grove Park tower? To listen to Mr. Thompson tell it, AT&T and T -Mobile both want to be in BOTH sites. But is that a realistic need? Can you show me another residential area in all of Orange County,in which a single carrier needs so much bandwidth that they must have two cell sites within 450 yards of each other? I have mapped out all of the sites listed in the ATS Wireless Master Plan for the city of Tustin and the only location I can find that comes close is the two Metro PCS installations near the Intersection of the 5 and the 55 freeways where the cell traffic would be much greater than it is in our neighborhood. (Also, one of those is a rooftop antenna - not a full site.) With AT&T now saying they will move to the OCFA site we will be left with the situation that we have five carriers at the OCFA site and one, T -Mobile, at the Cedar Grove Park site. Why should we, as a community, have to shoulder the burden of two cell sites in our neighborhood so close together just because T -Mobile "claims" that lowering their antennas on the pole a few feet will render their signal totally useless? T -Mobile also claims that the pine trees along Jamboree road will interfere with their signal at the OCFA. How can those few trees be any worse than the 60' high grove of cedar trees that stands between the proposed Cedar Grove Park tower and the surrounding houses? Their arguments are just ludicrous) Let's assume for a moment that T -Mobile's claims are true. I am not an RF engineer and so I can not say for certain what would work, SO LETS ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW, preferably an independent, third party. Or at the very least, let's ASK VISTA TOWERS OR THE OTHER CARRIERS FOR THEIR ANALYSIS] It is logical to believe that putting an antenna at a lower elevation may reduce the coverage pattern - but can just a few feet really make so much difference? And even if it does not give them the complete coverage they would like, might it give adequate coverage to serve the homes in the area? Thank you for your time and consideration. -Brandon Key From: Thompson, Joe [met Ito Joe,Thompson(d)T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:57 AM To: ebinsack@tustinca.oro Cc: Dao, Duan; George Cardenas; Gonzales, Jarryd; Jennifer Wierks Subject: OCFA Property Director Binsack, I've been speaking with the Robert MacLachlan, the Vista Towers representative (builder of the OCFA trees) over the past several days in an attempt to abandon the Cedar Grove Park site and co -locate our facility on the OCFA property. As you know, yesterday I had our RF Department take another look at the viability of the OCFA property. After their review they stated they would accept the OCFA property if we could get the top spot on one of the 2 mono -trees they were building. Again, this was based on Mr. MacLachlan's prior commitment that the top spot was available to us. Even though we would lose coverage as compared to the tree proposed for Cedar Grove Park, due to community opposition, we were prepared to make a commitment to build at the OCFA site. When I contacted Mr. MacLachlan to make this commitment, he then stated he had committed the top spot to AT&T and asked if we could take the next spot down on the tree. I ran this lower spot past RF and was advised it would be too low for our wireless site to work. Mr. MacLachlan, through his desperation to fully populate his tree is now stating he can attempt to get approval to raise the OCFA trees from 45 to 50 -feet, but that would involve getting OCFA, Irvine Company and City of Irvine approval, and having the grant deed changed to allow for the new 50 -foot height limit. This process would take several months and I very much doubt these new height approvals can be obtained. Even so, if the trees were approved for 50 -feet, per AT&T they would still take the top spot leaving us with a 38 -foot antenna height; still too low for our site to work. This morning, I even called AT&T myself to see if they would relinquish the top spot, but they stated they are pursuing both that site and the Cedar Grove Park site in order to cover both areas (something we will do as well). As such, they will not give up the top spot. We tried to accommodate the public by attempting to move to the OCFA property, but in order for our site to work, the location we need on the OCFA tree is simply not available. As such, we are no longer pursuing the OCFA property and will continue on through the entitlement process for Cedar Grove Park. Joe Thompson Zoning and Government Affairs Manager T -Mobile USA (949) 350-5376 Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:00 AM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Attachments: Plans - OCFA_100%ZD 1-4-11.pdf Jennifer, You're absolutely correct. The centerline of the antennas at the Park Iodation is 55 -feet (total tree height is 65 -feet). It was a typo on my part and completely my error. I really apologize for the confusion. The difference in elevation between the Park site and the OCFA property is 13 -feet. However, due to trees and topography, still too substantial of an elevation difference for the site to satisfy the coverage objective. Regardless, the top spot on both trees at the OCFA property have been taken. Per the Vista Tower plans (attached), Verizon (top), Sprint (middle) and Metro PCS (bottom) are located on one tree, while AT&T (top), T -Mobile (middle) and Clearwire (bottom) are located on the second tree. I apologize, but cannot comment regarding why AT&T wants both locations or why Verizon has a site on the light pole in addition to a spot on the OCFA property. Even thought both carriers operate on more efficient frequencies, there could be several reasons why they want multiple sites in relatively close proximity. Possibilities include location of underperforming sites in the area they may have resulted from growing trees that block signals or new development that has resulted in increased data use such as text messaging, internet access, and emails. To my knowledge, AT&T has full intention of locating on both properties. Therefore, no application modification is necessary and the Cedar Grove Park tree is still considered a co -location. Regarding spending money for both locations, both AT&T and T -Mobile are spending the money because both have determined the need for a site at each location. As I explained at the community meeting, we do a lot of due diligence before deciding to build a site, especially in areas that may become contentious, but we need to provide our valued customers with the best wireless experience possible. From: Jennifer Wierks (mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:43 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Joe —your email raises a few more questions for me - The Cedar Grove centerline is at 65 feet? I thought the entire tower height was 65 feet — is it even taller than proposed? Can you please clarify? Or is this just a typo? According to my math, and your earlier representations, being that the centerline of Cedar Grove would be at 55' at a 273 foot elevation, and the OCFA 2nd position at 33' at 282 elevation, you are only losing 13 feet, not 23. if the Vista site can be 5 feet higher, then we are talking 8 feet. But if the Cedar Grove tower is going to be taller than 65' so your centerline can be adjusted, please clarify. Now I know you all have this inferior technology but I am reminded in this conversation that Verizon currently has lightpole installations along Jamboree below the proposed OCFA site which are even a lower elevation than any of this this and their service is great. I assume they are happy with 3`d or 4tn position. Also, I thought OCFA was going to be 2 towers. Who is occupying the 2nd tower? 1" position, 2R°? If AT&T has already made a binding agreement to be at OCFA then are you modifying the application to suit just a single carrier? Is the Cedar Grove site not a "coloration" facility anymore? It does not make any sense that AT&T would spend money for 2 tower positions just 450 yards away from each other (in a residential area) when their superior technology doesn't require it? Then I would ask why build such a giant tower in our beautiful park forjust you? I await your reply to my original email as well as the data and studies supporting this whole pursuit. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe[mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20114:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca,org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 55' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one. I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCTA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit; the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments, please let me know if you have further questions. From, Jennifer Wierks mailt--_._.„„ _ •---•—•--•------ [ o:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow, This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? i am sorry Vista is notputting you #1— though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then we are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover"both areas" — again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCTA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 201112:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was neveravailable as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks -- --- From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20113:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20112:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the FIF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose, So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site —can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site — was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) 4'�w- 5153LH�?JV 1SW Iw tl1tl010 'NOId NOLL4JOl '133X5 311 ❑ I i q ~ 4 ` C^ qpp yy UG v11 'NI15l1 auopnl al aaa NUISW4B115 3NMIZ 'J f ",V19 'N1d 0{{ Vi30 d. va 86A� yy o 5p �R �.1 g a W U 3 S F w gad w ��}". z o H p j T T .9 [ fu3E g �� §�� 3� � c �'e�gY '��£�`��z� � r hngg a g� w sill W -h.a.: o ♦5 ''_ q33� E-5'�aiE o uY }F y!y o U byaa g�ffi � H989.�}'y8S£ dg$g'�S��B888 B��S 33%R ■y o. 0 LL— z a z O - o (Z:) 4 O O r M/ ^1 Q C) O 75 � lq- O) W Q w'W�Ln d' LL.Z Q �� W � V J U U �L C.4 F a O z z Lr) W3 � O'Itc—z a W J Q ~ �`•�o m cam " Q O a . . U Z Ln Ln ILy I ~ 2. [g� ge Y e € £ all �� o �g C 3`J' g d 5 ri g eg g g$S�Ep Yg 3 8 t k$ � 119 A £a2 y g fr. g� 4 S &E7gg dal g3a g g a$ 8- M��� g63'g d8H,�3llA- Y£YYi4"'�" i l u30 8 £�e3'3 ,€ ��� @ q YE M"��Y8� .p%3 6 aa'a ksitE S ��etltlE�355 ¢ s HOP �YL aV B' 53 y g3 C k ..� c -�8 �Y='s Fge 8$ 4 ¢Xd£e y.. I k, n . EY pNS xys�5„ a 9 �xX38 4g _"tSY a - � a .;5 amA w:,^aME R.. m "yti: a° y 05709,s r",: & a a,,, ; .,.a.a nco an:Ttl R rrAl _I h W � IP 9 # d a°•9d i��3 k„ �- sE���cka� ? C � ^gp ���` '� °� �[ 'S d 3 EC'3CA�E h �^ ». � .k'' ^g � 'qi �fl g�^ A _g SI �4 qp$ big � ?�p�x $ �sc �'3i����'p �€ 5 g 4 �Ea� Y �&��. � �.E � � ;, • - 44 A�`1 `'*. ✓x I lig{ .f �� "3 6� 4�l • gq ¢ �btl�b$RS g 3Eaa��a��E d a IT B� Sb a �� i y1� ffi 0 # s a 3 xYP HaS 3 s R`aa€ i 8 Id s Oi#pl s�z s� s p s R N ha e� n � 9 Y gs3 p a 8 0 a:? h �a� �v\'J� va 39ao9 t� IkN yy ® Yy amA w:,^aME R.. m "yti: a° y 05709,s r",: & a a,,, ; .,.a.a s1o.31s�H�: t=f 13xW I� NinOkVI 311s a�IIVS3AO N3 vo'Nasni NOISw0aR5 3NIA81 ZY N19wo 0i • l NYI XVT 09Z6 1n JISM 1N3WdIn0'� I £ nw a Z09Z6 VJ 'N11S111 sua In ag eN nele� ~ S1Jl H0l1V 15W'� NOI6W061163NIAN1 Z1 'N19 V�0 SNO 'NIISM 103fOtld i t 0 nm mrs ZG9 iml tlp'NI15fLL aim aeau BIE NOISWp9p53NIANl LY 'NtB 'ZO— 51O3LI-1O`JV15W y�pp i d d:�y �`�X� SNVD NUSnf31�3Otld �° ® •�Y nm nns ZOM NOISWOA053NUk'I Z1 ')IlA'NW °°°Il°I° cls swlsY y 51�311HaJV 15W Iw y}00 �qSF �i �� ��� g�. a �p�A ❑@ '4@ g� p@� w 4 s.'n LII t St EL i Swiontek, Ryan From: Robert MacLachlan [robert@vistatowers.net] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:26 AM To: 'BK'; Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: Swiontek, Ryan; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? Attachments: Plans - OCFA_100%oZD 1-12-11.pdf; photo sim - sim from north copy 1-12-11.PDF; photo sim - sim from south copy 1-12-11.PDF; photo sim - sim from southwest copy 1-12-11.PDF ii I know this is all getting a bit strained, but I can only offer my view of the recent events. 1. 1 have been trying to work with T -Mobile for the last couple months to locate them on the OCFA project. I let them know in early December that we would hold the top rad center, but that they would have to notify me sooner versus later as other carriers were asking for that spot. It was clear in every instance that the rad center could only be held for a limited time. 2. On December 27, 2010, 1 emailed Joe and TMO again telling them that unless they joined the OCFA project at that time, the top spot could no longer be held and would be offered to ATT. 3. The top spot was offered to ATT on 12-28 and they accepted. 4. When Joe called on 1-11-11 to discuss the site, we went over the plans and where everyone was located. He asked me if I would ask ATT to move down and I said I would. ATT was at 42 feet centerline. Joe had indicated to me that 42 feet would work and that TMO would commit to the OCFA project to the extent that position was available. I asked All in an email, they responded in the evening of that same day saying that they would not move to the lower antenna height. They stated that it had been promised to ATT, so they felt entitled to that spot. 5. 1 then emailed Joe late later that same night and said we had one other option to help mitigate the issue. The City of Irvine will allow 50 feet on the tree with proper justification, so I would ask the OCFA and Irvine Company to allow. I made this request to OCFA and Irvine Company first thing on 1-12-11. This option would allow TMO a centerline height of 38 feet. Four feet lower than what TMO indicated was acceptable. 6. Joe and I discussed this option at about 10 or 11am on 1-12-11. Joe had indicated that he would provide me some time to get the answers, but immediately rejected that option and said TMO would continue at Cedar Park. It appears his email below was sent out immediately after that discussion. 7. 1 indicated in my email that it would be a couple days to a couple weeks to get this answer. In speaking with Joe, I stated that it was possible to hear from OCFA by the end of the week or early next and the Irvine Company within a couple weeks. But stated that it is difficult to make commitments for others. Please remernber that OCFA has a good relationship with the Irvine Company, the Irvine Company has already agreed to a deed restriction release on this project, so this requested change is not a new issue. Could it take months? Possibly, but highly unlikely. All they have to do is amend the letter they have already provided to the project allowing for this change. Please see our attached plans and photo sims of the project. The plans have been amended to show a 50 foot tree. As stated above, this is not yet provided in the terms with the OCFA. The photo sims were included, but need to be amended as some live trees have been added. Additionally, the photo sims were ordered last week and arrived yesterday, so they do not pick up the east tower at 50 feet yet. Joe had asked that I write to Elizabeth about this project. Those are the facts as I see them. At current, we could only offer TMO a rad center of 33 feet. We are working to increase that by 5 feet. I could also only offer that the A1.3 page of the plans show that a rad center of 38 feet is actually higher than the top spot on the other tower (because the TMO tower is almost 6 feet higher at its base) and that Sprint has indicated no issues with being at OCFA at an effective height 9 feet lower than the 38 feet we are trying to get TMO. Thanks, Robert MacLachlan Vista Towers (714) 856-1000 From: BK [mailto:dcpost@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:35 PM To: ebinsack@tustinca.org Cc: Ryan Swiontek; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov,com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? To: Elizabeth Binsack, Tustin Planning Department Jennifer Wierks forwarded me the email today sent out by Joe Thompson In which he states that T -Mobile is not interested in looking at the OCFA site any longer (after pursuing it for just TWO DAYS!) if they cannot get the top spot on the tower. I am writing to request that you please look closely at the one-sided argument he puts forth in an attempt to reject the OCFA site out -of -hand. If T -Mobile had moved over to the OCFA site in December when the top spot was offered to them we would not be in the position we are today. But now that they have missed out on that opportunity because of their stubborn stance on the Cedar Grove Park site they are trying to throw their weight around to get what they want. I hope you see this tactic for what it is, an attempt to bully the city, the public and the other carriers into giving T-Mobile.the best of everything. I would urge you and your staff to have an independent analysis done (something that the Planning Commission asked you to do at the December 14th hearing) to determine the coverage created by positioning antennas on the OCFA towers at the various heights available. Or, at the very least, obtain the coverage analysis already performed by the other carriers on the OCFA site. I am sure these maps must exist. The other carriers wouldn't agree to put their antennas on a tower without making sure it would work would they? If you can't get these maps from the other carriers then ask Vista Towers for them. Certainly they would have some analysis available. In Mr. Thompson's email to you he states that AT&T has committed to the OCFA site and is taking the top spot on the towers away from T -Mobile. Well, if AT&T is going to the OCFA site, why would they still need to be on the Cedar Grove Park tower? To listen to Mr. Thompson tell it. AT&T and T -Mobile both want to be in BOTH sites. But is that a realistic need? Can you show me another residential area in all of Orange County in which a single carrier needs so much bandwidth that they must have two cell sites within 450 yards of each other? I have mapped out all of the sites listed in the ATS Wireless Master Plan for the city of Tustin and the only location I can find that comes close is the two Metro PCS installations near the Intersection of the 5 and the 55 freeways where the cell traffic would be much greater than it is in our neighborhood. (Also, one of those is a rooftop antenna - not a full site.) With AT&T now saying they will move to the OCFA site we will be left with the situation that we have five carriers at the OCFA site and one, T -Mobile, at the Cedar Grove Park site. Why should we, as a community, have to shoulder the burden of two cell sites in our neighborhood so close together just because T -Mobile "claims" that lowering their antennas on the pole a few feet will render their signal totally useless? T -Mobile also claims that the pine trees along Jamboree road will interfere with their signal at the OCFA. How can those few trees be any worse than the 60' high grove of cedar trees that stands between the proposed Cedar Grove Park tower and the surrounding houses? Their arguments are just ludicrous) Let's assume for a moment that T -Mobile's claims are true. I am not an RF engineer and so I can not say for certain what would work, SO LET'S ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW, preferably an independent, third party. Or at the very least, let's ASK VISTA TOWERS OR THE OTHER CARRIERS FOR THEIR ANALYSISI Itis logical to believe that putting an antenna at a lower elevation may reduce the coverage pattern - but can just a few feet really make so much difference? And even if it does not give them the complete coverage they would like, might it give adequate coverage to serve the homes in the area? Thank you for your time and consideration Brandon Key From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thomi)sonCcbT-Mobile.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:57 AM To: ebinsackC@tustinca.ore Cc: Dao, Duan; George Cardenas; Gonzales, Jarryd; Jennifer Wierks Subject: OCFA Property Director Binsack, I've been speaking with the Robert MacLachlan, the Vista Towers representative (builder of the OCFA trees) over the past several days in an attempt to abandon the Cedar Grove Park site and co -locate our facility on the OCFA property. As you know; yesterday I had our RF Department take another look at the viability of the OCFA property. After their review they stated they would accept the OCFA property if we could get the top spot on one of the 2 mono -trees they were building. Again, this was based on Mr. MacLachlan's prior commitment that the top spot was available to us. Even though we would lose coverage as compared to the tree proposed for Cedar Grove Park, due to community opposition, we were prepared to make a commitment to build at the OCFA site. When I contacted Mr. MacLachlan to make this commitment, he then stated he had committed the top spot to AT&T and asked if we could take the next spot down on the tree. I ran this lower spot past RF and was advised it would be too low for our wireless site to work. Mr. MacLachlan, through his desperation to fully populate his tree is now stating he can attempt to get approval to raise the OCFA trees from 45 to 50 -feet, but that would involve getting OCFA, Irvine Company and City of Irvine approval, and having the grant deed changed to allow for the new 50 -foot height limit, This process would take several months and I very much doubt these new height approvals can be obtained. Even so, if the trees were approved for 50 -feet, per AT&T they would still take the top spot leaving us with a 38 -foot antenna height; still too low for our site to work. This morning, I even called AT&T myself to see if they would relinquish the top spot, but they stated they are pursuing both that site and the Cedar Grove Park site in order to cover both areas (something we will do as well). As such, they will not give up the top spot. We tried to accommodate the public by attempting to move to the OCFA property, but in order for our site to work, the location we need on the OCFA tree is simply not available. As such, we are no longer pursuing the OCFA property and will continue on through the entitlement process for Cedar Grove Park. Joe Thompson Zoning and Government Affairs Manager T -Mobile USA (949) 350-5376 _-�:r.=. :::�•t= VIVO Mroad'NaUallouasor'�lisnw ❑� l�B,,B w max: MI Z VD Nilsnl i 5 1'y Np45Nlp9p$ 3NIAtll iY 'Nle 'Nld suo9nlo ell esSIwNA yg ^1D311H7t1V 15W'w biJp SJaMOj ! qaG l� �€��� G yr R # 0 4 U y o CO � N C < u O > 0 On N ¢cnco O� I Q o'L1JcnLn Ln LA > a 0 z z Ln N _ w O d JD Q ;gym z 0° Q �z a oa- y�> anWHI ', nPy�3aN� ����'�p � S spa - TH ir,�, iECENO w rtE Q ?J 502—d5ti-09 _ , �a •m O ,aWe — W .i w,a.o„ www. mn s -,ufJj ✓ 'U. Mw–`✓ mor: / fiaE l ,, v,�u r�F Ym', FriOPOSEO W�or'Nur ASTJLE�E7 K 5 pp t Vs,r�lnAa .�' S '. :�wswi a¢.l�m5 ury vcF"yui Mr, ' `i`a.ie td M. SEE�>sr2'ut� SITE NAPsoz—+sa_oa gTL �iT� I I i�.4Nx. -ir'c WF.uW R� ���' .) ' n�MnWLLruel �::� .vwrvnnXsm..ti•v[[P Va �Pa-,v-ar rnrtx mz ew J as a WT Mlolftza.w V,c9 WO NOT TO SME / w ltk !1' ® - PRNECi i LCCATON /. LaxloYYticevn-f fi p / .' N^ ( r TUSTIN RANCH RD. wxruxne Yr.✓` \— \ t TUSTIN-, CA ' ovE w - 1 s day o 2 L Wmme ¢ PnePw� dVouw y �s �� "s"rYNSFo�x 1 PN w°"°""xO.uEo PlxapsD NEC m mmR v5rvs E F g uv5o l.xs Nun,e Nx to �•• EYJYNLLs Y ryes Oi (N mJv. PPUP®m 48r=1P3IP5 6W= YNu-IHRc R4rQ Vn,i' YLRc r -. soce[rs uouxlio ou umm x-lzuc - 5. YY EIN U: EXWIW K WW g'a (PI mlodEumwJou �. - � �� lel sdm2G x� sNSul .&. pFsft 4FMw,mR uwMm w / o e• As-p-no'-o't4curt PN PlSm¢o MA aeJws � �' Iuro oarvuulrat — % 1 ' \ WWYWIG MM �xWE — vdowsmxN �.w rwE Kww e ' a'� �-o � Gis�aruL SPI vmY IpP�0.s u'-o'svl _ R/Is-o' uR _ V A � o�ieew uI aw i `uiiwYurrtz �1'.tatiu �. " [ mP G PN. µap¢ r'. PI Pn,PosEe PI Ipr IX vw mrlfapE p¢ t N T V• gIrWA � Y-U'.,o KI' -0'- Wmp4'19 EgMYfNf NFA U EpMF.VI YG at m 7 fi TLAN— P {q Ew Pwm. ID49 tis a 4 11M e 216- o (P) NP IX PN_ tr q� 31Dd. IV3 D pP N _ _ (V� ei SDR GW,[ Q o O IIIUh '/ N �fi3NM LumPc IPI ^ 11Ci 1 I ff_ a 1W IPI RM[IX! wY21Ls P C-feppGlN pz D 1 . U.F. 4E1EP p } 31K' ()MT(PI a-4¢:I4,EU LMnPYM ARIW �( �_Ipp p Pop Y 3 '�+ pE Iv) SPS Nlfuru I6 q9s IPI vi Nrtwt oc:l nM. EPPavIVYI sxalW ryvb�lu, 0y rt y T #1YWL YW` Q0 1 f,) Pwmun 1'WRDx _ F9m MFNtY YfN05 \ :n+l IPI [Gryy GGIr-f..'� m usavnu r-o'm-rc EYISTNG 115[ m PmL1.1 � P.PoPUSm xnfwus i Pur scmY e,w mu ouloomx PlExl AVG D,x a,p�nn uvula I �, pulrEmwE I Wwsm aaEm Pxm�x'u5nwm \�w/(A IYL lmelo wrN wrna.milu D.,. ,. A1.2 — ' r EOUIPMEM UYOui PVN scut I/a' - l a 42.k X ruA NY M 000.m 1.. AMMM9 PER 961[A to) 3-0 A41 ,i (31 MgPpSfp i4E5 I 131 PRaPpsED kl M 'R��P6 Loot sEclgl Ir (o) tos PR[ -.N E.t P Y4.10'b'OIIIWtlt -' to) I1 wWo Fqw.. 'oo pSPuc RLW� Ys[ 390 L XJ 36S lWoml YNY-YEsacxM fM PWPa RW 'AM WIr-V WT' YTW L6..6." 'le - V� FAI-3] Ul °; rn PAep4U nuI +i�R.a. ICFs eM N) Pmvos6o F e41 N g W!t { Rmxs rtx 4[itW f Gil _Moxwu �nWw Df �. � Ef 0" 14 In PIAP¢SED MLPZIXI RRLk4 N'ILMx IILILK WTX I.1 xmoa5d �'�� eFA IDN. Y (S) PApMEU 1-ipolE NIIMU sEctaxs wi�x (PI vxcPo:m wRWK IEA SLltll IPI aru.0 XI+MSU°'ar Pat - _ w➢,L (>) Ica¢nx wW¢¢s uottw cEN¢wxE 1 - I 4 axr _SP1 I-IpwE -n DER_ a A �o _ 01 XmPmso sPeXL.eRYYY 5� ISI mNs[o nxa �Ip wlOx d6I1L l PPIXI MXfNM ¢XRW.DC "Ata- In P5DN4V NFIN PLS AYrtMY. SLIUK WIM Nl PDDPOiN MTWNS PEP Sd`IM — � _ — L v, - - � fi b - - I�yI :(s) PmPRvn m� N w1CX pSNF I IIIILIfllll _mLit^^n � � I PNDHS(p NSIA NxIIfi 6'-w' 1N1 YAM]EWLYPM O�� �. 2 p w ;�Iel Yna Pes.frtlwn LdlddR •� - 4 (Pou mrtwWE O mi.� .qLl N.' w w ho � ILJI y 0 5sA mews Asa• mL 1wa awrze mm`'s'iueP1�(1: L _I - - �rimurzo�Enme iWi snRa G, n (PI NAiPDX wlHl@' m'b niV4 Paz-f MtIRD Fniwfldl LNd IM xoorco sraWnr wd (1) PRp'PFp YB.rdtlNOlL$ Rpp44 fi-ti INI PCD. flDX 1ClL W/li'-0" .[LE4 MR IPI.ds PUMxu - (rl W.IrtunL.onWr (P ELVwPWQ'1490W.'D 8'A IPI v< emu IP) LPS hYlellw (p)WM4P.WL FHIXr fTraudmil �A.'D 8M (VI wY BIEB4E IPS A`kY '.ID-R �o Ai fDIM JIT 9ELid F£P SdL1FR (PI MARW MMFIS SIUN3v q62 LfNFAlp4 uDIMIEO Dx ggPl'6T .3" MM A S'-O.IY"-V LDKKNEIE WD IWY bl x W p m E G IP1 MY}(M WiSEI[4 SI.XDxt - - }9. gESR [£MEWidI 'UE.OM gYDyp P9T 39. 19T VIII A! I 141 � Sd9 1 I ]BB TOB LL 1B. – 1RJ 3N 1d] fl 18! � 78I 18D 18O Pwawsm xau IDrLos w Yowid IwxsPaPww �-o" Iral e--,»KK tYu scnEu1 L Io wmn ENSNt _ PwormEo 5mn mwea ma IWI SPmWI n'-o'.m-v' DM000N LtLPIY'O ASZw Ymo-xEtd SEw x wJPI Kld %wll[15 WMId CM IAM H-IAWE CUM. WeFR IMD. SE[W1111AM1 h.LPS uM WIIDIm 10 YSDE EKE pf pPV13f0 °® 'w w � Y SLaFY W.1LL F%WRD VSI. 1DwfA51RW �d� f@mYFxI qI NAIM1 x-I&NF o'n s Io' A1w4 NONWESi ELEVATION �, m�TH/EAST ELwEVAT10N t/s - T D' e4 h. rhLof = I I/.' = r:o' l '-T Swiontek, Ryan From: Robert MacLachlan [robert@vistatowers.net] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:21 PM To: 'BK'; Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: Swiontek, Ryan; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? Elizabeth I would like all involved to know that the OCFA has approved the height of 50 feet on the east tower within the timeframes I stated. We still need Irvine Company approval, but they had already approved the site generally, so we believe this will be accomplished within a few weeks. NOTE: OCFA just responded on my request for more information on TIC timeline, and they stated they will be reviewing the issue next week and it should be accomplished before 1-26-11. Additionally, and as everyone is aware from the height of the proposed Cedar Park still being in question, the final arbiter of the height will be the City of Irvine. The carriers will have to justify the height. With that said, given TMO's insistence on the extra height, I can't imagine they will not be able to help provide any justification required. Because the OCFA facility will serve the needs of all six carriers, I believe the City will understand the benefits of creating one, well contained, fairly low tower facility that allows for all foreseeable users as opposed to multiple facilities within the same community. But that is only my opinion based on our meetings with the City. Finally, I just let TMO know that the OCFA has approved the tower at 50 feet to allow their antennas to be at 38 feet, and will await their response — if any at all. Thanks, Robert MacLachlan Vista Towers (714)856-1000 From: BKmailto:d _ [ cpost@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:35 PM To: ebinsack@tustinca.org Cc: Ryan Swiontek; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? To: Elizabeth Binsack, Tustin Planning Department Jennifer Wierks forwarded me the email today sent out by Joe Thompson in which he states that T -Mobile is not interested in looking at the OCFA site any longer (after pursuing it for just TWO DAYS!) if they cannot get the top spot on the tower. I am writing to request that you please look closely at the one-sided argument he puts forth in an attempt to reject the OCFA site out -of -hand. If T -Mobile had moved over to the OCFA site in December when the top spot was offered to them we would not be in the position we are today. But now that they have missed out on that opportunity because of their stubborn stance on the Cedar Grove Park site they are trying to throw their weight around to get what they want. I hope you see this tactic for what it is, an attempt to bully the city, the public and the other carriers into giving T -Mobile the best of everything. I would urge you and your staff to have an independent analysis done (something that the Planning Commission asked you to do at the December 14th hearing) to determine the coverage created by positioning antennas on the OCFA towers at the various heights available. Or, at the very least, obtain the coverage analysis already performed by the other carriers on the OCFA site. I am sure these maps must exist. The other carriers wouldn't agree to put their antennas on a tower without making sure It would work would they? If YOU can't get these maps from the other carriers then ask Vista Towers for them. Certainly they would have some analysis available. In Mr. Thompson's email to you he states that AT&T has committed to the OCFA site and is taking the top spot on the towers away from T -Mobile. Well, if AT&T is going to the OCFA site, why would they still need to be on the Cedar Grove Park tower? To listen to Mr. Thompson tell it, AT&T and T -Mobile both want to be in BOTH sites. But is that a realistic need? Can you show me another residential area in all of Orange County in which a single carrier needs so much bandwidth that they must have two cell sites within 450 yards of each other? I have mapped out all of the sites listed in the ATS Wireless Master Plan for the city of Tustin and the only location I can find that comes close is the two Metro PCS installations near the Intersection of the 5 and the 55 freeways where the cell traffic would be much greater than it Is in our neighborhood. (Also, one of those is a rooftop antenna - not a full site.) With AT&T now saying they will move to the OCFA site we will be left with the situation that we have five carriers at the OCFA site and one, T -Mobile, at the Cedar Grove Park site. Why should we, as a community, have to shoulder the burden of two cell sites in our neighborhood so close together just because T -Mobile "claims" that lowering their antennas on the pole a few feet will render their signal totally useless? T -Mobile also claims that the pine trees along Jamboree road will interfere with their signal at the OCFA. How can those few trees be any worse than the 60' high grove of cedar trees that stands between the proposed Cedar Grove Park tower and the surrounding houses? Their arguments are just ludicrousl Let's assume for a moment that T -Mobile's claims are true. I am not an RF engineer and so I can not say for certain what would work, SO LET'S ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW, preferably an independent, third party. Or at the very least, let's ASK VISTA TOWERS OR THE OTHER CARRIERS FOR THEIR ANALYSISI It is logical to believe that putting an antenna at a lower elevation may reduce the coverage pattern - but can just a few feet really make so much difference? And even if it does not give them the complete coverage they would like, might it give adequate coverage to serve the homes in the area? Thank you for your time and consideration -Brandon Key From: Thompson, Joe Finailto:Joe,Thompson(&T-Moblle.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 201111:57 AM To: ebinsack@tustinca.org Cc: Dao, Duan; George Cardenas; Gonzales, Jarryd; Jennifer Wierks Subject: OCFA Property Director Binsack, I've been speaking with the Robert MacLachlan, the Vista Towers representative (builder of the OCFA trees) over the past several days in an attempt to abandon the Cedar Grove Park site and co -locate our facility on the OCFA property. As you know, yesterday I had our RF Department take another look at the viability of the OCFA property. After their review they stated they would accept the OCFA property if we could get the top spot on one of the 2 mono -trees they were building. Again, this was based on Mr. MacLachlan's prior commitment that the top spot was available to us. Even though we would lose coverage as compared to the tree proposed for Cedar Grove Park, due to community opposition, we were prepared to make a commitment to build at the OCFA site. When I contacted Mr. MacLachlan to make this commitment, he then stated he had committed the top spot to AT&T and asked if we could take the next spot down on the tree. I ran this lower spot past RF and was advised it would be too low for our wireless site to work. Mr. MacLachlan, through his desperation to fully populate his tree is now stating he can attempt to get approval to raise the OCFA trees from 45 to 50 -feet, but that would involve getting OCFA, Irvine Company and City of Irvine approval, and having the grant deed changed to allow for the new 50 -foot height limit. This process would take several months and I very much doubt these new height approvals can be obtained. Even so, if the trees were approved for 50 -feet, per AT&T they would still take the top spot leaving us with a 38 -foot antenna height; still too low for our site to work. This morning, I even called AT&T myself to see if they would relinquish the top spot, but they stated they are pursuing both that site and the Cedar Grove Park site in order to cover both areas (something we will do as well). As such, they will not give up the top spot. We tried to accommodate the public by attempting to move to the OCFA property, but in order for our site to work, the location we need on the OCFA tree is simply not available. As such, we are no longer pursuing the OCFA property and will continue on through the entitlement process for Cedar Grove Park. Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks [jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:35 AM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE. Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Another follow up question for you - Heard through the grapevine that it sounds like OCFA/Vista can get you the extra 5 feet (38 feet) and that this second position placement on the one tower is actually higher than 1" position on the 2"d OCFA tower that will be occupied by Verizon (and Sprint and Metro PCS below it) and that those lower positions all seem to be fine with those carriers. I still can't believe that if a lower position (9 feet lower than the proposed T -Mobile position) can be occupied by Sprint and even lower position by MetroPCS, that T Mobile can't be fine with the much superior position it is being offered. Another 5 feet for you would be at 38 feet and you said previously you would be fine with 42 feet which was the original 1" position that AT&T has committed to — now we are talking a mere 4 feet difference. Can you please respond to this as well? Thanks. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:00 AM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, You're absolutely correct. The centerline of the antennas at the Park location is 55 -feet (total tree height is 65 -feet). It was a typo on my part and completely my error. I really apologize for the confusion. The difference in elevation between the Park site and the OCFA property is 13 -feet. However, due to trees and topography, still too substantial of an elevation difference for the site to satisfy the coverage objective. Regardless, the top spot on both trees at the OCFA property have been taken. Per the Vista Tower plans (attached), Verizon (top), Sprint (middle) and Metro PCS (bottom) are located on one tree, while AT&T (top), T -Mobile (middle) and Clearwire (bottom) are located on the second tree. I apologize, but cannot comment regarding why AT&T wants both locations or why Verizon has a site on the light pole in addition to a spot on the OCFA property. Even thought both carriers operate on more efficient frequencies, there could be several reasons why they want multiple sites in relatively close proximity. Possibilities include location of underperforming sites in the area they may have resulted from growing trees that block signals or new development that has resulted in increased data use such as text messaging, internet access, and emails. To my knowledge, AT&T has full intention of locating on both properties. Therefore, no application modification is necessary and the Cedar Grove Park tree is still considered a co -location. Regarding spending money for both locations, both AT&T and T -Mobile are spending the money because both have determined the need for a site at each location. As I explained at the community meeting, we do a lot of due diligence before deciding to build a site, especially in areas that may become contentious, but we need to provide our valued customers with the best wireless experience possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:43 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Joe —your email raises a few more questions for me - The Cedar Grove centerline is at 65 feet? I thought the entire tower height was 65 feet— is it even taller than proposed? Can you please clarify? Or is this just a typo? According to my math, and your earlier representations, being that the centerline of Cedar Grove would be at 55' at a 273 foot elevation, and the OCFA 2"d position at 33' at 282 elevation, you are only losing 13 feet, not 23. If the Vista site can be 5 feet higher, then we are talking 8 feet. But if the Cedar Grove tower is going to be taller than 65' so your centerline can be adjusted, please clarify. Now I know you all have this inferior technology but I am reminded in this conversation that Verizon currently has lightpole installations along Jamboree below the proposed OCFA site which are even a lower elevation than any of this this and their service is great. I assume they are happy with 3`d or41" position. Also, I thought OCFA was going to be 2 towers. Who is occupying the 2"d tower? V position, 2"d? If AT&T has already made a binding agreement to be at OCFA then are you modifying the application to suit just a single carrier? Is the Cedar Grove site not a "colocation" facility anymore? It does not make any sense that AT&T would spend money for 2 tower positions just 450 yards away from each other (in a residential area) when their superior technology doesn't require it? Then I would ask why build such a giant tower in our beautiful park for just you? I await your reply to my original email as well as the data and studies supporting this whole pursuit. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailtoJoe,Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20114:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one. I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved, I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions. From: Jennifer Merk .. [mai Ito: Jaws2@cox. net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustihca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1—though it seems reasonable tome that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. of course, then we are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" —again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 201112:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue. to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20113:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCTA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I too]<forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer -------- ,__.T,... From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20112:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the FIF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tusdnca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1, How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas'. However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site —can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site— was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not—standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Ryan and Elizebeth: furniturerep [furniturerep@cox.net] Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:35 PM Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Planning commission Can you please forward this letter to the planning commisisoners and acknowledge to me that it has been done. Thank you, David Bessen Dear Planning Commissioners:. A cell tower does not belong in our park. Period Forget about potential home values, forget about potential health concerns. G -d is not building anymore land. We have a limited amount of parks. A cell tower does not belong in our park. Look at T -Mobile's website. It says we do not need a new tower. But, for argument's sake, suppose that we do need a tower. Verizon gets perfect coverage with micro sites on Jamboree road at the OCFA, why can't T -Mobile? Does Tustin need to partner with an inferior company that needs to destroy parks instead of using micro sites? I pay about $9,000 a year in property taxes; T -Mobile does not pay one dime in property taxes to support my park. It does pay sales taxes, which helps upkeep our streets, etc., but nothing to support our parks. If this is so important to T -Mobile, why weren't they at the last meeting? They sent their tower builders, but nobody from T -Mobile was there. Regarding both Sequoia and ATS, I personally have left telephone messages for both companies and have not received one return call. Are they the types of companies that Tustin needs to do business with? Do they not care enough about the citizens to return a phone call? Mr. Kozak, you are a COO of a children's organization. Obviously you care about children. Don't you think our children deserve a place to play without having structures and towers? It is right next to a school. Shouldn't kids be able to look out in the park and have unobstructed trees? Mr. Thompson, you have said you are a history buff. This park is over 100 years old. The park was started by James Irvine. James Irvine said if anyone chopped down a tree they were immediately fired. Don't you think we can honor a little history without technology right there? Mr. Moore, you are a land use attorney. The Tustin General Plan, written by the City Council, states: "Important viewsheds in East Tustin, including the Peters Canyon ridgeline, the redwood/cedar grove, the knoll, and the major tree stands, should be protected from intrusion." When you read this passage, wasn't it clear to you what should be done? do not even think it takes an attorney to see that the trees should not be intruded upon. The question is, what would a judge and jury decide? Ms. Kasalek, you have been a huge school supporter. I cannot believe you would want a 65' cell tower, the largest in Tustin, to be right next to our schools. Take into consideration what the World Health Organization says; they issued a policy statement stating that base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? Mr. Puckett, after reading about your background and accomplishments, I know you have Integrity and character. I think about Paul Harvey's famous quote "integrity counts." He was referred to as the voice of reason. Shouldn't we side on the side of reason? Cell sites have not been around long enough for anyone to say one way or another that they are harmful or not. Shouldn't we have integrity to say no, we do not want a tower of any design in our park? At our last meeting, T-Moblie said they would do a community outreach meeting. I only found out about it after the meeting. They did not try to publicize it to the community. I was informed that only about 10 people showed up. Why wasn't it advertised, and why didn't they email it to the community? Which is a greater number, the 10 that showed up or the more than 500 on our petition? Please deny T-Mobile's application and send T-Moblie back to the drawing board to come up with a different location which will preserve our park. G-d bless our park!!! A cell tower does not belong in our park. Period Thank you, David Bessen From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.comj Sent: Monday, January 17, 20118:32 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Tustin - Continuance Request Elizabeth, Please continuance request below. From: George Cardenas [maiIto:george@cardenaspublicaffairs.com] Sent: Friday, January 14, 20114:54 PM To: Shubin, Pete (Sequoia) Ce: Thompson, Joe Subject: Tustin - Continuance Request Cedar Grove - Continuance Request In the matter concerning Cedar Grove Park, T -Mobile respectfully requests fora continuance from the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 2011 to the meeting of February 8. We request the additional time to adequately prepare responses to questions raised by the Planning Commission, city staff and residents. At the recent Town Hall several residents questioned the accuracy and sensitivity of the RF analysis submitted as part ofT-Mobile's application. A comment also made by the Planning Commission. As such, T -Mobile has undertaken the additional step of performing a secondary RF analysis to test the veracity of the information already submitted. A secondary RF analysis is the laborious task of measuring RF signal strengths at the street level and modeling the large volume of data to produce an analysis at a near street by street basis. Moreover, T -Mobile is having the work performed outside the project area to include areas in close proximately. T -Mobile remains committed to responding to the issues and concerns raised during this approval process. In that effort, if there is any additional information we can provide please let us know. Let me know what you think. Also, good work today. Have a great weekend. Kind Regards, George ® C A R D S M A S U13PUBL:C AFFAIRS m 714.343.7413 / w 562.259.7036 georqe@cardenaspublicaffair.g.com Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 9:12 AM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, During the community meeting, I'm sure you've seen the RF propagation maps that our RF engineers created through a computer program called ACCESS. This program is an RF modeling tool that creates a multi -colored map that predicts which areas will be covered and at what signal strength. Although its very accurate and takes into account existing topography, does not take into account existing trees, buildings and other envoronmental factors that could have an impact on intended coverage. As such, we met with the City late last week and asked for a continuance from the January 25th Planning Commission hearing to the February 8th hearing. During this time, we will be performing a more detailed RF test. This test involves placing a trailer at both the Park and OCFA property and raising an antennas mast to the same height as the proposed antennas. Then a team of RF engineers drives each street in the intended coverage area to measure the signal strength. The completed test will result in a map that shows the actual signal strength at each street and is the final word regarding our need for coverage and where a wireless facility must be located to cover that area. Once we receive the results of the test, we will make a final determination at what location will be most appropriate to build our site to serve our valued customers. Please understand that other factors such as lease rate and build costs will be considered as well. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 20118:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Ce: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Another follow up question for you - Heard through the grapevine that it sounds like OCFA/Vista can get you the extra 5 feet (38 feet) and that this second position placement on the one tower is actually higher than 1" position on the 2"O OCFA tower that will be occupied by Verizon (and Sprint and Metro PCS below it) and that those lower positions all seem to be fine with those carriers. I still can't believe that if a lower position (9 feet lower than the proposed T -Mobile position) can be occupied by Sprint and even lower position by Metro PCS, that T Mobile can't be fine with the much superior position it is being offered. Another 5 feet for you would be at 38 feet and you said previously you would be fine with 42 feet which was the original 1s` position that AT&T has committed to — now we are talking a mere 4 feet difference. Can you please respond to this as well? Thanks. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompso _..- p n@T-Mobile.com] Sent Thursday, January 13, 201111:00 AM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer You're absolutely correct. The centerline of the antennas at the Park location is 55 -feet (total tree height is 65 -feet). It was a typo on my part and completely my error. I really apologize for the confusion. The difference in elevation between the Park site and the OCFA property is 13 -feet. However, due to trees and topography, still too substantial of an elevation difference for the site to satisfy the coverage objective. Regardless, the top spot on both trees at the OCFA property have been taken. Per the Vista Tower plans (attached), Verizon (top), Sprint (middle) and Metro PCS (bottom) are located on one tree, while AT&T (top), T -Mobile (middle) and Clearwire (bottom) are located on the second tree, I apologize, but cannot comment regarding why AT&T wants both locations or why Verizon has a site on the light pole in addition to a spot on the OCFA property. Even thought both carriers operate on more efficient frequencies, there could be several reasons why they want multiple sites in relatively close proximity. Possibilities include location of underperforming sites in the area they may have resulted from growing trees that block signals or new development that has resulted in increased data use such as text messaging, internet access, and emails. To my knowledge, AT&T has full intention of locating on both properties. Therefore, no application modification is necessary and the Cedar Grove Park tree is still considered a co -location. Regarding spending money for both locations, both AT&T and T -Mobile are spending the money because both have determined the need for a site at each location. As I explained at the community meeting, we do a lot of due diligence before deciding to build a site, especially in areas that may become contentious, but we need to provide our valued customers with the best wireless experience possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:43 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Joe — your email raises a few more questions for me -The Cedar Grove centerline is at 65 feet? I thought the entire tower height was 65 feet—is it even taller than proposed? Can you please clarify? Or is this just a typo? According to my math, and your earlier representations, being that the centerline of Cedar Grove would be at 55' at a 273 foot elevation, and the OCFA 2nd position at 33' at 282 elevation, you are only losing 13 feet, not 23. If the Vista site can be 5 feet higher, then we are talking 8 feet. But if the Cedar Grove tower is going to be taller than 65' so your centerline can be adjusted, please clarify. Now I know you all have this inferior technology but I am reminded in this conversation that Verizon currently has lightpole installations along Jamboree below the proposed OCFA site which are even a lower elevation than any of this this and their service is great. I assume they are happy with 3rd or 4"' position. Also, I thought OCFA was going to be 2 towers. Who is occupying the 2"d tower? 1'x position, 296? If AT&T has already made a binding agreement to be at OCFA then are you modifying the application to suit just a single carrier? Is the Cedar Grove site not a "colocation" facility anymore? It does not make any sense that AT&T would spend money for 2 tower positions just 450 yards away from each other (in a residential area) when their superior technology doesn't require it? Then I would ask why build such a giant, tower in our beautiful park for just you? I await your reply to my original email as well as the data and studies supporting this whole pursuit Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20114:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswlontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca,org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one. I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore; the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This Is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions From Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@ N .. „. �® cox.net] - Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Ce: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca,org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1—though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point foryou, Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then w€ are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" —again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higherelevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-10 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20112:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, Is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site, If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas' will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these"other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? R 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying, public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not— standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Uaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:22 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 continued to February 8? Please confirm Dear Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek: Joe Thompson from T -Mobile just informed me that the Cedar Grove matter has been continued to the February S, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Can you please confirm this? Thanks. Jennifer Wierks 714.505.9236 Swiontek, Ryan From: Binsack, Elizabeth Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:10 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 continued to February 8? Please confirm Ms. Wierks: Mr. Thompson has requested a continuance to the meeting of February 8, 2011. The Planning Commission did continue the item to the January 25, 2011 meeting so they would formally need to continue the item the night of the meeting. City staff will prepare a one page cover report and attach the applicant's request for continuance. City staff will also send out an e-mail blast and notice to those individuals that we have contact information for letting them know of the request. Please let me know if you have question. Elizabeth Binsack From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11,22 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 continued to February 8? Please confirm Dear Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek: Joe Thompson from T -Mobile just informed me that the Cedar Grove matter has been continued to the February 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Can you please confirm this? Thanks. Jennifer Wierks 714.505.9236 From: Xin Wang [mailto:xinwang98@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:33 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: T-mobile tower in Cedar Grove Dear Elizabeth, I am a resident at 10985 Hiskey LN in Tustin. I am writing to urge you veto the T-mobile proposal of setting up a high tower in Cedar Grove Park. I've read much information related to their proposal as well as vast opposition in the community. As an engineer with over 13 years of RF/wireless design experience, I found it a simply false statement from T-mobile that OCFA can not provide adequate signal strength coverage. However this does not come as a surprise since this is not the first time T- mobile provide false information to me personally. I've purchased their cellular phones at Costco and signed up for their service after seeing their coverage map which shows pure green (meaning excellent signal strength) in my community here at E1 Dorado. I had to return the phone and cancel service the same day since I did not even get any signal bars when I got home. In general, I feel that companies like T-mobile who has notorious inferior technology and credibility does not even deserve a chance to speak to our community, let alone a highly controversial one like this that irradiated so many residents. Please voice our opinions by saying NO to this company. Best regards, Xin Wang 10985 Hiskey LN Tustin, CA 92782 (949) 7355988 From: Tp [mailto:phamtracie@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, ]anuary 18, 2011 5:58 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: No to T=Mobile at Grove Park Dear Ms. Binsack, My name is Tracie Pham and my family and I live in Tustin Ranch. We are strongly opposed to T -Mobile erecting its cell tower in Grove Park. Regards, Tracie Pham From: Suma [mailto:suma_18@yahoo.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:15 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: T -Moble Towers Dear Ms. Elizabeth Binsack T -mobile cell tower is an abomination in our Park. Our park is for kids and people who live here not for cell phone towers. When there is an alternative to this location i do not understand how they cannot put their cell tower at oc Fire authority complex. I request the city officials to please consider our reasonable request. Thanks From: Melinda Echeverria [mailto:melindaberge@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:19 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Please reconsider Please, I beg you as a happy taxpaying resident and Mom in Tustin Ranch, I cannot believe the city is even considering such an atrocity in a park by my child's school. I am horrified that I may have to consider leaving this area because of the unknown danger of celltowers. This is a preposterous idea and I have consulted with a colleague who is an engineer in broadcasting to learn that this is NOT a good idea. Why wouldn't the City put the tower where the other carriers are, near the toll road and away from our homes and schools. What a shame to ruin such a wonderful park. I saw the BEAST today being put up/tested and was truly HORRIFIED. I beg you to reconsider such a long lasting and poor decision. Melinda Echeverria From: Laurie Ayers [mailto:laurieayers@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 20118:59 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Proposed Cell Phone Tower - Cedar Grove Park Elizabeth, I drove by Cedar Grove Park and was alarmed to see a cell phone tower in the parking lot. I understand T -Mobile is conducting testing of signal strength. I want to express my opinion that Cedar Grove Park is not a location that should be considered for a cell phone tower for the following reasons: Cedar Grove Park is heavily utilized by children and families: Every weekend the park is used as a venue for family gatherings and parties Most weekdays the park is used by children for practices (LAX, soccer, etc) • The path behind the park is heavily traveled by children attending both Peters Canyon Elementary and Pioneer Middle Schools daily • On the weekends the path behind the park is used by numerous people (walking, running, biking) on the Mountains to Sea Trail The park is named for the beautiful grove of Cedar Trees that is part of Tustin's history: Placing a cell tower disguised as a tree would destroy the natural beauty of the park . The integrity of the original grove of Cedar trees would be damaged with the addition of even a new different type of real tree, let alone a fake tree. I understand the need for cell phone coverage in the general area, however Cedar Grove Park is not a good location for a cell phone tower. The Orange County Fire Authority location would be the logical choice for T -Mobile's cell tower. I understand 5 other carriers are placing their antennaes at the OCFA location and this is where T - Mobile should place theirs as well. Thank you so much for your consideration and for saving our beautiful park. Laurie Ayers Swiontek, Ryan From: Laurie Ayers [laurieayers@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:05 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Proposed Cell Tower - Cedar Grove Park Dear Mr. Swiontek, I drove by Cedar Grove Park and was alarmed to see a cell phone tower in the parking lot. I understand T -Mobile is conducting testing of signal strength. I want to express my opinion that Cedar Grove Park is not a location that should be considered for a cell phone tower for the following reasons: Cedar Grove Park is heavily utilized by children and families: • Every weekend the park is used as a venue for family gatherings and parties • Most weekdays the park is used by children for practices (LAX, soccer, etc) • The path behind the park is heavily traveled by children attending both Peters Canyon Elementary and Pioneer Middle Schools daily • On the weekends the path behind the park is used by numerous people (walking, running, biking) on the Mountains to Sea Trail The park is named for the beautiful arove of Cedar Trees that is part of Tustin's history: • Placing a cell tower disguised as a tree would destroy the natural beauty of the park . • The integrity of the original grove of Cedar trees would be damaged with the addition of even a new different type of real tree, let alone a fake tree. I understand the need for cell phone coverage in the general area, however Cedar Grove Park is not a good location for a cell phone tower. The Orange County Fire Authority location would be the logical choice for T -Mobile's cell tower. I understand 5 other carriers are placing their antennaes at the OCFA location and this is where T -Mobile should place theirs as well. Thank you so much for your consideration and for saving our beautiful park. Laurie Ayers I From: larry [mailto:lberge@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:42 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cedar Grove To the Planning Commission: Dear Sirs: I am a grandmother who baby-sits and regularly take my Grand Daughter, 17 months old, to the Cedar Grove Park. The newly erected tower is very offensive to the beauty and tranquility of the park. A bigger concern is the long term health effects of the radio frequency to young children. Please consider placing the tower in a less visible location and away from an area where young children frequently play. Rebecca Berge From: kamokids@cox.net [mailto:kamokids@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:48 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Save Cedar Grove Park.... NO towers! Aloha Ms. Binsack, We have FOUR children who live and go to school just yards away from the Cedar Grove Park. Today, as I walked my youngest daughter home from school, she literally froze in her steps as we approached the horrid cell phone tower. I cannot understand how anyone would choose to put a dangerous and unsightly cell tower in our beautiful Cedar Grove Park, just yards away from Peters Canyon Elementary and Pioneer Middle School. It is so close to our home that if it were to fall over, it would literally be in our backyard. I strongly encourage you to support the cell towers to be added along with the other five wireless carriers who are putting their antennas over at the OC Fire Authority. I understand this T-mobile will bring a substantial amount of money to our city, but at what costs to the residents? Adding a cell phone tower to our beautiful community when there are viable alternative sights available makes no sense. Thank you for your consideration and understanding. with Aloha, Howard and Gail Kamo From: vicki.austin@cox.net [mailto:vicki.austin@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:22 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cedar Grove Park To: Elizabeth Binsack, Chief of Staff at the Planning Commission I've been a resident of Tustin since 1994, when I moved here to raise my family. I did so to be in a new community where residents looked out for each other. In February 2000, I moved to my current residence, accross from Cedar Grove Park. What a beautiful park. My children have enjoyed playing in the large grassy area and every spring we would fly kites with many other residents. My sister loves bringing her children to stay at my house. And she too has enjoyed playing in the park and I taught her kids how to fly kites. The fact that the City wants to ruin what I and my family have enjoyed over these years is unthinkable. There is no reason that this tower can't be place where the other towers are. Why ruin this beautiful park where families have enjoyed spending time with their children, why put families health risks. Why??? Please, do not allow this. Vicki Austin 11650 Goetting Ave Tustin, CA 92782 714-734-8850 From: Kristie Johansen[mailto:kristiejohansen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:28 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: T -mobile Cell Tower Ms. Binsack, I have recently become aware of T -mobiles request to erect a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. Although science has not concluded that the radio frequency waves emanating from base stations amount to harmful levels for humans and animals, it is a fact that radio frequency waves are harmful to life. I have read many studies detailing the relationship between the height of towers and the reduction of radio frequency waves. It seems to me that if harmful radiation is emanating from the base or the tower, then no amount of distance would be safe enough for me to allow my child to be anywhere near it. I have not yet decided whether or not the base stations or towers are harmful. However, as a daughter, a grand -daughter, a sister, a wife, and a mother, I do know that I am not willing to test this theory using my family as the subjects. As brilliant as the human race is, there is great room for human error, which at times is considerable. 1 am a huge proponent of business growth, especially technological growth. I do not believe that limits should be imposed on growth. But, where there is an alternative to possible harm, and a reasonable compromise is available and acceptable, it should be pursued. T -mobile has the opportunity to bid for a space more appropriate. Whether it be a higher price for the location, or an upgrade of equipment to rival competitors, it should be done at T -mobile's expense, not the expense of the Tustin community, the homeowners, the children who come from all over Orange County to play at Cedar Grove Park, or the children who attend Peter's Canyon elementary School. T -mobile has a duty to provide for their customers much like the city of Tustin has a duty to provide for their community. The community is in upheaval over the prospects of this tower. The community is fearful for the safety of others and for yet another decrease in home values. Aside from this fear, this community takes great pride in the beauty and aesthetics of our parks and schools. An unsightly cell tower will interfere with the enjoyment of our public areas. Our community is supposed to be a safe place where we gather our friends and families, where we dine, we shop, and we live. If we cannot count on our city to have the best interest of the community over that of big business„ we cannot continue to feel this safety. That would be a shame. Please stand up with us and stop T -mobile from putting up an obstacle in our community. Let's stand united, and force T -mobile to do the right thing; keep their ceB towers out of residential areas. Thank you. Regards, Kristie Johansen From: Natalie [mailto:n.pohl@westates.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:02 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cell Tower Why would our community want to see a cell tower at Cedar Grove Park, when there are more rural areas in which it could be placed? Try over by the 241 freeway! Natalie Pohl Home owner in Emerson From: Nancy Letson [mailto:nkletson@cox. net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:30 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cell Tower As a resident of Tustin Ranch for the past 13 years, I am emailing to register my opposition to a cell tower, T -Mobile or any other carrier, going up in Cedar Grove Park. It will be an eye -sore even if they try to camouflage it. My understanding is that the Orange Count Fire Authority will have cell towers going in on its land. If so many local residents are against a cell tower at the park, why not have T -Mobile join the others on the tax -payer land of the Fire Authority? Why pollute a beautiful park when there is another option? With so much opposition and another option available, it seems clear that phone company equipment does not belong in Cedar Grove Park. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. -Nancy Letson From: Kelly Ren [mailto:kelly_ren@yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:31 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Re: Fwd: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! Mrs. Binsack, Please DO NOT allow T -Mobile to put the tower in the park. It doesn't belong to the park. If other carriers put the towers in the fire authority, why would T - Mobile make an exception? We don't need T -Mobile to be in the area at all! Thanks for protecting our children. Kelly Ren --- On Wed, 1/19/11, kamokids(acox.net <I<amokids(acox.net> wrote: > From: I<amokids@cox.net <kamokids@cox.net> > Subject: Fwd: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! > Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 2:17 AM Aloha Friends, > Just in case you didn't get this email already. Please see the > attached photo and please email Ms. Binsack asap. Thank you for your > help. i > With Aloha, > Gail Kamo > > > For those of you who missed it today, although I don't > know how you could > > have, T -Mobile gave us a little taste of what a cell > tower in the park would > > look like. They are conducting tests to > determine the signal strength from > > towers located at the park and at the OC Fire > Authority. > > If you feel this type of structure is an abomination > in our park, call or > > email the city today and let them know that this tower > doesn't belong in the > > park! > > Let them know that, since five other wireless carriers > are putting their > > antennas over at the OC Fire Authority complex, > T -Mobile should too! > > Call the Planning Department: (714) 573-3140 > > or email Elizabeth Binsack, Chief of Staff at the > Planning Commission: > > ebinsackotustinca.org > > Also: > > *Planning Commission Hearing next Tuesday Tan 25th at > 7pm.* > > > > This may be our last chance to convince the city that > we are united in > > opposition to this tower. T-Mobile may ask for > another delay, but we need > > to show up in force to tell them we mean business! > > Check out the website for additional info: > > www.savecedargrovepark.org* > > Thanks! From: Lei Xu [mailto:shellyxu@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:20 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Againest T -mobile tower in Cedar Grove Park Hi, We live in Sedona community which is at other side of the park. and our daughter is a student in PCE. We strongly against to set up the cell phone tower in the park which increase the serious health risk for all residence here, especially the kids. Please really consider our concerns and make T -Mobile to change their set-up location. At least further away from the school. Thanks a lot for your help Shelly Xu, Qiang Ye 2925 Sleeper Ave Tustin, CA 92782 949-232-418 Swiontek, Ryan From: John & Kathy Tkach1 Sent: Wednesday, January To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Sorry to bother you with another email... FW: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! Mr. Ryan Swiontek, This is a REVISED EMAiIL— I removed a few sentences from an earlier email, that were upon further questioning on my part found to be too difficult to report as an accurate statement. If you have any questions please reply back to this email. Thanks, JST (Please remove my email address from public viewing and read this email at your next meeting) Ms. Elizabeth Binsack and City of Tustin Planning Commission, I thought this email would benefit the Tustin Planning Commission to know the following information Personally, I haven't made a decision... in favor or against a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. The main reason for my email is to inform you and our city planning commission, not ALL Tustin Ranch residents are "united in opposition to this tower." Out of fear of repercussion, six different residents within my Presidio community, have complained to me, (a Presidio H.O.A. Board member) and asked that I send this email. These six households, are in favor of a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. One resident gave me an example of her fear, which, I witnessed at the last planning commission meeting. A Presidio resident being booed after voicing her opinion, in favor of installing a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. On the www.savecedargrovepark.org there is a closed poll of the community. 730 total votes: 41 votes (51 %) against a cell site and 39 votes (49%) in favor of a cell site in the Cedar Grove pant,. My findings (within the 174 residents of Presidio) are of similar results, the community is basically split 50% in favor and B00% against the installation of a coil tower in Cedar Grove Park. If a cell tower is approved, please make sure the tower is well camouflaged. (to blend in with the sounding environment) Lastly; in my opinion, t he emails below are a miss representation of "what a cell tower in the park would look like" and spreading unnecessary fear among the Tustin residents. One email states... "we need to show up in force to tell them we mean businessl" This is the voice of a "community organizer" and not that of the Tustin community. My advice to you and the planning commission... Don't allow a couple of "community organizers" to put a stop to whatever you feel is best for the Tustin community. Best regards, John S. Tkach Presidio H.O.A. Board member 12 year Tustin Ranch resident From: John & Kathy Tkach Date: Tue, 18 Jan 201122:56:09 -0800 To: <rswiontekc@tustinca.ore> Subject: Sorry to bother you with another email.. FW: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! (Please remove my email address from public viewing and have this email read at your next meeting) Mr. Ryan Swiontek, I thought this email would benefit you to know the following information. Personally, I haven't made a decision... in favor or against a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. The main reason for my email is to inform you, not ALL Tustin Ranch residents are "united in opposition to this tower." Out of fear of repercussion, six different residents within my Presidio community, have complained to me, (a Presidio H.O.A. Board member) and asked that I send this email. These six households, are in favor of a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. One resident gave me an example of her fear, which, I witnessed at the last planning commission meeting. A Presidio resident being booed after voicing her opinion, in favor of installing a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. Another Presidio resident, complained that he was being sent repeated spam emails from a Presidio Homeowner Board member. (Sharon Komorous) Ms. Komorous is using an email list that is the property of the Presidio HOA Board, for her personal use, (in opposition of a cell tower) without the permission of the Presidio HOA Board. On this issue, she does not represent the Presidio Homeowners Board's opinion, nor do]. This abuse of the Presidio H.O.A. email list, will be addressed at our next meeting on January 20, 2011. On the www.savecedargrovepark.org there is a closed poll of the community. 80 total votes: 41 votes (51 %) against a cell site and 39 votes (49%) in favor of a cell site in the Cedar Grove park. My findings (within the 174 residents of Presidio) are of similar results, the community is basically split 50% in favor and 50% against the installation of a. cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. If a cell tower is approved, please make sure the tower Is well camouflaged. (to blend in with the sounding environment) Lastly; in my opinion, t he emails below are a miss representation of "what a cell tower in the park would look like" and spreading unnecessary fear among the Tustin residents. One email states... "we need to show up in force to tell them we mean businessl" This is the voice of a "community organizer" and not that of the Tustin community. My thoughts are... Don't allow a couple of "community organizers" to put a stop to whatever you feel is best for the Tustin community. Best regards, John S. Tkach Presidio H.O.A. Board member 12 year Tustin Ranch resident From: Sharon I(omorous <skomo@cox.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 201120:03:29 -0800 To: Sharon Komorous <skomo@cox.net> Subject: FW: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! Dear Friends and Neighbors, Please see the attached photograph and read the message below for an update on tbecell tower. Thank you, Sharon Komorous From: Brandon Key[mailf6:savecedargroApark(�)gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 20115:22 PM To: savecedargroveoarkCa)gmail.com Subject: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! For those of you who missed it today, although I don't know how you could have, T -Mobile gave us a little taste of what a cell tower in the park would look like. They are conducting tests to determine the signal strength from towers located at the park and at the OC Fire Authority. If you feel this type of structure is an abomination in our park, call or email the city today and let them know that this tower doesn't belong in the park! Let them know that, since five other wireless carriers are putting their antennas over at the OC Fire Authority complex, T -Mobile should too! Call the Planning Department: (714) 573-3140 or email Elizabeth Binsack,, Chief of Staff at the Planning Commission: ebinsack@tustinca.ore am. Planning Conunission Hearing next Tuesday Jan 25th at 7pru. This may be our last chance to convince the city that we are united in opposition to this tower. T -Mobile may as!< for another delay, but we need to show up in force to tell them we mean business! Check out the website for additional info: www.savecedartirovepark.or� Thanks! From: Xin Wang [mailto:xinwang98@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:23 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Regarding T -mobile's cell tower test at Cedar Grove Dear Elizabeth, I recently emailed you regarding T -mobile's incompetent technology (one of the highest call dropping rate) and bad credibility (faked coverage map especially for tustin ranch area). Again as a seasoned electrical engineer myself, I found another loophole in their testing to prove it is necessary to build a big tower instead of using OCFA's training facility. Let me share with you from the technical side: While it is true that bigger tower with higher power can improve cell phone coverage for sure, it is absolutely against the trend of technical competition in the market. Besides health issues constantly under debate, all major IC (integrated circuit) vendors are keen to cut down power consumption to boost battery life as well as solving heat dissipation problems for any mobile devices. Common approaches to achieve these goals are using more advanced DSP (digital signal processing) technology or algorithm and using novel RF front end design techniques. Now let's take a look why T -mobile always latches onto the idea of bigger tower and higher power -- engineering intuition tells me they most probably can not compete with good enough low power devices using more advance design skills. Then the question is, why do we accommodate a losing player in the market place by giving the big towers etc. which not only hurts community interests (clearly demonstrated by residents rages on this topic), but also goes against the technology trend to go GREEN, go low power, go healthy? We at Tustin city should at minimum ask T -mobile and our own staffs why we should trust that their own (lower class) equipment testing can justify their ridiculous request to build a bigger tower, instead of improving their own technology in RF/wireless design? Isn't this at least unfair for other competitors who invest in R&D rather than PR (or lying around) to get market share? Please feel free to check my technical reference for above comments. Best regards, Xin Wang 10985 Hiskey LN, Tustin, CA 9497355988 From: Tanya Zaverl [mailto:tazdesigns@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:33 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: opposition to cell tower at Cedar Grove Park Dear Ms. Binsack, I am writing to you to express my absolute opposition to the placement of the T -Mobil tower in Cedar Grove Park. This location is not an appropriate choice to place a 24 hour a day radiating antenna in such close proximity to homes and schools where our children spend the majority of their day. As residents of this community we have all sacrificed alot to ensure that our children grow up in a safe environment. The long term effects of spending time next to these towers is still not conclusive. There are other states that have taken the lead in trying to protect children from this technology that is not sufficiently researched. The state of Maryland now prohibits the placing of any wireless antenna on school property. It is a LAW there. This park, whether or not owned by the school district is close enough to the classrooms to be considered school propoerty even if not technically so. We, in Tustin deserve the same protection from our city for our children and do not want to be the guinea pigs. Please do not consider the placement of this tower where it can possibly put our children and our families at risk. There is a toll road near by that would serve the smae purpose and although would not create revenue for our city it would be in the best interest of our city's citizens. Whatever revenue you would receive from this tower from T -mobile or any other wireless carrier could be raised in other ways which would not put unnecessary risks on our community. Please do not let T -Mobile or any other carrier bully their way into our towns and cities! Take a stand and do the right thing! NO WIRELESS ANTENNAS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEXT TO OUR SCHOOLS!!! Thank you, Tanya Verdi Tustin, CA From: Ipkull@aol.com [mailto:lpkull@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 20112:57 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: rdotson@t-mobile.com; jailing@t-mobile.com Subject: Cedar Grove Park Ms. Binsack and Planning Commission, I was at Cedar Grove Park on Tuesday, January 18 and Wednesday, January 19th while T -Mobile was conducting their testing and marking the location of the proposed tower. I wanted to write to you and ask that you please DECLINE the proposal to place a cell tower by T -Mobile in Cedar Grove park. I was playing at the park with my young children before picking up my older son at Peters Canyon Elementary. I have been aware of the T -Mobile request to enter the park however once seeing the test equipment and the green balloon that was placed at 65 feet to imitate the "faux tree" height,) am even more enraged at the idea. I was informed at the T -Mobile community event on January 6th that the "faux tree" would blend into the park. After seeing the placement of the green balloon, I believe even more that this 65' cell tower does not belong in Cedar Grove park. The placement was much taller and farther away from any of the other trees. As I am sure you are aware, there was nothing natural looking about this tower, its placement and/or it's height. I am requesting that you decline the T -Mobile proposal to erect a 65' Faux Tree Cell Tower in Cedar Grove park and/or any other location in the park (io Flag poles). Please consider the CCFA site as an acceptable alternate location. Thank you! Lynnea Kull 10816 Churchill Place Tustin, CA 92782 (714) 334-1258 Swiontek, Ryan From: Tanya Zaverl [tazdesigns@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:48 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Opposition to Tmobile antennas in Cedar Grove Park I am writing to you to express my absolute opposition to the placement of the T -Mobil tower in Cedar Grove Park. This location is not an appropriate choice to place a 24 hour a day radiating antenna in such close proximity to homes and schools where our children spend the majority of their day. As residents of this community we have all sacrificed alot to ensure that our children grow up in a safe environment. The long term effects of spending time next to these towers is still not conclusive. There are other states that have taken the lead in trying to protect children from this technology that is not sufficiently researched. The state of Maryland now prohibits the placing of any wireless antenna on school property. It is a LAW there. This park, whether or not owned by the school district is close enough to the classrooms to be considered school propoerty even if not technically so. We, in Tustin deserve the same protection for our children I!! Please do not consider the placement of this tower where it could possibly put our children and our families at risk. There is a toll road near by that would serve the same purpose and although it would not create revenue for our city... it would be in the best interest of our city's citizens! Whatever revenue Tustin would receive from this tower from T -mobile or any other wireless carrier could be raised in other ways which would not put our community at risk unnecessarily. Please do not let T -Mobile or any other carrier bully their way into our towns and cities! Take a stand and do the right thing! NO WIRELESS ANTENNAS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEXT TO OUR SCHOOLSM Thank you, Tanya Tustin, CA Swiontek, Ryan From: Paul Martin [pablo_811@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:52 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Thanks Ryan for the update. I received a postcard in the mail today from the opposition alerting people of the hearing. Paul --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek a tustinca.ore> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek(@tustinca.org> Subject: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: Date: Thursday, January 20,'2011, 5:38 PM On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public hearing for Design Review 09- 030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono - cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontekna.tustinca.org or Justin Willkom at 714-573-3115, lwillkom a;tustinea.org. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks jjaws2®cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 21, 20114:05 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE`. Design Change and Continuance Request I realize you may have to adjustsome of your data for the new design, but I am still waiting for your response to my initial questions posed to you in my January 7th email... I still would very much appreciate a response — now as it applies to your new plan. Do you have the coverage maps available yet that were generated as a result of your recent testing at the 2 sites? Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 20114:20 PM To: ebinsack@tustinca.org Cc: George Cardenas; Gonzales, Jarryd; Shubin, Pete (Sequoia); Jennifer Wierks; Tony Ingegneri Subject: Design Change and Continuance Request Elizabeth, After thoughtful consideration and to address the concerns of the community, this is T -Mobile's formal request to change the design of the proposed project at Cedar Grove Park from a mono -pine to a flagpole configuarion. Our amended project design includes replacing the two existing flag poles currently located in the parking lot turn -around with three 40 - foot flagpoles. Three flag poles are needed as one antenna will be located within each pole so to minimize the pole diameter. Regarding the Planning Commission hearing, we ask that the City grant us a continuance to a date uncertain so that revised plans, photo simulations, RF propagation maps and other entitlement application requirements can be prepared for submittal to city staff. Further, because of the extra time needed to facilitate the new design, T -Mobile releases the City of Tustin from the required maximum processing timelines set forth by the California Permit Streamlining Act and Federal Wireless Shotclock. We hope to continue an open dialogue with both the City and its concerned residents so that we build the best wireless project possible. If you have any questions regarding the new design, continuance request or timeline release, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Joe Thompson Zoning and Government Affairs Manager T -Mobile USA (949) 350-5376 From: Stephanie Holoubek [mailto:sjholoubek@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 5:05 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth subject: Cell tower Ms. Binsack, I am writing to express my opposition regarding the cell tower at cedar Grove Park. I am concerned for my family's well-being and I am shocked that anyone would think placing a cell tower in a park would ever be a good idea. There are other options nearby like the OC Fire Authority that would be much better suited for a cell tower. As a parent and a teacher in Tustin, I ask you to please not vote to place the cell tower at Cedar Grove Park or any other park in Tustin. Thank you for you consideration, Stephanie Holoubek Swiontek, Ryan From: Ipkull@aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:51 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Ryan, Thank you for the message regarding Design Review 09-030. Will this item still be on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, 1/25? Thank you, Lynnea Kull -----Original Message ----- From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.orga Sent: Thu, Jan 20, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public hearing for Design Review 09-030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09.030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please .do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.orq or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkom@tustinca.oro. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Tel. (714) 573 3123 Fax (714) 573 3113 Swiontek, Ryan From: chen chen [cheninca1998@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 '10:46 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09.030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Ryan, Thank you for your information. could you please let me know what does that mean by "T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item "? Thank you! Chen -- On Thu, 1/20/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tushnca.org> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tusdnca.org> Subject: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:38 PM On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin PlanningCommission held a public hearing for Design Review 09-030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustmca.org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkom@tustinca.org. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek 1 From: ric.silvestre@cox.net [mailto:ric.silvestre@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:55 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: T -Mobile Cell Tower Inquiry Importance: High Sensitivity: Personal Dear Ms. Elizabeth Binsack: on behalf of my wife, I am writing you with regards to the T -Mobile cell tower project at Cedar Grove Park. Since you are the Chief of Staff of the Planning Commission for the City of Tustin, this complaint letter is directed to you - primarily - as well as for the members of said commission. As can be clearly seen in this unretouched photograph taken on Tuesday 1S January 2011, it is evident that T -Mobile is moving forward with the edification of their cell tower, which is clearly an abomination. If memory serves me correctly, I - along with the many individuals present at the December 2010 city council meeting - it was stated that no further action would be done until the following meeting scheduled for Tuesday 25 January 2011. In the meantime, it is obvious that the T -Mobile organization has clearly ignored the stated motion, as evidenced by the photographic attachment. Furthermore, it was clearly understood that said organization was to conduct a town -hall meeting prior to the January 2011 city council meeting, in order to improve their already disastrous attempt at public relations with respect to the placement and construction of their cell tower. The meeting they proffered was a mockery and a sham. Instead of a well -organized town -hall meeting, they - purposely - held a small reunion inside the Tustin Library and sent postcards to certain members of the affected surrounding communities. Their presentation had four (4) undersized "work stations", the idea clearly being divide -and -conquer. This was supposedly taped for the city council members; no one has any notion as to whether -or -not this was forwarded to you and your colleagues for your viewing. My wife and I asked clear and pertinent questions regarding safety and property value effects; quite sadly and most troubling was the fact that none of our questions were directly answered. The answers they gave were either for us to read their brochures or that all matters were "statistically insignificant;" this latter comment was the apparent go -to answer for the few who did receive and attend this inadequately prepared meeting. For example, when I asked specifically how much will property values be undermined, the response was that .."it would not be greatly affected." when pressed for a specific number or percent from that rhetorical comment, the individual only answered that it would be statistically insignificant. I was never given a clear nor specific response. My wife asked another gentleman about the radio frequency strength and its effect upon the environment; this person stated that the radio waves emitted from the tower would only travel horizontally and thus would not cause any harm on the environment. Anyone with common sense and basic elementary science would greatly refute this ridiculous reply! Added to this, it is a known and proven fact that the fiberglass to be utilized to cover up this tower is greatly carcinogenic, and the heat that will be emitted from it will significantly affect the fiberglass to produce greater toxicity and harm the high -traffic volume of people - particularly children - using Cedar Grove Park. Finally, the Save Cedar Grove Park organization has forwarded to you and the commission information that five (5) other wireless carriers are placing their towers/antennas at the orange County Fire Authority complex; since this is the case, it is not only reasonable, but responsible that T -Mobile should do the same, also. In the end, I am sadly aware that politics and money go hand-in-hand. I can only hope that you - and the commission - will not succumb to back door politics and will carefully consider not only what has been shared in this note, but the many others who have spoken and/or written to the committee, many countless individuals who value (a multiple -meaning word) Cedar Grove Park. Sincerely, Ricardo Silvestre Sedona Community Family Resident Enclosure: - Photograph of T -Mobile test tower on Tues 18 Jan 2011 f I Sunday 22 January 2011 Dear Ms. Elizabeth Binsack: On behalf of my wife, I am writing you with regards to the T -Mobile cell tower project at Cedar Grove Park. Since you are the Chief of Staff of the Planning Commission for the City of Tustin, this complaint letter is directed to you — primarily — as well as for the members of said commission. As can be clearly seen in this unretouched photograph taken on Tuesday 18 January 2011, it is evident that T -Mobile is moving forward with the edification of their cell tower, which is clearly an abomination. If memory serves me correctly, I — along with the many individuals present at the December 2010 city council meeting — it was stated that no further actionwould be done until the following meeting scheduled for Tuesday 25 January 2011. In the meantime, it is obvious that the T -Mobile organization has clearly ignored the stated motion, as evidenced by the photographic attachment. Furthertnore, it was clearly understood that said organization was to conduct a town -hall meeting prior to the January 2011 city council meeting, in order to improve their already disastrous attempt at public relations with respect to the placement and construction of their cell tower. The meeting they proffered was a mockery and a sham. Instead of a well -organized town -hall meeting, they — purposely — held a small reunion inside the Tustin Library and sent postcards to certain members of the affected surrounding communities. Their presentation had four (4) undersized "work stations", the idea clearly being divide -and -conquer. This was supposedly taped for the city council members; no one has any notion as to whether -or -not this was forwarded to you and your colleagues for your viewing. My wife and I asked clear and pertinent questions regarding safety and property value effects; quite sadly and most troubling was the fact that none of our questions were directly answered. The answers they gave were either for us to read their brochures or that all matters were "statistically insignificant;" this latter comment was the apparent go -to answer for the few who did receive and attend this inadequately prepared meeting. For example, when I asked specifically how much will property values be undermined, the response was that ..."it would not be greatly affected." When pressed for a specific number or percent from that rhetorical comment, the individual only answered that it would be statistically insignnficant. I was never given a clear nor specific response. My wife asked another gentleman about the radio frequency strength and its effect upon the environment; this person stated that the radio waves emitted from the tower would only travel horizontally and thus would not cause any harm on the environment. Anyone with common sense and basic elementary science would greatly refute this ridiculous reply! Added to this, itis a known and proven fact that the fiberglass to be utilized to cover up this tower is greatly carcinogenic, and the heat that will be emitted from it will significantly affect the fiberglass to produce greater toxicity and harm the high -traffic volume of people — particularly children — using Cedar Grove Park. Finally, the Save Cedar Grove Park organization has forwarded to you and the commission information that five (5) other wireless carriers are placing their towers/antennas at the Orange County Fire Authority complex; since this is the case, it is not only reasonable, but responsible that T -Mobile should do the same, also. Sunday 22 January 2011 In the end, I am sadly aware that politics and money go hand-in-hand. I can only hope that you — and the commission — will not succumb to back door politics and will carefully consider not only what has been shared in this note, but the many others who have spoken and/or written to the committee, many countless individuals who value (a multiple -meaning word) Cedar Grove Park. Sincerely, Ricardo Silvestre Sedona Community Family Resident Enclosure: — Photograph of T -Mobile test tower on Tues 18 Jan 2011 Swiontek, Ryan From: bob stevenson [blackkeysbob@yahoo.coml Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:42 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless IT Ryan and Justina, Please show the Tustin City Council, Planning Commission and City Attorney the scientific studies contained in the fink below that detail the adverse health effects that people who live near cell phone towers experience. http://www.centerfors,tferwi rel ess.org/Li vine-Near-Cell-Towers.plip Make sure that the City Council, Planning Commission and City Attorney are aware of the liability issues related to the below proposed project. Thank you very much. Bob Stevenson --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustmca.org> Subject: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:38 PM On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public hearing for Design Review 09-030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.orQ or Justina Willkom at714-573-3115, jwilikom@tustinca.org. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner Center for Safer Wireless Pagel of 3 Home About Us Why Wireless Safety? . Children Research - News and Events Get Involved - Our Stories Products Contact Us Donate! Links Home o Research o Living Near Cell Towers L-13 L Research on Health Effects of People Living or Working Near Cell Phone Towers Levitt, B.B. and Lai, H. 2010. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 18 : 369-395. DOI:10.1139/A10-018 httr):/Itinyuri.com/26cwfc6 Eger, H., ]ah M., Spezifische Symptome and Mobilfun kstrah lung In Selbtz (Bayern) - Evidenz fur eine Dosiswirkungsbeziehung, umwelt-medizin-gesellschaft, 23, 2 (2010), 130-139. Translation by Katharin Gustays Specific Health Symptoms and Cell Phone Radiation in Bavaria, Germany - Evidence of a Dose -Response Relationship In Seibitz, a town in Bavaria, Germany 251 residents completed a health survey. Citizens were organized in groups, based on their proximity to cell phone transmitters of 3 service providers. Groups were assigned a mean RF exposure value in volts per meter. Group 1 was within 100 meters of the cell antennas. Group 2 was within 200 meters of the cell phone antennas. Groups 1 and 2 had a mean exposure value of 1.17 V/m. Group 3 was within 300 meters and Group 4 within 400 meters. The mean RF exposure value for Groups 3 and 4 was .7 V/m. The control group was in Group 5, outside of the 400 meter radius, with a mean exposure level of .18 V/m, In comparison to the control group, significant (p <0.01, t-test) differences were found for the following symptoms in the four exposure groups 1 to 4 located within 400 meters of the antennas: sleep problems, symptoms of depression, cerebral symptoms, joint problems, infections, skin problems, cardiovascular problems, disorders of the visual and auditory system, as well as hormone system and gastrointestinal problems. The study showed a significantly increased health risk in the vicinity of cell phone antennas. According to the study, "the current exposure limit regulations basically do not provide sufficient protection against health risks." Read the entire study R88sli, 2004 "sleep disorders (58%), headaches (41%), nervousness or distress (19%), fatigue (18%), and concentration difficulties were most common complaints. Complainants related their symptoms most frequently to exposure to mobile phone base stations..." Santini, 2002 "Comparisons of complaints frequencies ... in relation with distance from base station and sex, show significant (p<0.05) increase as compared to people living >300 m or not exposed to base station, till 300m for tiredness, 200m for headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, etc. 100m for Irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, etc. Women significantly more often than men (p<0.05) complained of headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disturbance, depression, discomfort and visual perturbations." Bortkiewicz, 2004 hl4n•//nnvm ran4,+rfnrc�faraxrirnlrcc nra/T ivinn_TTrar_('Pll_Trnx,arc nhn n1 1 Center for Safer Wireless Page 2 of 3 "People living in the vicinity of base stations report various complaints mostly of the circulatory system, but also of sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite, headache and vertigo." Navarro, 2003 People more exposed to radiation from mobile phone antennas in La Nora (operating at 1800 MHz) had more symptoms than those who were less -exposed. Exposure was associated with discomfort, irritability, appetite loss, fatigue, headache, difficulties concentrating and sleep disturbance. Zwamborn, 2003 A study by the Dutch Technical Research Institute (TNO) found that volunteers exposed to a signal simulating exposure from a 3G (UTMS) antenna experienced adverse effects on well-being. Oberfeld, 2004 Spain, 2004: A follow-up study In Spain found that the most -exposed people in Murcia had a higher incidence of fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorders, depression, discomfort, difficulties concentrating, memory loss, visual disorders, dizziness and cardiovascular problems. The authors recommended a maximum exposure of 0.0001 pW/cm2. Oberfeld, 2005 Austrian researchers found that volunteers exposed to radiation typical of that experienced at 80 metres from a mobile phone tower experienced changes in the electrical activity of their brains and feelings of unwellness. Subjects reported buzzing in the head, palpitations of the heart, unwellness, light-headedness, Mast-Victims.org Includes case studies of individuals who have suffered health effects they believe results from being near cell phone towers htto://www.mast-victims org/index.php?content=j uo rnal L.4M•//........, ns.n4nYFnYna FaY..riYelnm n fr nl+n ni nAionI i Swiontek, Ryan From: Chen then [chenincal998®yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:54 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: RE: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Hi Ryan, Could you tell me in PLAIN English that my grandma can understand what this really means? Thank you! Chen -- On Mon, 1/24/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwioutek@tustiuca.or)z> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.or> Subject: RE: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: "then then" <cheninca1998@yahoo.com> Cc: "Willkom, Justina" <JWillkom@tustinca.org> Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 9:45 AM Chen, The applicant, T -Mobile, has requested to continue the item indefinitely. The Planning Commission would still need to make a motion to continue the item at the January 25, 2011, meeting. Staff has not preparedany additional reports on the item and is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date uncertain. If continued, the item would be evaluated by the Planning Commission at a later date which has not yet been determined. Thank you, Ryan From: then then [mailto:chenincal998@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:46 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09.030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Ryan, Thank you for your information. could you please let me know what does that mean by "T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item "? Thank you! Chen --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinea.org> Subject: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:38 PM On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public hearing for Design Review 09- 030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono - cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Comrnission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontck@tustinca.ora or Justina Wilikom at 714-573-3115, iwillkom@tustinca.org. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek F1 Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe (Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:46 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David; Shubin, Pete (Sequoia); Gerst, Paul (Sequoia); Gonzales, Jarryd; George Cardenas Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Attachments: Cell Phone and Cancer article 7.10.pdf Hi Jennifer, please see the responses to your questions below Response to Question 1: The number of potential residential customers is 963. This figure is determined by a computer program that overlays the RF propagation map onto the most current census map. Other than going to the jurisdiction and researching the number of average daily trips that each street holds, there is no way to know how many cars a cell site will serve. However, we can get a good sense of how well an area is served (or not served) is by the number of dropped calls that each surrounding site reports. This is under the assumption that if people have poor residential service, they call only once or twice to report that. Whereas, if people drop calls while driving, surveys state they usually report this immediately after dropping the call. For reasons including our competitors could gain a competitive advantage, we do not provide T -Mobile customer totals for any given area. Response to Question 2: As you know, we performed 'drive tests' from both the Park (test conducted at 60 feet and 40 feet above grade) and the OCFA property (test conducted at 38 feet above grade). I received your email on January 7th (before the drive tests). As such, I will wait for the results of the drive tests before responding to your Question 2. However, I can say that in speaking with the RF engineers that conducted the OCFA tests, they received very poor service to the north of the OCFA property as there was no service inside a structure, including a car. Further, I've now received confirmation that neither Metro PCS or Clearwire have accepted space on the Vista towers. The only carrier that has confirmed is Verizon. Responds to Question 3: I'll wait to get the results of the drive tests before responding to your question, which Is in regard to the coverage analysis. The drive test will provide the level of service that can be expected street by street within the intended coverage area. Responds to Question 4: The PCC map is effective for gauging the general level of coverage in an area, but doesn't provide the level of detail needed for site development. As such, I've only provided the City with RF propagation maps that show a higher level of detail than the PCC map. Further, the PCC map may show good coverage availability, but the level of coverage may not be adequate to hold a call, especially while indoors. Call quality may be degraded based on the low signal or spotty coverage indoors. Responds to Question 5: The U.S. Government has done extensive research regarding the safety of wireless technologies. This research was reflected in the Congress -approved Telecom Act of 1996, which states local jurisdictions cannot make land -use decisions based on perceived health impacts. The FCC provided the maximum power levels that we must operate within. T -Mobile operates at about 1/10th of 1 % of this maximum (or about 0.1 microwatts). For comparison, a typical in-home WiFi router operates at .13 microwatts, a baby monitor at 1.0 microwatts and a cordless phone operates at 15 microwatts of power. I've attached a magazine article that supports this. Further, per the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, 93% of all Americans own a cell phone (http://www.ctia.org/media/industry info/index:cfm/AID/10323). Per Antenna Search.com (httpJ/www.antennasearch.comn. there is currently 72 towers and 213 antennas within a 4 -mile distance from Cedar Grove Park. With this many people using cell phones on a daily basis, I have not heard from any government or private agency stating that cancer of other adverse health impacts have escalated due to increased cell phone use. You could say the same for property values. With 72 towers and 213 antennas close by, I would invite any real estate professional to prove that homes within this 4 -mile distance have lost any value because they are in close proximity to an RF tower. Responds to Question 6: The public interest policy that T -Mobile promotes is to provide the very best and most reliable service possible. This is no different than any other carrier. During my career in wireless telecom, which is more extensive than most, I have worked directly or indirectly for every other major carrier and they all approach the "public interest policy" in the same way. We all follow to the letter, the submittal requirements set forth by each jurisdiction. Through the course of processing the land - use entitlement, if we are asked to do public outreach, we will in every case. That being said, we generally don't do such outreach until after the application is filed and the project discussed with the jurisdiction. I've made many applications where I thought the project could become controversial and not a single person shows up to protest, while other times, I've proposed very simple projects that are completely hidden on the top of commercial structures, and many people show up in opposition. The bottom line is that we place new cell facilities in areas where we get the most complaints from our customers. Therefore, it is the public driving the demand for new cellular facilities. We are simply responding to that demand. In regard to having global moral responsibility, I would suggest that we address that everyday by providing not only 911 service that wireless users have come to expect (most 911 calls are made from mobile phones), but we keep these same people, including yourself and the community that surrounds you, with a means to contact work, friends and family from almost anywhere you travel. To make this happen, however, infrastructure is required and in some cases must be located in areas that may be more sensitive than others. Response to Question 7: T -Mobile is the 4th largest provider of cell service in the country. We offer rate plans and other services that the other carriers don't offer. Even though the other carriers can operate further away from their intended coverage areas does not mean they don't have sites in controversial or sensitive areas. Believe me they do as I have helped put many of them in. People have freedom of choice. This choice not only drives quality, but also keeps prices down and is why we have monopoly and anti-trust laws in the United States. Therefore, I would not describe this as the "community having to shoulder additional equipment" as much as providing an additional choice to the community regarding their options for wireless service. After all, just because a real estate agent specializes in selling homes in your neighborhood, shouldn't prevent other real estate agents from trying to do the same; even if it means getting an extra flyer on your door or increased traffic in your neighborhood by those looking for a new home. Thank you for asking the questions and if I can clarify any of my responses, please contact me at your earliest convenience. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca,org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) thatT-Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site — can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site —was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location orthe actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not— standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? BY BERNARD LEIKIND NEWs J1H?ORTS THREATEN THAT OUR CELL PHONES may cause cancer—brain cancer, eye cancer, andbth- ers. We are told that fragile children's developing brains are at risk Concerned epidemiologists collect their data and Warr n that they cannot rule out the pos- sibility of harm from cell phone radiation and that they must do more research. Medical professionals as- sert, as a precaution and in the absence of definitive data, that we should place our phones at arms length. News accounts fill us with alum. Danger lurks. Fears that cell phones cause cancer are ground- less. There is not a shred of evidence that the elec- tromagnetic radiation from your cell phones causes harm, much less that from the wiring in the walls of your house, your hair dryer,. electric blanket, or the power distribution woes nearby. We know exactly what happens to energy from any of these sources when it meets the atoms and molecules in your body, and that energy cannot cause cancer. There is no known way that this energy can cause any cancer, nor is there any unknown way that this energy can cause any cancer. There is a link between some forms of electro- magnetic radiation and some cancers. These forms of eiectromagneticradiation are ultraviolet radiation, X-rays, and gamma rays. They are dangerous because they may break covalent chemical bonds inyour body. Breakage of certain covalent bonds in key mol- ecules leads to an increased cancer risk. For example, there is a link between ultraviolet light from the sun and skin cancers. All other forms of electromagnetic radiation other than these may add to molecules' or atoms' thermal agitation, but can do nothing else. Visible light has sufficient energy to affect chemical bonds. When light strikes the cones and rods in our retinas rhodopsin bends from its resting state to another, but it does not break. When visible light strikes the chlorophyll molecules In plants, electrons shift about but the chlorophyll does not break. Visible light does not cause. cancer. Electromagnetic radiation transfers its energy to atoms and molecules in chunks called photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the 30 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 15 number 4 2010 photon's frequency. The photons of high frequency radiation, such as ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays, carry relatively large amounts of en- ergy compared to those of lower frequency radia- tion. That is why high-energy photons can break covalent chemical bonds while the photon energy of all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, in- cluding visible light, infrared light, microwave, TV and radio waves, and AC power cannot. Figure s shows a range of energy that is impor- tant for life and for the science of biochemistry. The figure displays an energy scale to help you place rel- evant energy states or processes in context. Hod- zontal positions indicate the energy range. Look at the area covered by the long bracket in the middle. It shows the general energy range of the major strong chemical bonds—covalent bonds— which are significant for all of life s molecules. Below to the right you can see where the energy of an im- portant organic covalent bond—that which occurs between two carbon atoms—falls on. the scale. Fur- ther up the scale, on the upper right, is the energy range of carcinogenic electromagnetic radiation. No- tice where the call out for green light falls on this scale. Visible light does not cause cancer. Notice that the energy of cell phone radiation and AC power radiation in this scale is very low. Cell phone radiation cannot break, damage, or weaken any covalent bond. Figure a shows the lowest energy part of Figure i's energy scale. Figure i ranges from o Wrnole to Soo kJ/mole. Figure a ranges from o kJ/mole to 30 kJ/mole. Notice the bracket that shows the range of weak bonds in each figure. These are hydrogen bonds, van der Weals bonds, electrostatic bonds, and various other effects, such as hydrophobic or hydrophilic forces. In the complex molecules of life, these bonds play critical roles holding strands to- gether and creating the three-dimensional shapes of molecules. Covalent bonds hold together the single strands of DNA. Hydrogen bonds connect one strand to its mate. Enzymes fold and twist to create Biochemistry's Energy World Gray line shows relative number of molecules at each energy level. These are thermal motions—random kinetic anergy. The average molecule's energy at room temperature Is about 2.5 Id/mole. 11 Roughly 100 to 500 W/mol+ .' 4.0.00000000001 W/mole Energy range of covalent bonds AC power photons 40.001 W/mole Cell phone photons i �- ; I about 490 Wheels Weak bonds roughly 30-100 W/mole Reaction activatlon anergy ban lers 100 General range of uncatelyzed reaction activation barriers. Bonds tend to be stable at these energy levels and require an enzyme to broak. 240 W/mole Green light photons i Energy in klloJoules/mole 370 W/mole C -C covalent bonds r480kJ/mol UV light photons. X-rays, gamma. rays Known caminogens High energy photons an this and of the Goals in the shaded area.. can break.-;': chemlcet bands: 550 600 Flgure 1. The units of this scale are familiar to chemists. Chemists like to think about test -tube -sired quantities of stuff. A mole is a unit that measures how much stuff you have. It Is a count of objects: atoms, molecules, photons, chemical bontls. One mole of any object contains 6:023 x 10" of those objects. Physicists prefer to state the energy In one bond or In one photon. A physicist would divide all the numbers In this figure by the number of objects In a mole to show the energy In Joules in a single object An (old) physicist might prefer to express this energy In units of electron volts. Measured in eleo tron volts, the energy In one green light photon Is about 2.5 electron volts. The energy In one banana Is 150 to 200 Calo- nes, which corresponds to 600 or 800 Id/banana; that Is, one banana, not a mole of bananas. Rguia 2, Biochemistry's Low Energy World The gray line shows the relative number of molecules at each energy level. These are thermal motlons--random kineto energy. The average molecule's energy at room temperature Is about 2.5 W/mole. about 430 Wmole Weak bonds: ydrogan bonds, van der Weals bondds, Electrostatic bonds 40.001 W/mole Cell phone photons 4,0.00000000001 W/mole „ AC power photons 30 Energy In kiloJoules/mole volume 15 number 4 2010 wwW.SNEPTIC.COM 31 the forms they require as they perform their role as. catalysts. The various% weak bonds maintain the shapes of these folds and twists. Drawn in both figures is a graph that suggests the energy of molecular thermal motions at body temperature. Everything in our bodies partakes in these thermal motions. The molecules jostle one. another. They twist and vibrate. The thick grey line. on the graph shows how energy distributes itself among these various motions. The motions average energy is about z.5 kJ/mole. Some molecules, but not many, have much more energy. If energy transfers of 2.5 kJ/mole, more or less,. were sufficient to damage life's molecules, life would be impossible because random thermal mo- tions would quickly break most of them. Fortu- nately, covalent bonds require ten to fifty times this amount of energy transfer before they break Ther- mal jostling does not interfere with them. Weak biochemical bonds, however, live within the upper range of thermal bonds and shakes. That is why they do not enter into life's structure as single. bonds, but always as groups. In the lung double he- lices of DNA, the hydrogen bonds are like the indi- vidual teeth of along zipper. Together they withstand what any single one of them could not. These collisions are electromagnetic interac- tions, The molecules' outer electrons sense the presence. of their neighbors though electromagnetic forces. These electrons resist oncoming neighbors, pushing them away, and pushing upon their own molecules as well. Electromagnetic forces transmit these pushes. All of the molecules of biology must be able to withstand these electromagnetic fomes to maintain their shapes and their functions. The forces that electromagnetic fields: from cell phones exert on life s molecules are no different from any of these molecular pushes, except that they are much, much smaller. Cancer is a disease of the heredity of individual cells. Something must cause a cell to begin transfer- ring mistakes to its prci One cell goes haywire replicating wildly, transmitting the mistaken in- structions—the damaged DNA—to each of its daughters. if the damage is too great, the cell will die. If the damage is not sufficient, it is not cancer. The damaged cell and its damaged progeny must continue to function in their crippled, uncontrolled states. Cancer generally requires more than one mutation in a. single cell. It is worth understanding how chemical changes occur, why life's molecules are stable in the cytoplasm, and how life controls its chemical reac- tions, turning them on or off. Consider Figure 3, Reaction energy barrier with and without an enzyme WWithout Activaticn energy (Ea) enzyme without enzyme n-------- ------ ------------------'-"' wenr Activation energy (Ea) zyme ass with enzyme a change In free ,�"'�,"•e energy (DE) In moves from left to riPht Figure 3 The symbol Ea Is the activation energy, the amount of energy the reactants must have to react This energy is evali- able to the products on the right. The reactants collect energy Ea from their surroundings. The products have rKurned It and a line extra AE to the surroundings. The surroundings, in this case, are warmer than before the reaction. 32 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 15. number 4 2010 This famous diagram appears in all biochem- istry books. It is a schematic representation of a re- action. Consider this reaction A + B � C + D, where A and B are reactants and C and D are prod- ucts. In the diagram and the equation, the reaction begins on the left and moves to the right. The verti- cal scale is energy. Dont worry about the technical details. Begin with the upper solid black line with the label Reaction Energy Barrier without an Enzyme. For this reaction, the molecules A and B must as- semble sufficient energy to carry them over the hill. This energy may come from the incessant thermal collisions, from some other molecule's in- ternal energy, from an incoming photon of electro- magnetic radiation, or other sources. The total energy of the entire system, including the sur- roundings, is a constant. Through the continual random exchange of energy between the molecules A and B and their surroundings, if A and B happen to meet when they have sufficient energy to make it over the top of the hill, then they will react, forming C and D. These products appear on the diagrams right. This diagram is illustrative. The actual dia- gram of even a simple reaction might have several dimensions in place of the single horizontal axis. The hills would be complicated surfaces with mountains and valleys. The diagram would have to take into account factors such as the orientation of the reactant molecules, and much else. It is the. case, however, that all of life's stable molecules live in a well—a valley—similar to the left side of the diagram. They will require an injection of energy from their surroundings to escape. Biological mole- cules have many possible reactions in which they might take part. Remove an atom and replace it with another. Switch any molecular piece with an- other molecular piece. Natural selection bas de- signed all of the molecules of life so that they are stable in chemical composition, form, and func- tion. High activation energy barriers in all direc- tions make all possible reactions raze. If this were not the case, then the molecules of life would not be stable. When life requires a particular reaction to take place, there will be an enzyme to facilitate it. An enzyme is a biological catalyst Consider the lower dashed line in Figure 3. This line has the label Reaction Energy Barrier with an Enzyme. This depicts the same reaction A + B � C + D, but this time there is an enzyme to facilitate the reaction. Without going into the remarkable details of enzy- matic function, we can say that the enzyme has the A Cell Phone's Heating Power The central premise of this paper is that the only effect cell phone radiation can have on our bodies is to wamithem. Consider this. I am about the same height (6' 1") and weight (185 pounds). as President Obama. My basal metabolic rate is about 1750 Calories per day. This is the energy my body uses just to keep me idling at the desk. Add in 25o Calories each day to account for mowing the lawn and vacuuming the rug. The average energy 1 might generate each day is about i000 Calories.. Caloriesper day, energy per unit time, represents power. Convert z000 Calories per day into physics units, Watts or Joules per second. The result is about loo Watts. Thus, as I go about my ordinary life I am the power equiva- lent of a loo Watt light bulb on all the time. Many days, I visit a health club and jog on one. of their treadmills. I like the level z hill workout, and I clomp along at about a 9 -minute mile pace for 30 minutes. According to the treadmill's display, this burns about 500 Calories. Five hundred calories in 30 minutes corresponds to a power of n5o Watts. This is a or 12 times my usual power; a or u ioo-Watt light bulbs on for 30 minutes in my leg muscles. The efficiency of the human body as it converts internal power into external work is a complicated matter that de- pends upon many factors. For the purposes of this estimate, it would not be misleading to take that efficiency to be about zo%. Thus, of the 1t5o Watts I am using as I jog, about z3o Watts go to keeping me on the treadmill, and about 92o Watts go into heat in my leg muscles. Blood flows through those muscles bringing in oxygen and fuel and carrying away carbon dioxide and other waste products. The blood also warms to the temperature of the muscles and carries that energy throughout my body. My core body temperature rises, and I sweat a lot. A cell phone radiates a Watt or two of electromagnetic radiation. Most of that goes out in every direction and some makes it to the cell phone tower. My body absorbs some of it in my hand, my ear, my skull, my brain tissues, and so on. Let's say that my body absorbs one Watt of this power in those nearby tissues. Those tissues warm a bit, and the blood flowing through them warms too. The blood carries any extra heat energy throughout the rest of my body, which it eventually transfers to the air around me. No one believes that the goo Watts that I generate in my leg muscles during hard exercise causes cancer in those muscles or anywhere else in my body. Why would anyone believe that 1 Watt of heating power from a cell phone might cause cancer? volume 15 number 2010 WWW.SKEPTIC.COM 33 effect of lowering the activation energy barrier for the reaction. With lower activation energy, the thermal jostling or other sources of reaction energy have a much easier time pushing the reactants over the hill. The reaction rate goes from nearly zero to some reasonable value. There are no enzymes for unwanted reactions. Enzymes have and maintain the proper constitu- tion and form to work correctly. For a mutation to occur or an enzyme to change, the energy for the chemical reaction must come from some place. An X-ray photon—from a cosmic ray, from the earth's radioactivity, or from an X-ray machine—may pro- vide the required energy. Photons from any other form of electromagnetic radiation cannot. Glance at Figure r again. All of those chemical bonds across the middle of the diagram are stable. They do not break and reform, unless there is an enzyme to do it. On the left of the diagram is the graph showing the energy available from ordinary thermal motions to break these bonds. Also on the left is a bracket showing the. range of typical activa- tion energies. Thermal motions are insufficient to take molecules over the activation energy barrier for any reaction. Far to the right, however, you can see the photons of ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays. These photons may break bonds. They may cause mutations directly. They may damage in- dividual enzyme molecules. Even green visible light photons in. the middle of this range do not have enough energy to break bonds and take molecules over any activation energy barrier. Now find the photons of cell phone radiation and of AC power They are at the far left of ,this diagram. No photon from a cell phone can ever break a chemical bond. Making the radiation more intense does not make the photons stronger. It just means that there are more of them. The pho- tons cannot gang up. Lots of them cannot do what one of them cannot. When those weak photons disappear into a molecule, the molecule shifts and quivers a tiny bit. Its energy is a bit larger and the photon is gone. The molecule adjusts itself to its new slightly higher en- ergy, and in subsequent collisions with its neigh- bors, it may transfer some of that energy to them. The temperature of the biological soup—the cyto- plasm—is then a bit higher. The amount of heating due to cell phone radiation issmall compared to your microwave, or standing in the sunshine, or wearing a scarf around your neck. This small in- crease in temperature does not cause cancer. If cell phone photons or Ac power photons, far to the left of Figure t, were able to cause cancer by any mechanism, known or unknown, then those thermal vibrations also shown to the left side of the diagram would also cause cancer. So would all the forms of electromagnetic radiation that have more energetic photons than cell phone radiation. Some of the concern over cellphone radiation may have originated from the normal statistical fluctuations that occur when studies are con- ducted. In recent years, epidemiologists have found significant environmental hazards, such as smoking and asbestos. They are now searching for hazards among much weaker effects. Some studies of a sup- posed hazard will shown small risk. Others studies of the same hazard will show no risk. In fact, some studies of the same potential hazard will show a benefit. This is the sign that there is no hazard, only statistical fluctuations. But only the studies that suggest risks, even small risks, will make news. We can all be confident that any epidemiologi- cal study that purports to show that cell phone radi- ation causes any cancer must have at least. one mistake. We can be certain because there is no plausible—or even implausible—mechanism by which cell phone radiation can cause any cane m When asked for a physicist's advice about cell phone safety, I explain that the radiation cannot cause cancer by any mecbaniam, known or un- known. if I am further pressed for comment I re- spond, "dont text while you drive, and dont eat your cell phone." O 1; 'Y ��� ��7 Acknowledgment:I thank physicists Dr. Arthur West // and Dr. Craig Bohren,and biochemists Dr. Joseph H. review of his paper and tfor their suggestions. ears ful 34 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 15 number 4 2010 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Daws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:24 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David;'Shubin, Pete (Sequoia)';'Gerst, Paul (Sequoia)'; 'Gonzales, Jarryd'; 'George Cardenas' Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Re: weak north signal -To the north you have the Salvation Army TMO cell site Haven't had a chance to read this all the way through- I am in meetings this afternoon but I will take a look at it this evening. Thank you very much, Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 20112:46 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org; Shubin, Pete (Sequoia); Gerst, Paul (Sequoia); Gonzales, Jarryd; George Cardenas Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Jennifer, please see the responses to your questions below. Response to Question 1: The number of potential residential customers is 963. This figure is determined by a computer program that overlays the RF propagation map onto the most current census map. Other than going to the jurisdiction and researching the number of average daily trips that each street holds, there is no way to know how many cars a cell site will serve. However, we can get a good sense of how well an area is served (or not served) is by the number of dropped calls that each surrounding site reports. This is under the assumption that if people have poor residential service, they call only once or twice to report that. Whereas, if people drop calls while driving, surveys state they usually report this immediately after dropping the call. For reasons including our competitors could gain a competitive advantage, we do not provide T -Mobile customer totals for any given area. Response to Question 2: As you know, we performed 'drive tests' from both the Park (test conducted at 60 feet and 40 feet above grade) and the OCFA property (test conducted at 38 feet above grade). I received your email on January 7th (before the drive tests). As such, I will wait for the results of the drive tests before responding to your Question 2. However, I can say that in speaking with the RF engineers that conducted the OCFA tests, they received very poor service to the north of the OCFA property as there was no service inside a structure, including a car. Further, I've now received confirmation that neither Metro PCS or Clearwire have accepted space on the Vista towers. The only carrier that has confirmed is Verizon. Responds to Question 3: I'll wait to get the results of the drive tests before responding to your question, which is in regard to the coverage analysis. The drive test will provide the level of service that can be expected street by street within the intended coverage area. Responds to Question 4: The PCC map is effective for gauging the general level of coverage in an area, but doesn't provide the level of detail needed for site development. As such, I've only provided the City with RF propagation maps that show a higher level of detail than the PCC map. Further, the PCC map may show good coverage availability, but the level of coverage may not be adequate to hold a call, especially while indoors. Call quality may be degraded based on the low signal or spotty coverage indoors. Responds to Question 5: The U.S. Government has done extensive research regarding the safety of wireless technologies. This research was reflected in the Congress -approved Telecom Act of 1996, which states local jurisdictions cannot make land -use decisions based on perceived health impacts. The FCC provided the maximum power levels that we must operate within. T -Mobile operates at about 1/10th of 1% of this maximum (or about 0.1 microwatts). For comparison, a typical in-home WiFi router operates at .13 microwatts, a baby monitor at 1.0 microwatts and a cordless phone operates at 15 microwatts of power. I've attached a magazine article that supports this. Further, per the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, 93% of all Americans own a cell phone(http://www.ctia.org/modia/industrV info/index.cfm/AID/10323). Per Antenna Search.com(http://www.antennasearch.Gom/). there is currently 72 towers and 213 antennas within a 4 -mile distance from Cedar Grove Park. With this many people using cell phones on a daily basis, I have not heard from any government or private agency stating that cancer of other adverse health impacts have escalated due to increased cell phone use. You could say the same for property values. With 72 towers and 213 antennas close by, I would invite any real estate professional to prove that homes within this 4 -mile distance have lost any value because they are in close proximity to an RF tower. Responds to Question 6: The public interest policy that T -Mobile promotes is to provide the very best and most reliable service possible. This is no different than any other carrier. During my career in wireless telecom, which is more extensive than most, I have worked directly or indirectly for every other major carrier and they all approach the "public interest policy" in the same way. We all follow to the letter, the submittal requirements set forth by each jurisdiction. Through the course of processing the land - use entitlement, if we are asked to do public outreach, we will in every case. That being said, we generally don't do such outreach until after the application is filed and the project discussed with the jurisdiction. I've made many applications where I thought the project could become controversial and not a single person shows up to protest, while other times, I've proposed very simple projects that are completely hidden on the top of commercial structures, and many people show up in opposition. The bottom line is that we place new cell facilities in areas where we get the most complaints from our customers. Therefore, it is the public driving the demand for new cellular facilities. We are simply responding to that demand. In regard to having global moral responsibility, I would suggest that we address that everyday by providing not only 911 service that wireless users have come to expect (most 911 calls are made from mobile phones), but we keep these same people, including yourself and the community that surrounds you, with a means to contact work, friends and family from almost anywhere you travel. To make this happen, however, infrastructure is required and in some cases must be located in areas that may be more sensitive than others. Response to Question 7: T -Mobile is the 4th largest provider of cell service in the country. We offer rate plans and other services that the other carriers don't offer. Even though the other carriers can operate further away from their intended coverage areas does not mean they don't have sites in controversial or sensitive areas. Believe me they do as I have helped put many of them in. People have freedom of choice. This choice not only drives quality, but also keeps prices down and is why we have monopoly and anti-trust laws in the United States, Therefore, I would not describe this as the "community having to shoulder additional equipment" as much as providing an additional choice to the community regarding their options for wireless service. After all, just because a real estate agent specializes in selling homes in your neighborhood, shouldn't prevent other real estate agents from trying to do the same; even if it means getting an extra flyer on your door or increased traffic in your neighborhood by those looking for a new home. Thank you for asking the questions and if I can clarify any of my responses, please contact me at your earliest convenience. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca,org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site —can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site — was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)—which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertisingfor the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek— please forward to the PC by copy of this email —thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks gaws2Qcox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties — specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best — Jennifer Wierks Swiontek, Ryan From: Binsack, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:39 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justine; Buchanan, John Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Jennifer: Thank you for your e-mail. I wanted to follow up on your question regarding the Irvine Company approval for uses in Cedar Grove Park. The Deed Restriction only required the City to provide copies of the initial park improvement plans. There is not a consent/release agreement required from the Irvine Company for the proposed request from T -Mobile. If you would like to discuss this my number is 714-573-3031. Elizabeth From: Jennifer Wierks [maiito:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 201110:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties — specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best — Jennifer Wierks Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks [jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 6:04 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Elizabeth —with all due respect, that is not true. The Grant Deed plainly states that the Irvine Company granted the land to the City of Tustin "for public community park purposes". The proposed use of any of the park land as a cell site with a license or lease to a commercial entity and the installation of a cellular telecommunications facility plainly violates the deed restriction. It serves no park purpose. "It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, 141 Cal.App.2d 376. "Where a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction upon its use -- as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park -- the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant." (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles, 220 Cal. 366, 368; City and County of S.F. v. Linares, 16 Cal.2d 441, 446 106 P.2d 369].) (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 104.) Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1942) 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) In determining what is a park purpose we do not look to the type of structure erected, but rather, to the use of that structure in relation to the park. (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99.) "Moreover, where property is acquired through private dedication, the deed is strictly construed. (Roberts, supra, 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548; 57 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 348, 349.) "[L]and which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes." (Slavich v. Hamilton, 201 Cal. 299, 302; City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.2d 295, 300.) Such land is held upon what is loosely referred to as a "public trust," and any attempt to divert the use of the property from its dedicated purposes or uses incidental thereto is an ultra vires act." (City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 299-300.) As stated in Roberts, supra, in which the city sought to use property, granted exclusively for park purposes, for storage of equipment used in maintenance of other city property: "Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) See also White v. Metropolitan Dade County as an example, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla App 1990) Based upon the above, I submit that the City lacks any authority to use the property in this manner. Frankly, I find it incredible that City Planning is unaware of this and that I am actually spelling this out to you — how is it possible that the City has proceeded this far on these cell applications at Tustin Ranch parks without knowing what its land rights are? Jennifer Wierks From: Binsack, Elizabeth [mailto:EBinsack@tustinca.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20114:39 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justin; Buchanan, John Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Jennifer: Thank you for your e-mail. I wanted to follow up on your question regarding the Irvine Company approval for uses in Cedar Grove Park. The Deed Restriction only required the City to provide copies of the initial park improvement plans. There is not a consent/release agreement required from the Irvine Company for the proposed request from T -Mobile. If you would like to discuss this my number is 714-573-3031. Elizabeth From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtainings copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties —specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best— Jennifer est— Jennifer Wierks Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Daws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 6:05 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justine; Buchanan, John; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Attachments: OR_1989 00565752 (3).pdf Attached is a copy of the grant deed, fyi From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20116:04 PM To: 'Binsack, Elizabeth'; 'Swiontek, Ryan'; 'Biggs, David' Cc: 'Willkom, Justina'; 'Buchanan, John'; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Elizabeth —with all due respect, that is not true. The Grant Deed plainly states that the Irvine Company granted the land to the City of Tustin "for public community park purposes". The proposed use of any of the park land as a cell site with a license or lease to a commercial entity and the installation of a cellular telecommunications facility plainly violates the deed restriction. It serves no park purpose "It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, 141 Cal.App.2d 376. "Where a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction upon its use -- as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park -- the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant." (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles, 220 Cal. 366, 368; City and County of S.F. v. Linares, 16 Cal.2d 441, 446 106 P.2d 369].) (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 104.) Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1942) 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) In determining what is a park purpose we do not look to the type of structure erected, but rather, to the use of that structure in relation to the park. (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99.) "Moreover, where property is acquired through private dedication, the deed is strictly construed. (Roberts, supra, 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548; 57 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 348, 349.) "[L]and which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes." (Slovich v. Hamilton, 201 Cal. 299, 302; City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.2d 295, 300.) Such land is held upon what is loosely referred to as a "public trust," and any attempt to divert the use of the property from its dedicated purposes or uses incidental thereto is an ultra vires act." (City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 299-300.) As stated in Roberts, supra, in which the city sought to use property, granted exclusively for park purposes, for storage of equipment used in maintenance of other city property: "Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) See also White v. Metropolitan Dade County as an example, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla App 1990) Based upon the above, I submit that the City lacks any authority to use the property in this manner, Frankly, I find it incredible that City Planning is unaware of this and that I am actually spelling this out to you — how is it possible that the City has proceeded this far on these cell applications at Tustin Ranch parks without knowing what its land rights are? Jennifer Wierks From: Binsack, Elizabeth [mailto:EBinsack@tustinca.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20114:39 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justin; Buchanan, John Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Jennifer: Thank you for your e-mail. I wanted to follow up on your question regarding the Irvine Company approval for uses in Cedar Grove Park. The Deed Restriction only required the City to provide copies of the initial park improvement plans. There is not a consent/release agreement required from the Irvine Company for the proposed request from T -Mobile. If you would like to discuss this my number is 714-573-3031. Elizabeth From: Jennifer Wlerks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties —specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best— Jennifer est— Jennifer Wierks -5656Z ►�1OTA MCA9'flu 03a RSOOROPDImO !10M W OMMNNOOEIcaumrr. RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AM NNSN RECORDED NAIL TO: -992 A9 02019 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Vay sr�a. Q•tegeoend� Tustin, CA 92680 Attn: Director of The Undersigned declares that this Community Development document is recorded at the request of and for the baneflt of the City of Tustin ad therefore in except from EM the payment of the recording fee ' pursuant to Covernmeot Code 16103 and C2 from the payment of the Documentary Transfer Tax pursuant to Rewnus and Taxation Coda 111922. (Above Space for Recorder's Use GRANT ONED THE IRVINE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation (-Grantor-) hereby grants to the City of Tustin, o municipal corporation ("Grantee•), for public oommunity park purposes, the following real property to the City of Tustin. County of Orange, California: In: 22 of Tract No. 13511, am recorded on , 1989, in Book 644 Pages 1 through 20 . inclusive, of Miscellaneous Reps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County (the "Property-). This conveyance In made pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code 566477, EXCEPTING AND RESERVING unto GRANTOR, Its successors and assigns• together with the right to grant and transfer all or a parties of the same, the following: A. Any and all oil, all rights, minerals, mineral rights, natural See rights and other hydrocarbons by whotdoever name known• geothermal atom and all products derived from cry of the £ongoing• that may be within or under the Property, together with the perpetual right of drilling, mining, exploring and operating therefor and storing in and removing the ease from the Property or any other land, including the right to Whipstock or directionally drill and mine from lands other than the Property, oil or gas wells, towels and shafts into, through or across the subsurface of the Property .cod to bottom such whipstoekd or directionally drilled wells, teeele and shafts under and beneath or beyond the exterior limits thereof, and to redrill, ratumsl, equip• maintain, repair, deepen and operate any such wells or mines; but without, however, the right to drill, mise, store, explore or operate through the surface or the upper 700 feet of the subsurface of the Property. B. Any and all motor, water rights or interests therein appactemet or relating to the Property or owned or used by Grantor in connection with or with respect to the Property (m matter how acquired by Granter), whether much rotor rights ahall be riparian, overlying, approprfative, littoral, percolating, prescriptive, adjudicated, statutory or contractual, together with the right and power to osplore, drill, redrill and remove the memo from or in the Property, to store the mama beneath the surface of the Property and to divert or otherwise utilize such water, rights or interests an any other property owned or leased by Grantor; but without, however• any right to onter upon or use the outface of the Property in the exercise of such rights. C. Nan-excluelva easements in groes on, aver, under or across the Property within 10 fast from all property lime bordering on and parallel to any public street for the construction, installation. emplacement. operation and maintenance of electric ed/or outer facilities, without unreasonably interfering with Grautm'e reasonable "a and enjoyment of the Property; and (ii) a non-exclusive maament on, over• under and across the westerly portion of the Property tot the mootreation, installation. operation and maiaterome of storm drain facilities related to the Peters Canyon Retarding Bosin, without unreasonably interfering with Grantee's rmeoneblo use and enjoyment of the property. Tustin - Community Park 1ew..0e00e/W TBE GRANTS AND RESERVATIONS HERSINAEOV6 described shall be subject to: 1. General and special real property texas and supploseetal aeaeaasento, it any, for the current fiscal year; provided, however, that Greater shall pay for (a) may such tare, emd assessment& applicable to the Property prior to the date of recordation of this dead, and (b) any assessment$, &postal taros or other payments arising from bonds, aentracto or lima created by, through or as a result of the effort, or activities of Grantor; 2. All covenants, conditions, restrictions, reeervaticnn, rights, rights of way, easements and other matters of record or apparent ether than monetary liens: and 3. The requirement that except as provided herein, Creates accepts the Ffapatty -AS ISe in the condition that the property estate as of the date of Grantee's acceptance thereof. Grantor represents and warrants that, to the beet of Grantor's knowledge as of the data of Grantee's acceptance of the Property, the Property to in compliance with all State and Fedaral hazardous waste laws. Grantor agrees that It shall comply with all of Grantee's Conditions of Approval for Tract 13627 as they relate to the Property, Including performing any remediation required to anus, the property to comply with those conditions. Except as provided above, Greater makes no reprosentattoss or warranting concerning the condition of the property. 4. The requirement that, prior to the installation of the initial impraaementa for the entire pork (the -Initial park Improvments•) upon the Property, Gcantas shall provide Grantor with copies of plana of the proposed Initial Park Improvemanse. Grantor may, within thirty (30) days after its receipt of mob plane, give Grantee counents on the plana. to which comments Grantee agrees to give reasonable consideration. Grantee shall not commence construction of the Initial Park Improvement* prior to the expiration of the thirty (30) day review period. This requirement shall apply to the Initial Park Improssmente only and not to &M subsequent improvements, reconstruction, repairs, replaaments, additions or changes. IN GITNESS MMWF, Grantor has executed this Grant Deed as of the 91"� day of /tlagxsr , 1999. This grant Deed shall net be effective for any purpose unless and until the Acceptance below is duly emacuted by Grantee. THE 1RVIMB COIR e Michigan 0rpo a on Ey: _ pPt*o its: ( aT By. Its: Grantee, by its execution of this Grant Deed, hereby accepts the dedication of the Property upon and subject to the terms and provisions stated above. CITY OF TUSTIN a California smicipal/c�arJp�a t,io(t.�, Its: Its: su.,aroan STATE OF CALIFORNIA > )so. COUNTY OF 06 ) On th 1989, ware Ln an d ta, personally appeared and , peramu she U o£ ■ r fa ov n ) to be isat t se______` 4 respectively, on behalf o e aarporatloa that the corporation executed it. WITNESS ny hand and official goal. notary Public i andf said State or2fjWd, a Notary Public wn to an (or proved to me on Dons o ad twithin named and acimowledga to an OYMCVW. SEAL OIAMYOUNO NDTIW eupK•cmNDaN1A Ih ease. .tn � $ IWt This is to certify that the interest in red property conveyed by the within Grant goad from The Irvine Company, to the City of Tustin, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officet or agent os behalf of the City of Tustin on and Grantee eonnonta to retardation thereof by its duly authorized officer. BY: ATTEST: / Clark 4�=}i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) on this 11th dAY of August , 1989, before me, the undersigned a Notary Public in and for said State, poromnall appeared jrAkm Manam, and N :11am Nustos ,knew to an to be the oxrift f the City of Tustin, the City that accosted the within imatruent, and hoose tome to be the persons who axecated the within instrument on behalf of the city therein eased, and aekm lodged to an that ouch city executed the within instrument pursuant to a resolution of its City Council VITNESS my hand and official sial. 1 OFFICIAL SEAL VAli1Ui NYNNFIMAIMI C/ ( lip OWAI " Ed money PLAN: • MANn, Notary Public in and for said Sten Ibom mOm m°0M M. teM . ML,wro4ro Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks [ aws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:15 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Attachments: 06JUN06 Cell Tower in Park.pdf Elizabeth - Here is a law review article that you might find helpful in this discussion... From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20116:05 PM To: 'Binsack, Elizabeth'; 'Swiontek, Ryan'; 'Biggs, David' Cc: 'Willkom, Justina'; 'Buchanan, John'; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Attached is a copy of the grant deed, fyi From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20116:04 PM To: 'Binsack, Elizabeth'; 'Swiontek, Ryan'; 'Biggs, David' Cc: 'Willkom, Justina'; 'Buchanan, John'; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Elizabeth — with all due respect, that is not true. The Grant Deed plainly states that the Irvine Company granted the land to the City of Tustin "for public community park purposes". The proposed use of any of the park land as a cell site with a license or lease to a commercial entity and the installation of a cellular telecommunications facility plainly violates the deed restriction. It serves no park purpose. "It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, 141 Cal.App.2d 376. "Where a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction upon its use -- as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park -- the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant." (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles, 220 Cal. 366, 368; City and County of S.F. v. Linares, 16 Cal.2d 441, 446 106 P.2d 369].) (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 104.) Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1942) 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) In determining what is a park purpose we do not look to the type of structure erected, but rather, to the use of that structure in relation to the park. (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99.) "Moreover, where property is acquired through private dedication, the deed is strictly construed. (Roberts, supra, 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548; 57 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 348, 349.) "[L]and which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes." (Slovich v. Hamilton, 201 Cal. 299, 302; City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.2d 295, 300.) Such land is held upon what is loosely referred to as a "public trust," and any attempt to divert the use of the property from its dedicated purposes or uses incidental thereto is an ultra vires act." (City of Hermosa Beach, supro, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 299-300.) As stated in Roberts, supra, in which the city sought to use property, granted exclusively for park purposes, for storage of equipment used in maintenance of other city property: "Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) See also White v. Metropolitan Dade County as an example, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla App 1990) Based upon the above, I submit that the City lacks any authority to use the property in this manner. Frankly, I find it incredible that City Planning is unaware of this and that I am actually spelling this out to you — how is it possible that the City has proceeded this far on these cell applications at Tustin Ranch parks without knowing what its land rights are? Jennifer Wierks From: Binsack, Elizabeth [mailto:EBinsack@tustinca.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20114:39 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Jennifer: Thank you for your e-mail. I wanted to follow up on your question regarding the Irvine Company approval for uses in Cedar Grove Park. The Deed Restriction only required the City to provide copies of the initial park improvement plans. There is not a consent/release agreement required from the Irvine Company for the proposed request from T -Mobile. If you would like to discuss this my number is 714-573-3031. Elizabeth From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties—specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best — Jennifer Wierks JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW "PINE TREE" CELL TOWER IN PARK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph,D, 0 2006 James C. Kozlowski Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"), 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 56 (1996). At the same time, Congress recognized that there are legitimate State and local concerns involved in regulating the siting of telecommunications facilities. See Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc, v. St. Croix County, No. 02-2889 (-�' Cir. 2003). As illustrated by the case ofAT&T Wireless Services of Fla., Inc. v. WC1 Communities., Inc., Nos. 4D04-3285 and 4D04-3286, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14108 (F1a.App. 4`h Dist. 2005), one such local concern the siting of telecommunications towers in public parks, remains subject to deed restrictions which limit the use ofparticular tracts of public land to specified "park purposes." In this particular case, a telecommunications tower was erected in a public park in the City of Coral Springs, Fla. In 1975, a land developer had conveyed the land for Sherwood Forest Park to the City ofCoral Springs. WCI Communities, Inc. (WCI) acquired the rights of the Grantor under the terms of the deed conveying the land to the City. In pertinent part, the deed conveying the land to the City contained the following restriction: In consideration of this conveyance, by acceptance hereof, the Grantee [City] agrees and understands and assures to Grantor that the above described property would be used and maintained solely for passive park purposes unless the express written consent of Grantor, its successors or assignees, is first obtained. In October 1996 the City passed Ordinance 96-137 which allowed freestanding telecommunications towers to be placed in parks and recreation areas greater than five acres. The legislative intent of this Ordinance was to accomplish the following: (1) promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens by regulating the siting of telecommunications towers; (2) provide for the appropriate location and development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the city; and (3) minimize adverse visual effects of telecommunication towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening and innovative camouflaging techniques. Sherwood Forest Park was listed on the City's list of parks as potential sites for cellular towers. On July 9, 2001, pursuant to the Ordinance, the City entered into a lease agreement with AT&T Wireless Services of Florida., Inc. (ATT) to install a telecommunications tower in Sherwood Forest Park. The City leased 1600 square feet of park land to ATT for the construction of a "Stealth Tree" type tower, equipment building, black chain- link fencing and associated equipment. JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW In January 2002, the City processed and approved an application for the issuance of a building permit to ATT to allow construction ofan eighty-five (85) foot telecommunications tower, a maintenance building and access ways, supporting structures, and hard -surface areas. The City required ATT to construct the "stealth tree tower" in the form of a pine tree to blend in with the park's aesthetics. ATT paid the City a one-time payment of $10,000 to be used at the park and pays annual rent in the amount of $24,000. In its complaint, WCI claimed the City's approval of the telecommunications tower was in violation of the deed restriction on the park's use. Specifically, WCI alleged that "the use contemplated by ATT and the structure submitted for a building pemut was an active commercial use and not a passive use, and thus, the use and construction thereof are violative of the deed restriction." Moreover, according to WCI, neither the City nor ATT had requested or received WCI's "express written consent for the construction of the tower" as required by the terms of the deed. In the opinion of the trial court, "there was no ambiguity in the deed restriction" which required that "the park was to be used for "passive park purposes only." Further, the trial court found that ATT and the City had both investigated the status of the title of the park prior to entering the lease agreement for the construction of the telecommunications tower, and that they were aware of the applicable deed restriction" In addition, the trial court noted that neither the City nor ATT had made a written request for WCI to waive the restriction in the deed or otherwise consent to the placement of a communication tower in the park. Under the terms of the agreement between the City and ATT, the trial court found that "the public was physically excluded from the leased property and that the City was receiving a financial benefit from its commercial venture." As a result, the trial court held "the use of the park space was a direct violation of the deed restriction, and therefore, impermissible." Accordingly, the trial court granted an injunction in favor of WCI. In so doing, however, the trial court found it would be `Smpractical, and unwise, to order the immediate destruction of the cellular communication tower" because "[t]hat would, no doubt, affect the public negatively." The trial court, therefore, ordered that "ATT search for, and attempt to acquire or lease an alternate location for a communications tower which would provide suitable coverage to residents and the police, within a 24 -month period." ATT and the City appealed. ON APPEAL As described by the appeals court, "[d]eed restrictions on lands are deemed contractual in nature and subject to the same rules of interpretation as are contracts." Accordingly, the appeals court would apply the following general contract principles to determine whether "the City violated the deed restriction by using the park property for a telecommunications tower." When a contract is clear and unambiguous, the actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties, and the plain meaning of the language controls... JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW Courts have unfailingly guarded against encroachments on public park land where such park land is under the protection of a deed restriction or restrictive covenant... Although restrictive covenants should be narrowly construed, they should not be construed in a manner that would defeat the plain and obvious purpose and intent of the restriction. Restrictive covenants will be enforced where their intent is clear and their restrictions are reasonable. Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the appeals court found the trial court had "properly concluded that there was no ambiguity in the deed restriction requiring that the property be `used and maintained solely for passive park purposes' and that the `property herein conveyed is dedicated to the public for use as passive parks'." In reaching this determination, the appeals court rejected ATT and the City's contention that "the telecommunications tower's use was passive." As characterized by the appeals court, it was not a question as to whether the tower itself and its use in the park was passive. Rather, the specific issue to be resolved by the court was "whether the use was consistent with the deed restriction that limits use `solely' to `passive park purposes'." In this particular instance, the appeals court found `quite simply, the use of the park for the telecommunications tower is not related to or in furtherance of `solely for passive park purposes'." A telecommunications tower does not support a park use. While appellants [ATT and the City] argue that the tower supports a park use, like utilities or restrooms, because someone at the park could make a cell call from the park, the tower has no park use... The City devoted a portion of deed -restricted park lands to a private commercial enterprise and as a result restricted access of park lands from the public's use. While courts have consistently ruled that commercial benefit does not defeat a park purpose, the telecommunications tower has no park purpose. ATT's use of the park property is neither passive, nor is it used to support the park. The lands are being used to fill in ATT's telecommunications grid for monetary gain. In determining whether the park was being "used for passive park purposes only," the appeals court noted further that "[f]ractional use was not specified" in the deed restriction. Moreover, the appeals court acknowledged that `h fraction of the park is not being used for passive purposes." Accordingly, ATT and the City had contended on appeal that the alleged violation of the deed restriction was "de minimis," i.e., the impact of the "tree tower" on the passive recreational use of the park was minimal and that WCI was unaffected by the use. While acknowledging that "the impact of the tower to the neighborhood is minima]," the appeals court noted that "[a] minor violation of the deed restriction is still a violation of the deed restriction." Moreover, in this particular instance, the appeals court had determined that "the telecommunications tower is not reasonably incidental to `passive park purposes'." As characterized by ATT and the City, the trial court had "found that the public interest would not be served by granting the relief sought," i.e., demolition and removal of the JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW telecommunications tower from the park. The appeals court acknowledged that the trial court had held that "the immediate destruction of the cellular telecommunications tower "would, no doubt, affect the public negatively." However, in the opinion of the appeals court, such recognition of a negative impact on the public did not alter the trial court's conclusion that the construction of the telecommunications tower in the park was "inconsistent with the deed restriction." The order granting the injunction clearly stated that the public was physically excluded from the leased property. This exclusion cut off access to park property to the very members of the public for whose benefit the park was given.. While. appellants characterize the telecommunications tower as a de minimis violation, it was nevertheless a violation of which they were aware and which they ignored. As a result, the appeals court held "[t]he public interest is best served by the maintenance of the parks, as dedicated and restricted, particularly where there is a common plan served by the parks." In this particular instance, the appeals court found "the public interest was served by the maintenance of WCI's common plan for development." On appeal, ATT and the City had argued further that "the public interest would be hammed if the injunction were entered where the telecommunications tower served the public interest by providing safety to its citizens through the reception of 911 calls made from the area. The appeals court rejected this argument. According to the appeals court, ATT and the City `cannot negate the property and legal rights of others based on a decision regarding public safety." Here, the City circumscribed the location of telecommunications towers to City park lands and presented ATT with Sherwood Forest Park as the only candidate site. Clearly, public safety was not the City's most paramount concern as evidenced by its removal of phone service previously available to park users due to the low revenue it generated... [I]n an effort to balance the competing interests and ensure fairness to all involved, the court properly ordered the.removal to take place over time, allowing ATT and the City to relocate the necessary cellular telecommunications tower. The two-year transition period was intended to allow for the removal of the tower in a manner that minimises potential harm to the parties and the public. As a result, the appeals court concluded that "the trial court did not err in granting permanent injunctive relief' to WCI. The appeals court, therefore, affirmed "the final judgment [of the trial court] ordering the demolition and removal of a telecommunications tower from Sherwood Forest Park and permanently enjoining appellants from maintaining a tower on that property." Swiontek, Ryan From: Xiaoming Yu [xiaoming.yu@mscsoftware.com) Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 3:05 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Hi ALL: Please don't put our kids in any risk, please STOP Cedar Grove Wireless Projectll l Thanks, Xiaoming From: Swiontek, Ryan [mai Ito: Rswiontekgtustinca.orol Sent: Thursday, April 14, 20112:56 PM Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Thank you for your interest in the proposed wireless telecommunications facility at Cedar Grove Park (Design Review 09- 033). On January 25, 2011, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public meeting for Design Review 09-033, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The applicant has redesigned the facility which now consists of three flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. The three proposed flagpoles would replace two existing flagpoles in the same location. Accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault adjacent to the flagpoles with vents screened by landscaping. Plans and photo -simulations of the project may be accessed on the City's website under the projects in progress section at: http://www tustinca org/departments/commdev/ProiectsInProcess/viewProiects.aspx?x=5#5 The proposed project has been scheduled for the April 26, 2011 meeting before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 300 Centennial Way. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, Iwillkom tustinca.ora Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin. Community Development Department Plarming Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Swiontek, Ryan From: graham.lambert [graham.lambert@cox.netj Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:12 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09.033) Your email says photo -simulations but I only see photos of the existing site. Can you please post the photo simulations you are referring to? My family will now live within 400 feet of the facility and are very concerned. I think all the same reasons for not putting this in the park at the previous location still hold true. The bottom line is this should not be placed in what is today a picturesque park within close proximity to schools and residences. Thank you Graham Lambert From: Swiontek, Ryan Imailto:RSwiontek@tustinca.orol Sent: Thursday, April 14, 20112:56 PM Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Thank you for your interest in the proposed wireless telecommunications facility at Cedar Grove Park (Design Review 09- 033). On January 25, 2011, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public meeting for Design Review 09-033, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The applicant has redesigned the facility which now consists of three flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. The three proposed flagpoles would replace two existing flagpoles in the same location. Accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault adjacent to the flagpoles with vents screened by landscaping. Plans and photo -simulations of the project may be accessed on the City's website under the projects in progress section at: http://www tustinca org/departments/commdev/ProiectsInProcess/viewProiects.aspx?x=5#5 The proposed project has been scheduled for the April 26, 2011 meeting before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 7:00 p.m, in the City Council Chambers located at 300 Centennial Way. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, lwillkom@tustinca.org Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Swiontek, Ryan From: graham.lambert [graham.lambert@cox.net] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:29 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) My bad, I didn't see the second picture in my browser. Thanks for the quick response. Side question, is this all irrelevant now— I understand that AT&T has got permission for transmitters at the fire authority and as they are taking over t -mobile there should be no need for a facility in the park. Don't you agree? Many thanks Graham From: Swiontek, Ryan [mailto:RSwiontek@tustinca.orgl Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 8:55 AM To: graham.lambert Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Graham, The photo -simulations on the City website (Projects in Progress) do include the proposed facility. The top photo on each page represents the existing conditions and the bottom photo on each page represents the proposed condition (photo simulation). The photos appear very similar as the proposed flagpoles will replace existing flagpoles in the same location. Thank you, Ryan From: graham.lambert fmailto•graham.lambert@cox.netl Sent: Thursday, April 14, 20119:12 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Your email says photo -simulations but I only see photos of the existing site. Can you please post the photo simulations you are referring to? My family will now live within 400 feet of the facility and are very concerned. I think all the same reasons for not putting this in the park at the previous location still hold true. The bottom line is this should not be placed in what is today a picturesque park within close proximity to schools and residences. Thank you Graham Lambert From: Swiontek, Ryan[mailto:RSwiontek@tustinca.orgl Sent: Thursday, April 14, 20112:56 PM Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Thank you for your interest in the proposed wireless telecommunications facility at Cedar Grove Park (Design Review 09- 033). On January 25, 2011, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public meeting for Design Review 09-033, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The applicant has redesigned the facility which now consists of three flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. The three proposed flagpoles would replace two existing flagpoles in the same location. Accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault adjacent to the flagpoles with vents screened by landscaping. Plans and photo -simulations of the project may be accessed on the City's website under the projects in progress section at: http•//www tustinca ora/departments/commdev/ProiectsinProcess/viewProiects aspx?x=5#5 The proposed project has been scheduled for the April 26, 2011 meeting before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 300 Centennial Way. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.ore or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkom tustinca.ora Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Tel. (714)573 3123 Fax (714) 573 3113 ATTACHMENT E INFORMATION PERTAINING TO WIRELESS FACILITES FIuman Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular & PCS Sires Search I RSS I updates I E-Eillii I Initiatives I Con,urners I Find Pegrile REBOOT Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Page 1 of 2 FCC> CGB 1 ome> Cmssumer Publloatlons> Humes Exposure to RF Flelds Guldellnes FCC slG man Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields.I 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 httn;//www.fcc.k,ov/cgb/consumerfacts/rfexposure,htnit 12/08/2010 Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular 8a 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.gov/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 fccinfoQfcc.aov; calling 1 -888 -CALL -FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1 -888 -TELL -FCC (1-888- 835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-865-418-0232; 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 orphone number below, or send an e-mail to FCC504(16c.00v. To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through the Commission's electronic subscriber service, click on htto.YAvww. fcc. aov/cob/contacts/. This document (s for consumer education purposes only and is not intended to affect any proceeding or cases involving this subject matter or related issues. Federal Communieetions Commission - Consumer& Governmental Affairs Bureau • 445 12th at, S.W-- Washington, OC 20554 1 -888 -CALL -FCC (1-888-225-5322) • TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC{7-888.11364322) •Foss 1-886-418-0232 -w J=.00vicaof last reviewed/updated on 11/09/07 FCC Horne Search I RSS I Updates I E -Filing I Initiatives. I Consumers I Find People Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 More FCC Contact Information... Phone: 1.888 -CALL -FCC (1-886-225-5322) TTY: 1 -888 -TELL -FCC (1-888-835-5322) Fax: 1-866-418-0232 E-mail: fccinfo gMcc.gov - Privacy Policy - Website Policies & Notices - Reaulred Browser Plug -ins - Freedom of Infarmation Act littp://www.fec.gov/cgb/romumerfacts/rfexposure.titml 12/08/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health Page I of x`'91 World Health Organization Fact uheet N"304 May 2000 Electromagnetic fields and public health Base stations and wireless technologies Mabile telephony is now commonplace around the world. Thiswireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, or basestations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over t.4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasingsignificantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed interact access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in homes, otHocaa and many public aruas (airports, schools, residential and urban arcus). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, sodoes the RF exposure of the population. R=nesurveys have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range &nm 0.002%. to 20N, 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. iliac -has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the RF fields produced by wireless technologies. This tact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health coccus 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 antenna relates to the possible long-term health enacts that whole- body exposure to the RF signals may have. To date, the only health effect from RF fields identified in scientific rcviews has been related to an increase in body tempemture(> I °C) from expm me at very high field intensity found only in cutain 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 du not affect human health. Ilia strength of RF fields is greatest at its source, and ditninishes quickly with distance, Access near base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recent survoys 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 then, due to their lower Irequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs hap to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than Rom 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 1900 MHzand1800 MHz) and hecauso a person's huight makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation For the past 50 or snore years without any adverse health consequence being established. While most radio technologies haveused analog signals;modem wireless telecommunications are using digital transmissions. Detailed rcviews conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to different RF modulations. Cuncer, Media or anecdotal reports oPcancer clusters around mobile plamae 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 eirvironmcnt, it is cxpmtcd that possible cancer clusters will occur new base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters arc often a collection of different types of cancer with no common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a common cause. 5ciernitie evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed epidemiological studios. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potentialrelationship between RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These statins have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise; long-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer from exposure to RF Holds, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base stations and wireless networks. Other efjecrv: Few studies have investigated general health efreets in individuals exposed to RFiields from base stations. This is because of tie diffieulty in distinguishing possible health effects front the very low signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused an the RF exposures of mobile phone users. Human and animal. studies examining, brain ware padtems, cognition and behaviour atter exposure to RF ficids, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified natives a effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about I OW times higher than those associated with general public exposure from baso stations or wireless networks. No consistent evidence of altered sleep cn cardiovascular tinction has been reported. littp://www.who.tqt/mediacentre/factsheets/fs3O4/en/print.litmi 10/29/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health Page 2 of 3 Some individuals have reported Ihat they experience non-speciPre. symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from base stations and other EMP devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity', EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, it ni important to recognize the plight of people suffering %in these symptoms. From all evidence accumulated so tar, no adverse short- or long-term health effevas 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 efieco; from RF fields by the International Commission on Non- Ionizing: Radiation Protection (ICNIRF, 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 execeded. Public perception of risk Some peoplepetceive risks from RFexposureas likely and oven possibly severe. Several reasons fur public I'wu include media announcements of new and unconfined scientific studies, leading to a feeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Otter factors are aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a lack ofcontrtd 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 decisien 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 RP signals from bosestations 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 evaluatethe health offects from exposure to EMF in therange from 0 to 3111 GHz, to provide advice about possible. EMF hazards and to identify suitable mitigation measures. Following extensive interncitionul reviews, the International EMF Project has promoted i esearch to rill 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 tire expepted from exposure to RF fields Rom base stations and wireless networks, research is still being promoted by WHO to determine whether thereare any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones. The International Agency For Research an Cancer ((ARC), 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 undertakean overall health risk assessment for RF ficids in 2007-2008: Further Reading 1CNIRP (199H)www.icnirn.ere/dt>Lumuutslemfadl.pdf IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2005 "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels wide Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. 3 k1-fz to 300 GHz" Related,liuks Hale stations & wireless netwerrks• Exposures & health consmumcos Feet shorn Electramagnetic fields and public health: Eleutromaanetic Hvnecstwitivity WHO handbook on "Establishing a Dialogue on Risks. from Electramunctic Ficlds' 2006 WHO Research Agenda for Radio Frequency Fields fodf I00kbl For more information contact: WHO Media centre Telephone: r41 22 791 2222 E-maiL• mediaiuuunnesie4who int http://www.who.int/niediacentre/ractsheetsJfs3O4/en/print.html 10/29/2010 11/2/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and publ... World Health Organization Pact 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 aro 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 grow ing 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 mot» for any potential public health impact. Mobile phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a network of toted antennas called base stations. Radiofrequency waves are electromagnetic fields, and uniike 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 (acid hence the radiofrequency exposure to a user) falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30140 em away from their body — for example when text messaging, accessing the Internet, or using a `hands free' device— will therefore haven 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 phonecalls, 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. Mobilephones 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 healtheffects2 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 effectshave been established for mobile phone use. Short-term effects Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radinfrequency 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/.../print.html i/3 11/2/2016 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 suggestany 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'l 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 assets 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 causalrelationship between radiofrequency exposure and any adverse health effect. Yet, these studies have too many limitations to completely rule out an association. Arctrospective case•control study on adults, ,INTERPHONE, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designedto 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 1.0 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma ror those who reported the highest LO% 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 orthese conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation. While an increased risk ofbrain tumors is not ostablishod 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 adolescentsare underway. Exposure limit guidelines Radiofrequency exposure limits for mobile phone users are given in terms of Specitle 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. WI: -IO 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 mobilephones in 2011. WHO also identifies and promotesresearch priorities for radiofrequency fields and health to till 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 213 11/2/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and publ... 1 International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection — ICNIRP, Statcmcnt 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, slandandfior snj'ety levels with respect to hi ntan eapostn•e to nvdia fmquetay elecftvmagiteKc•J'id<Gs, 3 kHz to 300 Gffn. For more information contact: WHO Media centre Telephone: +4122 791 2222 E-mail: mediainnuiries(ruwho.int ContactI E-mail scams I Employment I FAQ: Feedback Pri. vane I RSS heeds ?a WHO 2010 who.int/mediacentre/.../pdnt.html 3/3 -!vs3 is vital to public safety in Orange Count% "In my over 20 years in public safety communications, I've seen the meteoric rise in the popularity and usage of cell phone technology. It's not just the wave of the future. It is NOW. The lives and property of the citizens of Orange County depend on a robust infrastructure to support wireless technology. We in the world of 911 stand ready to send all the help the citizens need, but they can't get it if they can't access os through their wireless devices. A solid infrastructure, including the installation and building of new cell towers, is CRUCIAL for proper coverage of ALL areas of this county." Ryan Turner, Senior Fire Communications Supervisor-OCFA ORANGE COUNTY NEEDS WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE Growing demand for wireless service can overburden wireless networks, leading to unreliable, spotty coverage. All around the world countries are expanding their wireless capabilities, making it possible to do more through wireless applications. The United States is no longer leading the charge when it comes to wireless infrastructure and is in many instances sliding backwards. Modem societies need infrastructure, be it in transportation, water, housing, or technology. As a global leader, it is time for Orange County to resume this role in the technology realm and that begins right here, locally, in your own city. The fixture economy will not be accommodated without wireless infrastructure. naAK4E _ C-0tlNRf orvlstp IIYM:<1 L42AWISR. Li (Y��a 600 West Santa Ana Blvd. Suite 214 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: 714-972-0017 Fax: 714-972-1816 ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES THE OE_YMAD FOR [TIRELESS it More than 80 percent of Americans subscribe to a cell phone service. People are relying oncell service teebnology to function in their eceryv lives. In 2006 the cell phone surpassed the. landline 13y becoming the predominant way that Americans communicate by phone. With th onset of Smartphones. more Americans get titel urns, entails and telephone communications of cell phone than ever before. In fact many peop_. .are not+ opting to drop their landlines altogetha and rely solely on )tireless technology for thei communication needs. \fireless communication is not wire free. it do take physical infrastructure to send and receive cellphone calls. While this is an exciting time for Americans and their technological options, cell service providers are receiving increasing ;amounts of push back from residents regarding their efforts to enhance wireless networks. You .cannot have quality- cell service coverage aYthout infrastructure behind it. Without expansion of ovireless networks, cell service customers will see an onset of dropped calls and inabiLiq toget a signal. I CELL TOWERS PUT OFF LESS RF THAN A BABY MONITOR Many citizens are concerned that cell towers will increase their exposure to "Radio Frequencies" and have damaging health effects. Cell service technology uses the same technology that delivers radio and television broadcasts, and enables baby monitors to work in your home. Scientists throughout the world have continuously found that there is no public health threat from RF wireless emissions. RF emissions from a typical cell site are a minuscule percentage of what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allows. TYPICAL RF EXPOSURE FROM COMMON DEVICES Fapusme in meg8 aas/nm2 Police and Mobile Radio 250 FM Radio Transmitter 100 Cordless Phone 15 Baby Monitor 1 WIN Router 0.13 Cell Site 0.1 While public safety seems to be number one on the public's priority list when it comes to allowing new wireless infrastructure, many people do not realize that a lack of infrastructure may have an even greater public safety risk. Almost half of the 9-1-1 calls made in the United States today come from cell phones. Forty percent of children ages 12 to 14 have a cell phone with parents citing "safety" as the primary reason for providing the phone to their children. AARP reports that 56 percent of Americans over 65 own a cell phone for primarily the same reason. With the county of Orange launching programs such as AlertOC, to provide text information to individuals regarding disaster in their area, how can the residents of Orange County continue to fight wireless infrastructure in their area? Many parents are op- posed to placing any kind of wireless infrastructure on or near schools, this is precisely why so many schools are virtual deadzones, all of the students have phones,. and no service. HOME VALUE COULD BE INCREASED BY W RKLESS COVERAGE Outside of public health, property value is the major concern when installing new wireless infrastructure. Residents have concerns about their homes losing value if they are within a certain distance of a cell tower. Recent real estate appraisals have shown that property values are not impacted because a cell site is nearby and in fact the opposite may be true. Many real estate agents frequently report that strength of wireless signal is has a significant Impact on a buyer's selection of a new home. CELL SITE LOCATION IS AN EXACT SCIENCE Cell sites are not chosen at random Cell service providers go through an in depth process with every selection made. Every site is selected based on scientific analysis, zoning, real estate agreements, and construction and permitting requirements. Cell service providers work closely with cities to meet the needs of residents and ensure that the community's needs are met. SEMPORTANT INFORi\ ATiON REGARDING R'IRELLSS www.calwo.org California Wireless Association h�:i/wau.TcagovIoec ri,�afe(w FCC RF Safety Homepage h[[n:i�ivurn' icc.�oa/c��broon s'umcr(acan rfcxpnsurahtn-�I FCC Consumer Facts - glum in Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular & PCS Sites halm:%hvwlv.fecern-/ce[h-isa fete: rf-tau ..lf limn FCC RF Safety FAQ's IIfn!'wme_1n gm,'. as I,In d"e'Aulle m=%Ve .e. N'ubtti "OFT 65 - Evaluating Cmnpliance )AIth FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" 1:<+avirelass.fce. aea a;,xilin"'FCC LS AC IiF G�iidcl.i! "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance" ATTACHMENT F GRANT DEED WaGNM RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND WHEN RBOORDEO MAIL TO: -9LO AN M2019 City Tustin 300 Centennial way IOif10RIW1 Tustin, CA 92680 Attn: Director of The Undersigned daclarea that this Community Developmant document is recorded at the request of and for the benefit of the City of Tustin and therefore is exempt from the payment of the recording foe E7(EMP► + pursuant to Government Code ¢6103 and C2. from the payment of the Documentary Transfer Tax pursuant to Savanna and Taxation Coda 111922. .9 (Above Space for Recorder's Use GRANT DEED THE IRVINE COMPANY, a Michigan corporation ('Grantor') hereby grants to the City of Tustin, a municipal corporation ("Grantee'), for public community park purposes, the following real property in the City of Tustin, County of Orango, California: Lou 22 of Treat So. 19627, as recorded on 1989, in Book 644 Pages 1 through 20 inclusive, of Miacallaneoua Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County (the "Property'). This conveyance is made pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code 866477, EXCEPTING AND RESERVING unto GRANTOR, its successors and assigns, together with the right to grant and transfer all or a portion of the a me, the following: A. Any and all oil, all rights, minerals, mineral rights, natural gas rights and other hydrocarbons by wketaoever name known, geothormal atom and all products derived from any of the foregoing, that may be within or under the Proparty, together with the perpetual right of drilling, mining, exploring and operating therefor and storing in and removing the acme from the Property or any other land, including the right to whipstock or directionally drill and mine from lands other than the Property, ail or gas wells, tunnels and shafts into, through or across the subsurface of the Property and to bottom such whipstocked or directionally drilled wells, tunnels and shafts under and beneath or beyond the exterior limits thereof, and to radrlll, ratunnel, equip, maintain, repair, deepen and operate any such wells or mines; but without, however, the right to drill, mi.", store, explore or operate through the surface or the upper 500 feet of the subsurface of the Property. S. Any and all water, water rights or interests thatein appurtenant or relating to the Property or owned or used by Grantor in connection with or with respect to the Property (no matter how acquired by Grantor), whether ouch water rights shall be riparian, overlying, appropriative, littoral, percolating, prescriptive, adjudicated, statutory or Contractual, together with the right and power to •isplors, drill, rodrill and remove the same from or in the Property, to store the same beneath the surface of the Property and to divert or otherwise utilize such rater, rights or Interests on any other property owned or leased by Grantor; but without, however, any right to enter upon or we the surface of the Property in the exercise of such rights. C. Non-exclusive easements in gross on, "or, under or across the Property within 10 foot from all property linea bordering on and parallel to any public street for the construction, installation, amplacement, operation and maintenance of electric end/or water facilities, without unreasonably interfering with Grantee's reasonable use and enjoyment of the Property; and (ii) a non-exclusive easement on, over, under and across the westerly portion of the Property for the construction, installation, operation and maintenance of storm drain facilities related to the Peters Canyon Retarding Basin, without unreasonably interfering with (;tentacle reasonable me and enjoyment of the Property. Tustin - Comity Park eea..caloalaa THE GRANTS AND RESERVATIONS MEMINABOVE described shall be subject to: 1. General and special "at property taxes and supplemental assessment&, if any, for the currant fiscal year; provided, however. that Grantor shall pay for (a) any such taxes and assessments applicable to the Property prior to the data of recordation of this deed, and (b) any assessments, special taxes or other payments arising from bonds, contrActa or liens created by, through or as a result of the efforts or Activities of Grantor; 2. All covenants, conditions, restrictions, reoervationo, rights, rights of way, easements and other nectars of record or apparent other than amatory liana; and 3. The requirement that except as provided herein, Grantee accepts the Property 'AS IS' in the condition that! the Property exists as of the date of Grantee's acceptance thereof. Croutot represents and warrants that, to Che beat of Grantor's knowledge as of the data of Grantee's acceptance of the Property, the Property to in compliance with all State and Federal hazardous waste laws. Grantor agrees that it shall comply with all of Grantee's Conditions of Approval for Tract 13827 an they relate to the Property, including performing any romsdiation required to cause the property to comply with those conditions. Except as provided above, Grantor makes no ropresentations or warranties concerning the condition of the Property. 4. The requirement that, prior to the installation of the initial improvements for the, entire park (the •Initial Park Imprmomenta•) upon the Property, Grantee shall provide Grantor with copies of plane of the proposed Initial Park Improvements. Grantor may, within thirty (30) days after its receipt of malt plane, give Grantee comments an the plana, to which connects Grantee agrees to give reasonable consideration. Grantee shell not comments construction of the Initial Park Improvements prior to the expiration of the thirty (30) day review period. This requirement ahall apply to the Initial Park Improvements only and not to any subsequent improvements, reconstruction, repairs, replacements, additions, or changes. IN WITNESS i8 MEOP. Grantor has executed thin Grant Dead as of the day of j& 6 sr . 1989. This grant Dead shall ant be effective for any purpose unless and until the Acceptance below is duly executed by Grantee. THE IRVINE OCOMP n a Hiebiga - a �on By: Grantee, by its execution of this Grant Dead, hereby accepts the dedication of the Property upon and subject to the terns and provisions stated above. CITY OF TDSTIN a California municipal torpor ti Its: ✓-,7i' iNA.Vi�I-0 Its; 96AL,en104/ae of � STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF OR leo. On the 1989, before mtrl the yfAdor d, a Notary Public in on d to, personally appeared LA,,, and personally lmown to me (or proved to me on the wig of ■ to av ea ) to be the po cone he a no vithln lost at as respectively, on behalf of a corporation Chero nn n�acknowlodgc to mo that the corporation executed it, WITNESS my hand and official seal. UFFICIAL UAL, OIAh4YOUN6 • NOTARY PUBLIC• OLIFOANIA Is= TV lry save. -da"am 9k IVY! Notary alto S and P Said State This 10 to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within Grant Dead from The Irvine Company, to the City of Tustin, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agsnc on behalf of the City of Tustin on and Cremes consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated: ATTEST: "f/4.Q.-tt.I.�. ITr Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )ee. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On this 11th day of August , 1989, before me, tho underolgeed a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appearedand Wiliam Huston known to me to be the 1utl1 aP7Cet f the City of Tustin, the City that executed the within instrument, and known tome to be the parsons who executed the within Instrument on behalf of the city therein named, and acknowledged to an that such city executed the within instrument pursuant to a resolution of its City Council WITNESS my hand and official eaal. OFFICIAL SEAL VAlfAlf IC - C LV AN i! JAS MaSAM PUBLIC • Cal1:oRNIA Notary Public in and for said grateDAmffm IM moo Bob"sobAUR 21 IBP ; 3214,0191141 ATTACHMENT G CITY ATTORNEY COMMENT WOODRUFF, SPRADL[IV6$MART 555 ANION BOULEVARD, SWT9 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92026.7670 1714) 555..7000 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Planning Commissioners City of Tustin FROM: City Attorney's Office DATE: April 19, 2011 RE: DR 09-033: Cedar Grove Park Deed Restriction The documentation provided to the Planning Commission as part of Design Review Application 09-033 includes a -mails between City Staff and Ms. Jennifer Wierks regarding a "deed restriction" affecting the property consisting of Cedar Grove Park (the "Park"). The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with this office's interpretation of the referenced "deed restriction" and its effect on the pending application, It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the 1989 Grant Deed pursuant to which the Irvine Company deeded the property that is now Cedar Grove Park to the City of Tustin does not restrict the City from authorizing the project and improvements described in the pending application before the Planning Commission, A. Brief Description of Proiect and Improvements It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of the replacement of existing flagpoles located in a landscaped area within a parking lot with three new flagpoles containing wireless panel antennas, and that all associated equipment required to operate the wireless facilities located on the flag poles would be located underground. It is also our understanding that, once installed, the proposed improvements will not affect the public's current access to or use of the Park. B. 1989 Grant Deed and "Deed Restriction" The 1989 Grant Deed from the Irvine Company conveyed the property that is now Cedar Grove Park to the City of'Custin "for public community park purposes." In the deed, the Irvine Company also reserved the mineral rights and the right to mine or drill on the property, the water rights and the right to drill and remove the water from the property, and a non-exclusive easement along the property lines for installation of electric and water utility facilities. A copy of the Grant Deed is attached for your reference. 762916.1 City of Tustin April 19, 2011 Page 2 C. Law Governin¢ Cities' Use of Dedicated Park Proper In general, where property is granted to a city subject to a restriction on its use, the city cannot legally divert the use of the property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant.1 Such land is held upon what is loosely referred to as a "public trust," and any attempt to divert the use of the property from its dedicated purposes or uses incidental thereto is an "ultra vires" act 2 (An ultra vires act is one that is beyond the power of the public agency to take, and for that reason, is considered invalid or voidable.) In determining whether a proposed use is inconsistent with the terms of the grant, courts will look to the specific language of the deed, the grantor's intent, and the primary purpose of the dedication.3 In the context of property deeded to cities for "public park," courts have upheld the use of portions of the property for purposes that are incidental to its use as a public park.4 Courts have also looked to the extent to which the use will inlerfere with the public's use and enjoyment of the property for public park purposes.' There are no published California judicial opinions holding that the erection of wireless telecommunication facilities on park property violates a provision of a deed restricting use of the property for public park purposes. D. Application to Proposed Project The "use" of the property being contemplated is the replacement of existing flagpoles with new flagpoles that double as wireless telecommunication facilities. The erection of flag poles is clearly consistent with, and incidental to, the use of the property for park purposes. Further, since all appurtenant facilities will be located underground and the new flagpoles will be located in a landscaped area of a parking lot and in the same location as the existing flagpoles, it does not appear that any park land will be diverted to a different use or that there will be much, if any, interference with the general public's use and enjoyment of the Park. Further, the restriction in the 1989 Irvine Company deed is a relatively narrow one, in that, while it specifies that the grant is "for community park purposes," it does not say it is for park purposes "only" or "solely" and does not contain any additional more specific, restrictive language relating to particular uses. Therefore, it should not be construed too broadly. In addition, since the Irvine Company also reserved the mineral and water rights, as well as a non- exclusive easement along the property lines for installation of electric and water utility facilities, I See Cal. Gov't Code §§'37354 (°[A city] may hold and dispose of the property ... for such uses as are prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest, or devise.") City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 295, 299-300. See e.g., Abbot Kinney Company v. City of Las Angeles (1964) 223 Cal.App.2d 668. ' See Ahhot Kinney Company v. City of Los Angeles; Vale v. San Bernardino (1930) 109 Cal. App. 102. s See e.g., Slavich v. Hamilton (1927) 201 Cal. 299, 309; Simons v. City of Los Angeles (1976) 63 Cal. App. 3" 455 (holding that use of park by police recruits did not constitute a diversion from park purposes, was consistent with the recreational character of the park, and constituted no interference with the enjoyment of the park facilities by the public). 762956,1 City of Tustin April 19, 2011 Page 3 it clearly contemplated that there might be structures and utility facilities constructed on the property in the future.6 Accordingly, it is our opinion that the proposed use of the property reflected in the pending application would be consistent with the terms of the 1989 Grant Deed from the Irvine Company, E. Brief Description of Gases Cited in February 9, 2010 E -Mail Ms. Wierks's February 9, 2011 a -mail references numerous California cases (as well as a case from Florida) in support of the contention that a wireless facility in a park is inconsistent with a grant of property "for park purposes." None of these cases address the installation of flag poles or wireless telecommunication facilities, however, or are factually analogous to the instant situation. A brief description of each the cases referenced in the February 9th email is included below, 1. Roberts v City oi'Palo Verdes (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 545. In this case, the court held that a building constructed in a park to house maintenance equipment that the City used to maintain not only this particular park, but all parks in the City, violated the terms of a deed conveying the property for public park purposes and which explicitly stated that, "... no buildings, structures or concessions shall be erected maintained or permitted upon the said realty, except such as (in the opinion of the Park Department of Palo Verdes Homes Association), are properly incidental to the convenient and/or proper use of said realty for park purposes." The Court found that the buildings constructed on the park property must directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the particular park property subject to the deed and that is was improper to .use the buildings to house maintenance equipment used by the City to maintain other City property. Unlike the instant situation, this case involved a detailed and specific deed restriction limiting the construction of structures on the park property. The Grant Deed from the Irvine Company to the City of Tustin does not contain similar detailed and restrictive language and, in fact, contemplates that structures of various kinds will be constructed on the property. 2. Griffith v Department of Public Works (1956) 141 Cal-Apo.2d 376. This case concerns the construction of a freew on property dedicated for public park purposes. 3. Spinks v City of Los Anzeles (1934) 220 Cal. 366 and City and County of San Francisco v. Linares (1940) 16 Cal.2d 441. Both of these cases address a city's right to divert park a It has also been asserted that the City is required to obtain the Irvine Company's written consent in order to authorized the erection of wireless telecommunication facilities within the Park. This is not the case, however. The City is not required to obtain a written consent or release agreement from the Irvine Company (the original grantor of the property) prior to erecting improvements in the Park, either pursuant to the terns of the deed itself, or California law. While the deed did require the City to obtain the Irvine Company's approval prior to construction of the "Initial Park Improvements," it explicitly states (hat this requirement does not apply "to any subsequent improvements ... or changes." Further, California law does not independently require a grantee to obtain written approval of the grantor to construct improvements on property subject to a deed restriction, and, in the absence of an express provision in the deed requiring such approval, the subsequent statement of the prior grantor is irrelevant. (See Vale v. San Bernardino (1930) 109 Cal, App. 102). 762956.1 City of Tustin April l9, 2011 Page 4 property not subiect to a deed restriction to another use, and are thus inapplicable to the instant situation. 4. Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99. This case addressed whether a State statute authorized the State to grant a private right-of-way across a public park in the face of a deed restriction expressly prohibiting construction on the property of private roads for vehicular traffic, The court held that the express language of the deed restriction prevailed over the State statute. 5. City o/ Hermosa Beach v Superior Court (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 295. In this case, the court was addressing the city's building of a road across property which had been dedicated "for public pleasure purposes" only and which was subject to a deed restriction explicillypreventing use of the orooerty for vehicular traffic. There is no similar express restrictive language in the Irvine Company deed to the City of Tustin. 6. Slavich v Hamilton (1927) 201 Cal. 299. In this case, the California Supreme Court u held a city's lease of property to the County for the construction of a veterans memorial hall building on park property subject to a deed restriction that stated, "conveyance is made only upon the express condition, that said property shall be used forever for the purpose of a public Water Park ...... The Court found that the memorial hall building was consistent with the use of the property of park purposes, in part, for the following reasons: (i) the building would only cover a small part of the park; (ii) the building would not interfere with the enjoyment by the community in general of the park and would not be a great diversion of the property from its use for park purposes; (iii) it would purportedly add to the beauty and attractiveness of the park; and (iv) the erection of monuments and memorials in parks has long been recognized as a use consistent with park purposes. 7. White v Metropolitan Dade County (Fla Ano 1990) 563 So.2d 117. This is a Florida case in which the court held that the use of a permanent tennis facility in a public park for a np ygle tennis tournament violated a deed restriction specifying that the property be used for "public park purposes only" because it would result in the public being completely barred from use of the park and tennis facility for extended periods of time, Conclusion It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the 1989 Grant Deed pursuant to which the Irvine Company deeded the property that is now Cedar Grove Park to the City of Tustin does not restrict the City from authorizing the project and improvements described in the pending application before the Planning Commission. J ES 11. EGGART ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Attachment: 1989 Grant Deed 762956.1 • (i "�65T52 7'M srEo ;�eraNudcAxinf Rls�ioa .'l3COA69P6Ole1 OtrR11L C3 GAAROE COdNiY.O 3RCORGINO R9quWas ?Y, ASVD wit RBOMM MAIL 70: -959 AM M 2019 City of Tustin 3OO Cararnalat May �•TdLogM. Tustin, CA 92680 ALene Director of The Undersigned declares that this Ca®nLty Development docenoent is "cordae at the re""t of and for the benefit of the City of notin and therefore is asampt fraw,M� the payment of rhe recording fee pursuant to Government Code 86103 and C2 face the payment of the Documentary Transfer Tea pursuant to 8ovetxm and :oration cods 811922. (.above Space for Recarder's Use ..b GRAN! DrRO 7a MRS COMPANY, a Michigan corporation (-Creator-) hereby giants to the City of Tustin, a municipal corporation L'Cront"o), for public aonswilty park purposes, the following real property to the City of Tustin. County of Orange, Colitornls: In: 22 of Treat ff.. L9627. as recorded on Qi�JI 1969• in Book Edd pages 1 through 20 inclusive, of Mleeallaaaeua Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County (the -Property-). This esaoyanoo in made Vermont to the provisions of California Cavernment Coda 866477, R%CBPTWG AND RRWRRpIMO uses GRANTOR, Its successor. and assigns, together with the right to grant and transfer all or a portion of the acme, the following: A. Any and .11 oil, oil rights, minerals, mineral rights. Mental gas rights sed other hydrocarbons by vhat.eaver name know, gootbsrmal stem and all produces derived ft® my of the foregoing• that may he within or wider the Property, together with the perpetual right of drilling, -Lama, "Placing and operating therefor and atorireg in and towering the same fees the Property or any other land, including the right to whipstock or "nationally drill and vine from lands otber than the Property. oil or gas sella• temsls said chafes Late. through or across the subsurface of the property and to hot= such detpstoclud or dimationally drilled wells, Console and chafes under and bemath or beyond the oxterior llmlrs tbumcf, and m mdrLll, retmnal, equip, maintain, repair, session and operate any such, wells at mime: but without, however, the right to drill, Miro, store, explore or "Grate through the surface at the upper 300 feet of the subsurface of the Property. R. Awry and all water, voter rights or intimate therein appurterient or relating to the Property or owned or woad by Creator in aconoetlea with at with respect to the Property (ro matter hos acquired by Greater), whether each water rights shell be riparian, overlying, appraprLative. littarai, percolating, prescriptive, adjudicated, statutory or contractual, together with the right and power to .sxplors, dtill, redrill and reuses the cam from or in she Property, to arae the arm beneath the eurfaae of the property and to divert or otherwise utilize each worse, rights or letereats on say other property owed se loaned by arrow; but without, harrower, any right to enter upon or won, the surface of the Property in the countries of such rights. C. Non-nuol"L" summers is gress on. ever, under or Across the Property within 10 foot from all property lime bordering on and parallel to any public street for the construction. iestsllatim. OWLw.awnt. Operation end moinr come of electric and/or "tar facilities, without unreasonably interfering with Greateo'e reasonable was and mJoymwnt of the property; and (Li) a moo-emlusi" ea.oment so. over. under and stress the westerly portion of the Property rot the "correction. irotallatien, operation and meintetacme of Ston drain facilities related to the 7etsm Canyon Retarding 3"111, without comwanably interfering with Grantoo's rosamabla was and wnJoymnt of the Property. Testis - Coor erity Park taa.mw W W TIN MMM AM USYBVATI0.'19 N9NYINMM described shall be aubject zea: 1, General aid special real ptoperty taxes wed svpplemeaml casoe eeturc, if my, for the serpent fiscal year. provided, hanarer. that Grantor ohall pay for (a) my such tares and amaesonents applicable to the property, prior to the date of recordation of Chia dead, and (b) arty assessments, special moo or other payments arising free bonds, ,rontreeto or Lions created by, through or as a rasult of the efforts or activities of Oranter; 2. All covenants, conditions, reserictlens, reaervatians, rights, Tights of any, easements aha other matters of record or apparent other than sanatory Bene; and 3. The requiroseat that oxaapt as provided borate. Ctantos aoaePts the amperty °aa Ise to the condition that the Peeporty exists " of the date of Grantee's secapteete thereof. Grantor represents and warrants that, to chs beat of Oremor's knowledge as of the data of Grantee's acceptance of the noperty, the property it in compliance With all stets and padaral hazardous ease lows. Grantor agrees that it shall cemply with All of Grantee's Conditions of Approval for Treat 13427 " they relate to the Property, including performing may rmodlatlen required to causes the property to comply with those conditions. unapt as provided above, Grantor makes no representations or varrantles concerning rho condition of the property. 6. The requirement that, prior to the lmctellstfon of the initial lapravemmte far the entire pack (the 'Initial park ImprovWnsnm•) up= the ?"party, Ctantes shell provide Grantor With copies of pians of the prapseed Wtial Park Improeemsota, armtor may, ulthis thirty (30) days after its receipt of much place, give Grant" Cancer" an the plans, an which comments Grantee agrees to at" raaemabla ame ideratim. Grantee shall not aom9nee eonseremtlos of the Initial Park isprecameoee prior to obs expiration of the thirty (30) day review period. This r""remm shall apply to the Initial park Impro'saments only and net to any subeoquout improvements, recmutructim, repairs, replaaaeacts, edditlms or changes. IN NIT KU WHESSM, Granter has executed this Gras toad se of the fill, day of A464.tas 1989. This grant teed shall oat be offactive for aty purpose unless she vatil the Actopmnts below is duly sectored by Grantee. THE Ikvpig C e "Sam gan�coepo a m gy: y///moi W-54-ju, ,aa Grmtes, by its srecutim of this Grant Deed, hereby a epts the dedlestiom of the property upon and subjstt ra the term and provietons stated above. CITY CP TUSTIN a California municipal /e/et/p�erptl 3y: /.✓.L_/ �Z LV.�1r. Its: /_ /zY OWA.VAAE& Its ewa,0919r1011 T52 mTATB OF CAMFOMA ) )eo, C�OITY OP Og ) Gnftou 39a9, boars G th. �Advrwd�„9d- a kotoey A�611c in to,reaaelip appacred �_(�„ -A dl. Peraomlly known tv as (or proved to an m thew ) to be the LOOM pha ore sad 00 within 8auwen rr .�J� reao "rporatien Chore on, oEd aclmowladgod� eco as chat the corporation Ovecuted it. 7 9MMIs hood and official coal. favplClAi. ME 4 SEAL my noQ DMC •GL Mm Rotary axis I aid f said State This is to eareify that the interest in real property eolneyed by the within Great bead ftwe Do Irvine Company, to the City of Tustin, to hereby accepted by the undersigned officer or agent on behalf of the City of Mario on and Grearao eeaaoata to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Detest By: I7c.Gttv Clerk SATS OF CALIFMNIA D )ae. COUNTY Oy OAANCg I On this 11th day of August , 1969, before re, the undareigped e Notary Public is and for said Beata, pevonall appeared ygbg ad wl:'jam Huston Seem to em mo be the of tha City of Tactic, the City that closeted the within instrument, W home n to me to be the Persons who atecuted the within instrument an behalf of the city therals vaned, and acknowledged to as that much city assented tis within instrument Forswear to a resolution of lea City Council WMESa ry Mand and official anal. ®� ,"IL14L SAAL Qvpw wan • [alVaenA Rotary public in and for said Stare O msa�wde � 4. mR a9a,aa/ole ATTACHMENT H TUSTIN CITY CODE 7260 ET AL & CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 01-95 Municode Page 1 of 2 1REFL1a11"■i'a:1111:t0tHT_Ctl101111IMM 7 PART 6 - DESIGN REVIEW OF ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FACILITIES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT- OF-WAY 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 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 a variety 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. 1232, 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 thepublic dght-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 e. 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. 1292, See. 2, 12.3-01) httn://library.municode,com/print.aspx7clicntlD=I1307&HTMRequest=http%o3a%o2t°/n2flibrary.munic.., 12/09/2010 Municode 1 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, See. 2, 1b3.01) 1 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, than 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, See. 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, 16,11-17-00) 7266 - TERMIABANDONMENT (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-ef-way. (Ord, No, 1232, Sec. 2.12.3-01) http!//library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientID-1.1307&HTMRequest=http%3a%2tr/o2 tlibtasy.tnianic... 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 otheCity-owned properties. New comprehensive guidelines are heeded 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. 01-95 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. II. 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 19`h day of November, 2001. , Tracy Wil orley Mayor S 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, �'�e� opt light pales, 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 T s -includes facilities feF 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 A 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. In addition to the information requested in the Development Application Form, the following items shall be required for an aboveground utility facility: A statement providing the reason for the location, design, and height of the proposed aboveground utility facilities; 2. 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; A site plan showing the locations of all proposed and existing aboveground utility facilities; 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. 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 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. The aboveground accessory equipment complies with the height requirements set forth in Section 7.3 herein. 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. C. 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. d. 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: Location 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; 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 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 Noise emanating from aboveground accessory equipment shall not exceed the City's adopted Noise Ordinance standards. 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. g. 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 2nCL�S� Pamela Stoker, City Clerk 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 THREE (3) FLAGPOLES WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FORTY-THREE (43) FEET LOCATED WITHIN A LANDSCAPED CIRCLE IN THE PARKING LOT OF CEDAR GROVE PARK LOCATED AT 11385 PIONEER ROAD. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. 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 three (3) flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet and underground equipment located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of 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 a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on December 14, 2010 before the Planning Commission, and continued to the January 25, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. At the January 25, 2011 meeting before the Planning Commission, the applicant requested a continuance to a date uncertain in order to redesign the proposed facility. The Planning Commission granted the continuance to a date uncertain. Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 2 G. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on April 26, 2010 before the Planning Commission H. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Wireless Master Plan. I. 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. Wireless facilities are considered utilities and typically located within the public property and the public right-of-way J. The location, size and general appearance of the proposed project as conditioned is compatible with the surrounding area in that the flag poles would be of a stealth design and replace existing flagpoles in the same location. All associated equipment would be located within an underground vault with venting screened by landscaping. K. That the proposed facility will provide wireless coverage to an area that is currently deficient of wireless reception. L. The project site is located within a landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park and away from public recreation area. The proposed flagpole facility in the parking lot will not interfere with the public's use of the park and will not exclude the public from any portion of the park. M. The proposed wireless facility is incidental to the use of the property for park purposes and would not divert Cedar Grove Park from its intended use as a public park. N. 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. O. 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 designed as a set of flagpoles, each with a diameter of fourteen (14) inches with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet, is compatible with the existing pair of twenty-six (26) foot high flagpoles Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 3 that would be replaced. Accessory equipment would be located adjacent to the flagpoles within an underground vault with vents screened by landscaping so as to not be visible. 2. Setbacks and site planning — The project site is located in a landscaped circle within the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park where the proposed flagpoles would have the same location and setbacks as those existing. 3. Exterior material and colors — Materials of the proposed flagpoles would be metal with a fiberglass portion near the antennas for radio frequency transparency and painted grey to match typical flagpoles. 4. Towers and antennae — Each flagpole would contain two internal antennas for a total of six (6) antennas at the facility. Antennas would be located towards the top of the flagpoles and completely concealed so as not to be visible. 5. Landscaping and parking area design and traffic circulation — The proposed facility will not require any modifications to the parking lot and thus have no impact on circulation. No trees will be removed as a result of the project. Additional landscaping would be provided to screen the vents of the underground equipment. 6. Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure — All accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault so as not to be visible. Any utilities such as meter pedestals would be screened with landscaping. 7. Physical relationship of proposed structure to existing structures — The proposed flagpoles would replace existing flagpoles at the site to minimize any potential impact. Flag poles are common in public parks and consistent with public park purposes. 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 flag sizes are in proportion to the new flagpoles. 9. Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council — The proposed facility complies with the City Council's adopted Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment. P. 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: Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 4 1. Location — The project site is located in a landscaped circle within the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. This area within the parking lot is not used for park activities or recreation; therefore, no impact to the public's use of the park is anticipated. The project site is also a considerable distance from adjoining properties. 2. Stealth Facility— The proposed wireless facility is of a stealth design as flagpoles. The facility will in fact replace existing flagpoles with new ones. All accessory equipment will be located underground within a vault enclosure. 3. Co -location - The proposed facility cannot accommodate additional carriers as currently proposed. 4. Colors — The flagpoles would be painted gray to match the color of the existing flagpoles at the project site. 5. Screening — Accessory equipment would be located underground and vents for the vault would be screened by landscaping. 6. Landscape — No trees would be removed as a result of the proposed facility and additional landscaping would be provided to screen the vents for the underground vault. 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 — All accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault adjacent to the flagpoles. 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 from the right-of- way near the intersection of Pioneer Way and Pioneer Road. Q. 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 three (3) flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet and underground equipment located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road, subject to the conditions contained within Exhibit A attached hereto. Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 5 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of April, 2011. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting on the 26th day of April, 2011. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary JEFF R. THOMPSON Chairperson hereby certify that I am the Planning California; that Resolution No. 4163 was of the Tustin Planning Commission, held 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 April 26, 2011, 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 parry 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 three (3) flagpoles with interior antennae and associated equipment. All antennas shall be located as depicted in the approved plans and associated equipment shall be located within the underground vault. (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. (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. The applicant shall provide flags for the facility as needed to the City's Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant shall provide two (2) sets of flags at a time so that the City may maintain a back-up set when necessary. (1) 2.5 Any plaques removed as a result of the installation of the facility shall be replaced by the applicant. (1) 2.6 The equipment shall not bear any signs or advertising devices (other than certification, warning, or other required seals or signage). (1) 2.7 Utilities associated with the proposed facility which are not contained within the underground vault, such as but not limited to meter pedestals, shall be located in landscaped areas and screened. Exact locations of said utilities shall be approved by the City of Tustin prior to installation. (1) 2.8 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) 2.9 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) 2.10 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) 2.11 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) 2.12 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) 2.13 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) 2.14 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) 2.15 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. NOISE (1) 3.1 All construction operations including engine warm up, delivery, and loading/unloading 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.