Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 09-033Agenda Item 1 Reviewed: AGENDA REPORT City Manager Finance Director ~, MEETING DATE: JULY 19, 2011 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 PROPERTY OWNER: City Of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 APPLICANT: T-Mobile West Corporation 2008 McCaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 SUMMARY: Design Review 09-033 is a request to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a height of forty-three (43) feet and underground equipment located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. On April 26, 2011, the City of Tustin Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4163 approving Design Review 09-033. On May 6, 2011, the City Clerk received an appeal of Design Review 09-033 which was filed by the City's Mayor Pro Tem due to concerns regarding the aesthetics and compatibility of the design of the facility and the parameters of the installation. The appeal hearing is de novo. RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-47 approving Design Review 09- 033 to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a 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. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has paid the applicable application fees. Fiscal impacts associated with the potential installation and operation of the proposed wireless facility are evaluated with the License Agreement. July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BACKGROUND: The applicant, T-Mobile, originally proposed a wireless facility which consisted of a mono-cedar faux tree located within a landscaped area in the northern portion of Cedar Grove Park. The proposal 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. 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 General 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 and identified a number of concerns. 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. 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. On April 26, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the continued item for Design Review 09-033. After evaluating the new design of the proposed wireless facility consisting of two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a height of forty-three (43) feet and underground equipment located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4163 approving Design Review 09-033. On May 6, 2011, the City Clerk received an appeal of Design Review 09-033 filed by the City's Mayor Pro Tem. The appeal noted that a number of residents surrounding the July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 3 area of installation of this facility have questions and concerns regarding the aesthetics and compatibility of the design of this facility and the parameters of the installation. 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 July 7, 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. In addition, email notifications were sent to members of the public who had provided their email addresses at prior meetings. Members of the public that provided written comments were also notified of the public hearing. DISCUSSION: This report provides discussion and analysis of the following topical areas: • Project Site Location and Surrounding Properties • Proposed Design • General 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 (Attachment A). 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 July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 4 Figure 2 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. 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. Figure 3 (Project Site Looking South) Figure 5 (Project Site Looking North) Figure 4 (Project Site Looking East) Figure 6 (Project Site Looking West Proposed 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). July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 5 July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 6 lail ntYniu (~) run AXTBNAS ---- -~ NI1M (}) TIM'. PER 9BCtOR 9' STA(X MLVt® NRNM A M61 d \ Niril PRP R.YFOIY At ID7 AIINM1I. TD Id T-HfaRE PMB. ANtBiM o-e~a~AC~ --- --- ------- - _ NBI T-I1®ILE (R) PAMEL ANfBiYb NfiI (i) 111xa - PQ lFiLT01 'C' lTA4f INUNTi<D WTNN A N91 41 NIW Fqp FIALPOIE AT ~9p ASNkl1'N. pIbTW4 aY TAIL pNE 1RFf -. ~:;:, COBT-N5 h' NKi1 -: y 4 ..~ ~^ ~ . ~~'~ !;r - 1t S ~i :iS ~ racau ria x m-t mxTlnltm- eN~+ro++Blf rNOOaI.e rqI couw+ort rAlrmtn NCI T-M14BL[ t COplCN rms 7~Oi ..-- IImOCIt GBIRTiS IOdTED ixwc a NBI rnoawawD MYJLr -- N61 T-EIOSIE cro ANrE01A rIa-rlo !fl A NCI FtAf Pqr NCI T-ELOI.c PAIR. AMEB~IAS NIM R) P@l lCfiA ' BTAOt MANfBD MREM A IIG Fip 0.A9gE AT 97 Aif41H. - - xOI ) v ^ rt PIASS N atr Eu4 (I) RW MID (I) TALIKRiA -lAi TD. NEN T~tBL( PAIRi ANIYAR _ _ -__ ~~ AGl _ _ \ RAD O8VEB2 W INI 7tmLE RN6 _ 71LG' A41 14D CEIEfER CF IHI T~[tl{Y nMl6 '. MDH7W jW~ nHl) _ _ __ 3t-?' AGL __. _ l01 T~'OCIL[ (I) 8' NIW FU4P4E NCI t~lA[ (~ .10'-D` NYyI RMf'QE4 iD IlTI/{[ DICTIN'i (~ N' 11GN RAOtiC0. .~ C WTeli 'JWA,E6~ID7M _ Ctr8}tHG fnGa.T~ atlK I A-1 41 1 Figure 7 - -~. c_ ~~' ~ __ ~' _,: < !r ..-. ~ ,R~ ~' i p. i__ ,/ _-lIi ~,,, . :.,~;^J u I;Y~: ~ ~ =--- .~ i ---:F =__ ,`G~ . U° Flag Poles Figure 8 ~- ~ M ~ 1Z 5 July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 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. Existing Proposed View from the East to the West July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 8 Existing PROPC4ED f71 PLAG+~OLE LOCATION ~~ LA33842E y ECIUIPMENr `. '~ VAULT q~lr~/ ~Id1.Z~, 7 Lounonl - -n-- - . Proposed View from the North to the South July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 9 Existing Proposed View from the North to the South at distance July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 10 Existing Proposed View from the Southwest to the Northeast July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 11 General Concerns The Planning Commission as well as the general public noted a number of concerns regarding the proposed project which included topics such as: health concerns, alternate location analysis, architectural/aesthetic impacts, public outreach, impacts to the park, and effect on property values. These concerns were evaluated by the Planning Commission and found to be sufficiently analyzed, prior to making a decision to approve the request for Design Review 09-033. While not all of these concerns are related to Design Review required findings or within the purview of the decision body on evaluating 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 FM Radio Transmitter 100 Cordless Phone 15 Baby Monitor 1 WiFi Router 0.1 Cell Site 0.1 megawatts/cm2 megawatts/cm2 megawatts/cm2 megawatts/cm2 3 megawatts/cm2 megawatts/cm2 Recently the World Health Organization (WHO) published a press release by the International Agency for Research on Cancer which classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Attachment D). 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 July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 12 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. 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. This past May, the City of Irvine issued the applicant a correction notice and has not yet received a re-submittal of the application. Concern: How the proposed facility will affect the aesthetics of the park and where a co-location facility will be placed. 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 (3) 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. July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 13 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. 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 throughout the public hearing process. There have been three noticed public meetings regarding the item prior to the meeting before the City Council. Staff has attached all public correspondence received regarding the item within Attachment J. 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 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 D). 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. The applicant has also provided additional information pertaining to the effect of telecommunications facilities on residential property values (Attachment C) Design Review The pending action before the City Council is a Design Review of the proposed wireless facility. Unlike some actions that are before the City Council, such as Conditional Use July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 14 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 two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a 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 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 July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 15 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 G) Section 7262 of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a Design Review for new aboveground utility facility located on public property. The design criteria for these types of facilities are outlined within City Council Resolution No 01-95 (Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment). The criteria include items such as location, stealth facility, co-location, colors, screening, landscape, signage, accessory equipment, removal of abandoned structures, and undergrounding. The following provides an analysis of the proposed improvement in relationship to the approved criteria. 1) Location -The project site is located 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; however, future technological advances may allow for co- loration. 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. July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 16 9) Required Removal -Upon termination of the license agreement, the proposed facility would be required to be removed. At the time of removal, restoration of the area and reinstallation of the original flagpoles would be required. 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 and Requirements Wireless Master Plan In November 2007, the City entered into an agreement with ATS Communications to develop and implement a Wireless Communications Master Plan (WMP) for the City and to act as the City's agent in procuring qualified wireless carriers wanting to locate facilities on City-owned property. ATS Communications completed the Wireless Master Plan which was approved by the City Council on August 4, 2009. Through the use of ATS Communications, optimal locations are identified for wireless facilities on City-owned properties and properties within the public right-of-way. One of the potential wireless locations identified within the WMP by ATS Communications is the proposed project site of Cedar Grove Park. ATS works with wireless carriers to improve cellular service and efficiency within the City while balancing site selection and aesthetics of proposed wireless facilities. The project has been reviewed by the Community Development Department, the City's Redevelopment Agency, Parks and Recreation Department, and the City's wireless communications consultant, ATS Communications. ATS has been authorized by the City 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 parameters, terms and conditions. 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 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 E). One of which was to July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 17 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 F. Federal Telecommunications Act The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides regulations for wireless telecommunication facilities and radio frequency emission standards. The City and wireless providers are subject to these regulations. Generally, the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities by any State or local government: 1) Shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; 2) Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; 3) Shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time; 4) Any decision to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing; 5) Shall not regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's (FCC) regulations concerning such emissions. 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 City Council 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 City Council must make as required by the Tustin City Code and Resolution No. 01-95 are included in Resolution No. 11-47 in Attachment I. 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 July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 18 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. Elizabeth A. Binsack 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 • Effects on Residential Property Values D. 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 • International Agency for Research on Cancer -Press Release No. 208 • OC League of California Cities Pamphlet July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 19 E. Grant Deed F. City Attorney Memo (Cedar Grove Deed Restriction) G. Tustin City Code 7260 et al and Resolution No. 01-95 H. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4163 I. City Council Resolution No. 11-47 J. Public Comments ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP _~C.aTIQN ,y~Ap ~P ATTACHMENT B LAND USE FACT SHEET LAND USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 1. LAND USE APPLICATION NUMBER(S): DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 2. LOCATION: CEDAR GROVE PARK 3. ADDRESS: 11385 PIONEER ROAD 4 APN(S):502-451-31 5. PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY: NONE 6. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL/FIRE STATION EAST: RESIDENTIAL WEST: ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 7. SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION: NORTH: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) SOUTH: PCR EAST: PCR WEST: PCR 8. SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: NORTH: PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL (PCR) SOUTH: PCR EAST: PCR WEST: PCR 9. SITE LAND USE: A. EXISTING: PARK B. PROPOSED: PARK C. GENERAL PLAN: PCR D. ZONING: PCR PROPOSED GP: SAME PROPOSED ZONING: SAME 10. LOT AREA: 9.7 ACRES DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES: 11. LOCATION: SITED IN A 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 ATTACHMENT C SUBMITTED PLANS AND PHOTOGRAPHS ,R1 a~,/{ M 11,,~r . C!' {, .: ; `~~ ~;. ~~ M C n Z L N ~ ~ Cl M W ~ ~ = 0 C ~ +'' R 'N3 N c ~ ~ 7 N Q v~ n v '~ ~ w ti 3 er ~ a E J a i .c 3 u , n u m ~ .e a N d u d O O t(1 ~ ~ ~ N 1 ~ U ~ a O H O 7 Ha `u ~ Z o d ip ~ C ~ d, C N 'n eh U O ~ ~ C ~; ~ o 'O , . r N C O C ~ a ~ ,~ oaP N ~' ~ S eJ ~ ~ ~ N H H o a W Q ti Q N ti o~ ~ ~ d' LL N Z ~ a~ c ~ M j Q M C ~ ou ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~~' ~ ~ U L H J ~ V 1 1385 Pioneer Road Tustin, CA 92752 7~lobile west Corpor,tlon 2008 6kts,w Avenue ItvMie, U 92614 sequol, Deployment Servkes MaVt, IlAoreth 1 Vennne; ANte 200 ltvine. U 92618 p 949.247.0175 bluewater~design. net mkhelle®[AUewater-design.net mem rnrmn.m..~ro-e..aan dMnr~ na.umm re wroapnya.~a _EXISTING a:: EXISTING ZO' (+/-~ LIGHT STANDARD 1 15' from Prop. Site i ` EXISTING ~Z~ 26'FLAGPOLES ITO Be peplTCetl) -.__ _~ _ f ~~~ ~_:' • - , _ j, nn PROPOSED n fQ PROPOSED a~_fl~,. (3~ FLAGPOLE h a 3 - LOCATION ,- ~ z -as ~c PROPOSED _.._. ~~~~. '---~~i-._.____~__ EQUIPMENT x~::- ..:.- LA3384ZE VAULT ~o„rp~~~ LOCATION APPLICANT CONTACT Cedar GroveFlagpOleS T~toblleWesteorporatlon >;ey~l~pepl,~,e„ts~e, Bt11EwATER ~~ 1 1385 Pioneer Road 2009 MtG~wAVerW ifonlu Morena ~'"'at"~"4^•^~ mk~elle9 bluewater-desig T,ustln, CA 92782 Wile, U 91614 1 Venture, crate 200 Blue Water s, ..... WInG U 92618 o e s-i S N P 714.4731442 V"{ {,~/ ~ - p 944.241.0175 ~* t rt yr _ maewre~yuee.aw~a.w+uonwwiaaas.ewrnc+Tbtl~sn~ _ _ _a~ _- EXISTING ' ,ray fi~ v • sIi • of\/!!l®A~~~• ,{ .~ .~""K°~ ~~i'~JJ EJ(ISTING LA33842 Cedar Grov~Ft~ 1 1385 Pi~nepr R Tustin, CA 9Z/". VIEW 4 s Completed March 23, 2011 APPLICANT CONTACT ~ IO~eS i-Mobile west CoEporatlon S~,qa ,K senrk es BLUE WATER DESIGN d 2008 McCaw Avenue Monks Movetfa ~~~ bluewaterdesign.net Inrb~e, CA 92614 1 vcnwe, su8e:oo B_ lue Water mkhelle®bluewater-eesign.net bMnt CA 92618 DESIGN p 714.473.7942 p 949.241.0175 we.~ m re var uuq~ y ae .~+ ~+> .~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ ~ OW w Z ., _ w~~_~__n ^ O ^ ^ ~ Z 1 ., ~ d A : lt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V/ _'_ c =~ ~ n ~ t h r ~ ~ o ~ E E ~ S ' ~ a~ . ~ ~ ~~ --~. _ ~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ m ~ Z C 3 ~ ,~ ~~. ~ ~ cn a ~ ~ P ~ °~ j~-' - µ ~ey ~ w w H - ~ ~ w w w ~ ~~ ~ `i ~rsia ~~ 'T ~ ri Z s ..• e{ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. RR~RR-F.RRR ~ ~ f ~l ~ i ~ ~ O u"..~~ ~r X ~ ~ , ~ .r" ¢ S ¢ ~ ~~gagg ~ ~ C f ~, ~ = `z ~ E sA ~ 5 ~ ~ t a~. ~ F ~ - F ~ ~ §y~^d~e u g Z //~ ~// ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ O ~ b k b ' b p I ~ W ~ A " 1. k A ~ ~ ~~~y~~S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O p ~ J~ s ~ r ~ ~a ~~~~ J a~W O C ~ .e W a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ 4~~Gj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ fy] ~ W ~tl y , ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ < y~~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W O Efi EEEEH ~~ ~~ ~Y ~ ~ c e~ ~ < ~ ~ i ~ b z `_' ~ ~ / S1 V ~ b d 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 5 ~ E~ PP~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~°, Q H ~ ~ M ~ a g ~ ~~~ W ~~F q~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ m~d~ ~ ~ ~~~R t ~ ~ W W W a s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~~ ° ~> o ~ s ~~~ k: ~ ~ ~~~ ~ a e s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WN .. ~ o ~ ¢ ~ ~~ v ~d O ~ ~E ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O W J ~ N ~ ~ ~ O N v ~Ja - y~ ~ s ~ #~ ~~ ~ ~~~ x S ~ d~~~ ~ ~° o ~o ~ ~ ~ = a ~ = R s ~ ; s ~ a ~Q~~ F g ~~ D ~ Za ~ ~ a ~ ~'~ ~ ~ V LL' ~ a ~- e ~~ 41 }!C t a'/~Si'A!!!#gec !F P ~pt ~~t~ II }66,~@~!i ~S~a~~~ ~6~ ~~~ ~~t t s i x 11 ~~ $ a~ ;~~ y~~a ~~x I1 4 ~ e ~°9 It ~ ~ i p r } e jt ~t~ ;~~ ~'~ '~' Ia~~~~~~~~3j~~ ~=~ ~ ~ l f6 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ { ~ j d~~f~~~Fl~~II7~I~It~t ~~~~a~~~i 3~~i 't ;j`~ a LL ~~t . i~~r~~~tB~ ~~~~~~~~ ~;~1 Z x a o c Z 0 U p ~a ~ ff_ ~ aR~ ~a r ~§ ~ k~~~ ~~ ~ ~ g~ ~~ ~ ~s~~x~'~o~e~s g~ ~_ ~° ~~a ~~~~ ~~ ads s~~ §ba&~~ dg ~~~ ~~ ~0 3~~~~oya~~r~~~€ ~° a @ 5 &C ~° as ~~ ~ ~ @~ b3 g ~5~e s3 ~ ~~~ n- x x ~ { ~ Ep ~ a pry ~ a & ~ n'S n ~ ~ ~= x~~ ~ €W~;° ~~~ ~~ ;~ ~ XI G ~k W~~ yip ~~~ bk ~~qa ~~~~~ ~~ 8y ~1 3~ ~8~ ~~~ ~~~oo~~€8 s~ $R .. ~ ~ n ~i s~~ ~~a ~ #~a €s~~9 ~Y~~ ~n~~"~ ~~ e ~ ~# a ~~~ ~`~g~"~ ~¢ ~~~p s ~k 4R E ~ d ~ pp ~~ d .; y j~ _ ~u~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ a b? ~~a ~ ~~~ a ~ ~~~a ~e al~g=g fi ~~ .g e~~ ~ ~g =~£~~~-~~'"~$e~~~ B ns ~~~ n~ ~ i ~p ~ ~ ~~ $ e-~ ~~' "S ~:~ ~~3e ~~s~ a :~ ~~ t 4 '" a ~~ ~~~s a a a. aw z E ~ ~ a ~~~ff ~ ~ a~_ a $ n ~~ _~~~ ~#~~~~~ ~s "R ~ a ~ a ~W € 8 ~'" ~ as- ~ N \\\ M `\. \ \~. N(Q ~ \\ i" ~~ ~ 5 \ \~ \ ~ 9 gn~ F ~yx ~ \ ay ~ ,~~ ~\ ,~~ \ `\ \ ` q q ~yi ~g £e ~' £ \ ` \ og a~! ~ a ~ z~° /1` ~ ~ \ \~ \~`a~\ \ \~ a ~ ~~q~~g a . ,(~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . a ~x ~c~... ~ ~~ o~ ~ d~~`. ~ ~~a~~ ~ • ~~ = ~ ~~ N ~~ ~\~ \\ Nq Y8 h0\\\ ~ N \\ N N ~_ H ~41~t \ O ~ b \\ Q~ ..\\ \ \ Y1 ir- Z dam' `'d 4. ~ ~ ~ N \ , ~ \ 1 ~~say ~oo'~~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I aA ~ ~ r ~~ !1 ~ 18 ~~ ~ I ,t ~ w a ~ ~ ~ ~\ ~~a~ j~ o ~ ~~ .~~ o ~ ,.~ YY Y Y U F-~ I ® ~ r,IR I n I( F- ~~_ ~.. k L r n,~ ile J E ale a~ ~ - - I, otrr ~.. e rte t. _ R A>AtiA~F!j3fVpkl~~-~ k ~ ~ ~ g~ r I s ~ ~yzgas ~YyESYyEiiyya~ttyyy~yyyyxYyyxYy'$$~l!SSyy9 a €~~1l9~ q~ B ~a~~~3$ay~ ~~ ~ i .~ ~'88~' o ' n - _ ~~~33~~~dBBB~~E~2d~~a34~~Yy~9~~~~C~l~~~k L'~ ~ # ~1~. ~ ~ ~) s~aae6~o~ae~?~6~e~eaeadc~~~.5~5~s3taad~axrr~e "r, ~o .~ W- ~~ ~3 ~ w Y ~ ~ a~ a ~~ ~ ~~~~~a~~i~~ ~e~~a~~i~~~~~~s~~ ~.o...m..g.~...a~ ~~~~§'sY~iis r Y ~ `a ~ \ € ~ ~~~~~ ~a~~~Be~~ \ ~~~:5~5~93¢ai~~aeep~~kes ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~SS ~n~~~~ ~~~9a' s5~3s6~o~ae~?~S~e~ee~adc g. \ 4 ~ ` \ B R --~-- ~~~ b ,- ~ ?-,,, o=~'°~ \~\ \`~ \, T, I ~ \~ I ~ I ,\ \~~ I i+' J 0 W J F- 0 r 0 m 0 U w w N w i 8 '_~ Jai l We _. M N ~ ~ O ~ I ~' ...., - ~ N o _I ~ ~ N 81 O p J ~ z ~- ' so°/' \ ~\ C ~ N ~ o ~! ~z a 4. < a°w~ N~y Op ~ ~ ~ g T~ ~~ i ~~ ' 1 ~ ~ 4'~ ~~~ _~ ~ N e ~ C r \ ~~~ .Y a Q ,peoo W~~ N1/ L Z a ~ ~ y ~~ ~`~ ~p (1 _ ~ \ 3 .3 ~{~ yg 3A YS + y a S ~ f ~yy~ Q9 y ~ ~- ~ n ~ _ ~ r-1 ~ ~ ~ u g 3 ~ t ~ v ~ s ~_~~ 7 ' 1 zz~ ~ o o z ~ ~ NZ o~ u~ z1! g /~~ f/ Q n. ^4 ~ ~ 1- ~ ` l ~11 ` ~ I l ` o °~ ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~ ' + ~ 9 c sow ~ 9. 4 ~ - _ ~__ i t ~ _~ .. ~ I~.~ f I ~ n ~ U 4 1A ... _ ..` ~ f I r I .I ' ` ~ I f Y ~'~ ' ` 1 J 74 Ua r~°.~ ~od~~. N ti~ ` Q `/ ~ i~ c _ r T'~ ~ IQ ~~G~ W ~ A \ ~ ~'> y ~ ~ ~1F 1 ~ I ~ _ ,. ~ .r ~. d~u+ .a S ~ 4 ~ N b _ A `Sv ~ y M ~ Y 1 - - 1.-: s \+ O ~. I Y ~ ~ ~z~' ~ ~C ~ ~~ ,'/ihJ o Y.: _ a f` ~ "1 ~ ~ a ~ ~- rr ~ ~ r I-. ~ T 1 18n p ~ itl 1 r ,, 1-' U ~ I $_ __ l "# ~,~ y_ cJi 1 x ~~~- U r // g~l 1~ t'\` \ '- ~ ~ ~~ ._.~~ 1 ~1 ~ ' `~p" ~' 1~ ~ ~~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~` ~~~ ~ ,, std ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~y ~ ~ ~ ~ `~-~- O O O O 0000000®000 O© 0 0 ®O®© ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s a W F N g ~ ~~~ ~~ O $ ~ ~ Q OW -~ w m ~, ~' A.p.^=. ~ ~ G s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~n 3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ O N ~ ~ a o N ~ ~ y ~ , ~ ~ p ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ - m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q C7 w~ ~~~ ¢ ~ Q ~ s -- _--_ Qp\ 3 \ ~ `/ W ZN J~ ~/` J t~.^ s-n _4 S `~ ~S " ,b l~ r f~.. ~. 1 "~~~ n h ~~ ~ # h D ~ J '~, r 'G ' . h ~ ~ r i ~~ ~ ~~ ar ' ,'t . ~v Y ~`VC~ ~ ~, ~~ ~, ~ ~ + - ~ if ~~ ~(i ~ ~~ ~` ~ ~ r ~ A,i sccr~a ~a~ ~. x Y ~ 1 ~ ~ u~_ , , , ~ . a ~ s ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ L ~ r i ~ ~ ~ ! 4 ' ~~ ~. _ l3 ~ f ~ I -_- (/-I ,r ~ I ~ ~ ~~ d ' ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ . 4~4 ~ } ~ .t ~P/ r X84 ~ t. ~. .. 4 < ~ . ~. \`hf of U; J S D f. / -i ~ ~ M ~~ ~ yy i ~ t M1 ~1 ~~ ~} rb f g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~~~C~~C~~ 3 ~ ~ ~y G A~ q ~7 .. y-'~ ~`aF Fyy p ~g g~ ~<` p` ~~< ~ ~ L 8 ~ ~~ ~ ~ y ~ y W W ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ if 8 ~i ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00©0®00 ©O ®O z w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~~ ` '- yg ~ o Z g %~ ~ Q ~~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ .W.1 w ~ ~ / Z . " ;Y w s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ 8 ~~ V ~~a ~~ 8p8p~ o ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ . a ~ ~3 F a g ~~ W Q 1 Q ~ , < ~~ 3g ~ s ~ 2 e g ~ 0 ~ r ¢Q 3 , ~ ~j N b ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ WgWg `~S{ 7 ~ £ ~~ y~ 3~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ l v B ~ ~ ggg ~" ' ~ 5 Y S+ ~8 ~~~ ~i 6 R~ ~~ ~~~~ ~k t~q~ df A ~ ~~~ ~ S ~~ .. ~y 'i v~` ~~ ~I ~~~~qu G~ aY~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F 99 99 `~~j11 _~ ' ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ yjp~f~ ~~{ I ILUT'tl dW ~t~A t.. FI~ 3 3 ~ I 0[l~ .y ~ ~EE _ ~ Ia- ~~ ~ I I ~ dAl ~ ~ II`` - r ' ~ ~ Y _ $~CA7Vtl AY ~ ~ Z 1I ~ ~ t o _: - lfilf 1 ~ ~~ ~~ t ~ ~ `a~ I .._ _ I ~~~ ~ ~ ~ tiri ~^ ~~ ~~ ~ ~., n d ~ h ~ SS ~a a~ ~ ~~ y~ ~ ~~ RR ~ ~ ~ I I ~ L~ ~c °~ ~ ~~~~ [ ~ ~ ~4~ ~ ~ L' ~ e~ '. _. ~~ / i ~ y .._._.. - ~ 1 ~ ~~ ` 1 i i ~ F ~ ~~ O .u ,i-/ ~~ ~ OF ~ ~ Q W ~ ~!. ; ~~ Q W J \ F W z 3 s z ~ ~ ~ ~ LLI N ~ ~ ^ F g ~ Y~~~ g O~dB ~ ~S~ ~ ,4 FS ~ ~5e rc pW 3g ~ON¢~, Ju, ~Q ~} .:~ y ~' ~ ~ ~ ~#~ ~` d~ s w 4~ ~~ ~ a u ~ ~d~~~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ Q °- ~ ~ as ~ ~ a a a g - ~W~ ~ aW 3 ' N ~~.~'~ j/! ' SIN i :~ ~tA M ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ S ~ ~ mm J ~~ ~ ~ ~F g~ 6 7~3c'., I 'l C ~ 29~ ~~i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ O g ~ b ~ ~ ' ~ Ey ~ ~ ~ t" ti ~~ ~b ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~~<~~~ ~ aG ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ _ CI ~ ~ ~ d ~a Y~~ ~` ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 3~ a ~ ~ ~ ~yi4 ~ ~~ S~ ~~ ~ ~ II S# al diF 7S if62 I ~ ~~ i ~ I( 3 ~ I " ... ~~ ~ i I I ~~ ~tq I ___~i J 1fl lil i 3tl01'tl dl! CFA I' ~. i I .4,~ ,.~.. ~_.- __ _ i I v~'- .. {. ~ I ~ ~ ~ - I ~ tii I/ I Y ~ ~~ J "~F~ 33 ~ ~9> I 1 ~~ c __ ~t-' 4~ - I ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ L~ @ a~ J I I I j / ~~~ ~~~ § ~~.~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~I F ~~6 ~{ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~+p T ~ ~~~ ~~~ sox F?~' i' ~ y~ C ? {~~~~ ~ ap W g~7 Bg< F 99'' q ~J G.l ~ , I ~ m 7 SF ~ ~ ~I ' fT T: „'~ ~L ~' ~ ~S 55 $ ~ p ~ i ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ yk~ ~ < ~~~ I p y~ ~ ~ Q ~ 4 000 I~~ ~ 51-t yy~~ C it 3j1 ~~, 73~ $®6I,. A ~ O OZ F }FF~ ¢I~ 8 LS 8 R ~ J W W ~6 $ ~ W _ O y _ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~~ ~~ ^ a yF ~~~T ¢~ O s~~ ,q ~R~ g~ 5 d Q ~ O W 93 ~ J N 6~ w m N ~ ;s ~ . ~ ~ < # ~~~~ ~ ~V~'~ ~ u~ ~ ~- a o- ~ i - : : s _ ~ ~ s - ~ ~ a - a : a ~ ~gA~ Fa _ jog ~ W J ~C ~ Q ~ ~ g wi A i ~ ~ ~ Y '~ J J ~ ~ O N N ~, i ~ ~ i J ~ J C I ~~J W O 7 ~. 1y-q .r ~ 2~~ ~; ~~ y~ j ~~ ~ ~ l j\ .rr ~ ~~C y~ ~~ ~ ~\ \\/ ~\ r i~~ . J \\~ \ \ N W D i\ ~ a ~ O p ~"~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ;N z ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~? ~ 0 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ONg~ az ~g .. 9a "~~~~ ~ v ~ #~ ~ -~/ s V~3 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~g~ ~ z2 F J ® a 5 ~s s s a a ~ W ~ w a ~ u ~ p p / ~ LL 5f V ~ ~ ~ Wg ~ ~ Q 4\\ ~~_ ~ ~~ W ~-~'T~1~~Y~,~\f ~ ~ ~ f,~ ~~ 3 ~. ~ W _ -_ u .. 4 ~~ Z ° ° +~ LL ~ ~~ h / /~ ~ , ~{ i ~ "~ - \ f _ s, ~ t. `~=~ ~ l l i Qa ; ~ ~ ~_ " 1 ~!` 1 ~ j 7~ ~? ~ I .~. ~ 5~~7~~ ~. ti 1 r I ~ ~ '~i ~ ~ ~ y ~ i_-~ 'j -- rfll ~ ~~ ~~.~~~~ ( ~ u Y ~ / y `' ~ cp Zf ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ ,. ~ e ~ ~ ~ /~~ 000000C9 c , -l ~ 4,~4~~ ~.. ~ -. ~ ry~ qg g Y 3 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d d ~~ i ~~ q w~ d ~ 6 p ~.~ ~q~F F~ ~~~n ~-~8 "'~h ~ M~ ~ LLL 44 ~ ~~ { ~ Z ~ z ~ 'f ~7i ~~ ~ 3 33 ~ ~ 00000 O O OOO '- ,__ ~_ \ - - - O Z a °- g s ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ $~ ~ $ ~ ~ $ _~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~~ @$~~Ea a~. ~ ~i ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~e a ~~ ~ ~ ee$ ~ ~ $$ ~~ ~ ae 9 ~ ~> ~$~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ tr~ @p@ 5 ~p u P ' ~ Q ~ 3 ~ g ~ a $ ~ ~ ~ $ $ 4 $ $ ~ $$9 ~~~ ~~ W3 ~2d~=~~ ~~ ~~¢` ~~8~~888M1 ~~8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~j ~ ~ ~€~~~~~~5~~ AE®Cs 4~ fla~~ $ tl~~~yEyE ~~ ~~ ~~~~ Y +9 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w S ~WFY~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 C tO ~ ~ F O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k ~~ IYQ~ ~~~ ~'~ F~ ~g~„ ~ C ~R~ C S g tl ~ ~~ T. 8 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ g gg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ^ n d ~ d ~ e n _ a ~' -w ~~ Ndr d ~- ~-N • V - ~ w.n - n d .~ Uf' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~ ~ W ~~~ d~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ g~ Z o N g ~ , ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~'~ m ~ m o ~ 4 .. ~ ~ F ~ a ~ y ~~ ~ ~ o s s 2 3 J C _7 1 ^ ~V~ ~ -_~ _ _ - _ P ~~ W =N /~ i~~ 3 ~ l 1, i # ~ry - s s A ..`~, !' . '.. u - ( a 1 i r v2 / _ Y-c ~~''jj~~ \ .~ \ P~;~~~ ~~ ~ l., i ~ ~ -- i./~~_r~ ~. / ~ ~ I ~ 1/~ !~ ~I p~e. ~ ~ i T ~_ y' ~l ` 3~~r ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~~ ~ / ~~ '~ ~ - g ~6 ~ ~ ~~ 0000 ~ ~ ~ ~~` ~ " - _ 3 ~ ~ ._p; w ~ ~ I ~ & ~ ~ ~ r ~~. ~ ~~~g~ ~ ~ ~~Z~ ,,, ~ Z Q ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ tfj ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `; ., . ~\.. 4 ~ Z O ~ z ~~ ~°~ ~ gO~ 33 R 0 ~ . .. _ ~ r - _ p - ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ d ~ ~ Ys~ ~ ggBgg@n~ ~~ ~ ~ E ~~ t~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~~ a~ ~~~` N FF I X ~ 3 9 ~ttt~ ~( yyy~ d L CC ~ ~~ ~ ~~B ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~~ ~ ~ b ~o ~~~ ~ ~~~~F ~ ~ yFF1 ~ I 3 m ~ ~ ~Y. _ 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~yy ~ ~~~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ >; ~ ~ ~~ ~~ pp q YY~ ~ ~ 9 ~ p~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rS p~,~ 9p ~ ~~ r ~ y ~®~el~~ ~ R ~ „9 W ~R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~t r ~ ~ ~{~> ~ p~ ~ ~ a o I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ ~~m~~ ~ ~ ~ e ~`~~ ~~ 5~~~ g ~ e z O-' ~I Fa ~ ~b ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ l7 N m ~ u r n a ~ ~ . {] m Y ~ y a ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ W N ~ ~ a ~, ~5 -~ ~~ n s ~ ~ ~ ~## ¢~ 0~~~ d~~ a ,~ ~ a~ ~~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OW ~Ocrg~ ~ d $ ~y ~ a M ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ R ~ ~~ ~ ~W~ a ~ o J ~ ~ s [~ ~_ r ~ . n ~v~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ p~ ~~g ~ 3 ~~Y .,{~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e~ 3 ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ i E~ y ~ Wye ~I 6y y~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~g~8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~ ~ 9 >~L ~ ~ /~y~y~~~//~~~(/C~~ ~~il ~ ~ ~ M.l O O O0 00000 LILJ Oa 9 3 iQ • 0 ~ ~C ] ] ~ ~ Y O 0 OOO OOOO r +u r / b N ~ s ~ ~ s ~ = ~ ~ ~ y ~ z ~ _ ~~1 3 8 w o • ~ a ~ ~_- - - W ~~8~ gga~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~~'~ ~ ~~ $ ~ ~ q ~d a~ ~~ ~~~~~ 00000 0000® _ ,,o ~~- I ~ ~ii ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 00 0 0 _ ~ R' 0 , ~ j 3 ) ~ ~ (~ ~i .~n~. ~ o ~ J J Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~ '~ ~t vy~. ~~b3 ~ ~ ~ Y ~`~d ~ ~ - n e r o s ,~ ~ ~ 3E b\~~~~~~~-y ~t ~ ~~ ~ C ~L ~_~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~j t- ~ d~~~~~ S 0~ 4 $°. ~ ~ ~ ~ aQ O O O O O O Q ~° ~ 0 O` _ - _i~ ~ ~ ' Q > ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ tl t~~ e~ ~ ~ ` ~ W ~ r a Y 111 r - Jo ~-" _- ~~ ~ w d ~ _ L _ ~ o Y . ~a ~ ~~~ ~a 3 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q o ~ 3~1 ~ _Il ~--~ o ~.~__ Q Q ~irJ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ p~«s.~~ ~9~~ ~py~ ~ q_ N ~ ~ i ~~_ o~ ~ > i - ~1 2~ iC 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ Cs ~ ~ 4. ~0 ', ~~ ~ °~ a~~8 s~ _ _ ',~~ ~ U ~ ' \~ ~ ~ .~ ~ a ~ i ~i ~i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o Q a J o a l ~ ~~##~ ~a~ > J Q ~ ~~o ~ ~ '" ~ l J ~~ ~` 3~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ 9r~~ ~ ~~6 ~~0 OC ~ f __J r k ~J E9~~&~ ~ m r c~ ~a c ca U a a~ N O fl. O L a 0 .r.+ d V ~~ ~~ C ~ ~ O J iq d CQ G C K t 2 ^ ..~ 0 ^ ^ Private Rd a m N Q 1 ,~y~ ,/ AI~yL~ll'1 i ~i. Y ,; e __ ~ ~~ ,~ 4 o ~i M ~ ~' e t X Oi V ,', 4°~`~~~~40 w ~ Y ~ ~~ i ~'v; ~I u o`~ Q ~ 9 ~ P` Qo~' CS' ~ . v Pps ~~~b gets Yres Rd ~ f 1 `gyp` ear 3y A 6 '~ ~" ~ tr \ ~ d ~ ~~ck~_Om 'B9 R 1 ~ bid ~Q L1M ~ U r ~ ~ ~/ ~ Q of y~ ~~ ~aGUe '. ~,~~' /d 3•~,MsaB ! d~ ~bS 1~ `}` 4~,. Y s ,ti 1 ° ~°t ~ ~C .;~ t A 1 ~G Tr~siJ o ~-_ neucb, el~5y, C$. ;~ b $~,odb d' V/ % ;5 ~~ e~ 4 °7< 0umhem Ar 9 ,O,y. o ~ ~~ ~ 4 Y° Bu~plyN am's ~ Aysfec Aye ~o~ A ~ p~ ~~ N ~ mo. o~ ~' p~ ~ ~ G° z~ ~ ~S P 'tb ~e° SON m 0 ~ ~ c~~ I~~~yApc?~ u ~ Qs~ ~ L. P v ~ ~ d° 3D allaiad ~' > ~ s Dt ~ NPsfi'~J~~~ ~~yb CS' y moo. ~~ °+'ep~o~ ~ 4rp,~ ~ ~'~syl `~> ~ ~JCmA ~ PQ` ~ ^' / .Sierra Alp Dr c ~ ~0~ J ,Can`t p ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~~a8 a 4 - ~ 0`m .~ °~ 0 ~~° E l -- v i 4p 8 ~ r~ D ¢ ~e N O Q O L a 0 m V N .~ H N .X O t .~ 2 . ,~..~, Q C~ L as L U c as L L U I C O :~+ V O J N R ~_ C ca U N O fl. Q ~ O ~ L a ~, o a~ ~ L V ~ N U D ~ ~ y ~ o ~ ~ N o as a i O o a~ o C J N +~+ 'X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C +~ Rf s U a~ 2 Q.7 r~-t . ~...~ ~~ ~_~ W L C~ G ~_ ~_ V Q ~i Q C~ C i+ ~L ~~ O • m 0 i m m v v Q v v ('1 G ~ [] _ VI O~ _ ~ N O O O O m m m 0 m 0 v v v v v ~o m o V ^ ti ~i r 4/ J y',. • S~ ' ' ' ' ' '~Q~i1~' Current Coverage Map T ~ ~~Iob~le ~;. ~~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~ 5~ i t ~ ~ ~ - _ ~I ~. -.~ <' ~ , _ ~ _ .~ - _: _ .~ r` ~ M J • w ~ r ~~' ~r ' ~ ~~ c _ tfi i ~. ~~ 1 ~~ 9 Current Drive Test Map r ..~~~ vI` ~ `.,~ ,::' ~~, ~ • ~• .~- - ~~ ~ / - + 38 .~ r }. • ~ ' 1 ,I ~ ~,. ~ ~~ ~. r ~~_ LA023"17A ~r Cedar Grove Drive Test Legend • Upto-76dBm (IndoorCo~+erage) -84 to -76dBm (In Vehicle C overage) -91 to -84 dBm (On StreetCoaerage) ' Below-91 dBm . ~ ~ ...~Iabile v ,i Current Prediction and Current Drive Test Maps Overlap _,~, ~: Lf • .t ., ' ~ -3 Drive Test Legend ~_ • Upto-76dBm (IndoorCo4+erage) -84 to -76dBm (In Vehicle C o~nerage) -91 to -84 dBm (On StreetCoverage) • Below-91 d8m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Obll~'~ Solo Coverage Map ' ' ' ' ' '~Q~1~~' Solo Drive Test Map Drive Test Legend • Upta-76dBm (IndoorCo~rage) -84 to -76 d8m (In Vehicle C overage) -91 to -84 d8m (On StreetCobErage) • Below-91 dBm . , .... ~} 1~ ~ Solo Prediction and Solo Drive Test Maps ~0~11~ v rl O e ap Drive Test Legend • Upto-76dBm (IndoorCouerage) - -84 to -76dBm (In Vehicle Coverage) -91 to -84 dBm (On StreetCoaerage) ' • Below-91 dBm - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~Ob~le ~ Proposed Coverage Map MANY FACTORS DRIVE TECHNOLOGY CHOICE The choice of which technology to use is driven by a variety of technical requirements, including. • Reliability of service. • Coverage objective. • Present capacity and future expansion capabilities to meet customer demands • Ability to meet federal and state 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. Design 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 ACT OF 1996 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for implementing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under these rules,' licensed wireless carriers are entitled to make technological and operational decisions free from state and local governmental interference. FCC regulation also requires that these governments act in a competitively neutral and non-discriminatory manner towards all telecommunications providers. The result is that while state and local governments can make determinations regarding the placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities, the choice of technology is left to each carrier to determine, in accordance with applicable FCC rules. LEARN MORE Please visit www.t-mobile-takeaction.com for access to additional information about wireless communications. CONTACT US If you have questions on the information provided in this fact sheet, please contact natextaffairs@t-mobile.com. FedenJ Com~r~unic~tion= Cap in fission TeldcCl i~municalions fVr1 of IRJS- See sections ~:'"; Ji l(.i ll~~ Distributed Antenna System (DAS) technology is effective solution in custom environments A Distributed Antenna System (DAS) is a technology originally developed for in-building areas-to contain the signal to an interior area that is typically difficult to cover. DAS is a fundamentally different technology than that used for standard wireless facilities. It's effective in unique environments, such as airports, malls, stadiums, casinos, and corporate campuses. Coverage: Depends on surrounding physical characteristics-same as with a standard wireless facility. But because DAS nodes are typically the height of a second-story window, coverage is extremely limited, and the technology requires more antennas and above-ground infrastructure. What's more, major roadwork and sidewalk construction may be needed to locate a fiber network underground. Capacity: Does not effectively scale for increased capacity. Because there is limited power in the system and each user on a DAS system must share this power, the coverage area in a DAS network is dramatically reduced. The more power that must be shared among users, the weaker the signal and the smaller the coverage area. 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. DAS k=~-1 I 4 a .', g i '.I~~. __ Standard base station ^ ~ _ ^ ' P /h n hub DAS base statio LEGEND: Homes Utility poles Fiber-optic cables • Antennas Nodes DAS typically requires more antenna facilities to match, or come close to, the coverage of a single standard wireless site. T-MOBILE USA 12920 SE 38th Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 t? 2009 T-Mobile USA, Inc. T-Montle is a ledarally registered trademark, antl the maeenta cok,r is e Trademark of Ueutscl,e Telekom AG Slick together is a registered trademark of T-Mobile USA Inc EXPERT- OPINION ON SAFETY OF WIRELESS FACILITIES "There is no convincing scientific evidence that base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. -World Health Organization' • "There is no reason to believe that (cell] towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents or students. " -Federal Communications Commission2 • "The chance of health problems occurring among people living and working below base stations is negligible. " -The Health Council of the Netherlands3 • "Cell phone antennas or towers are unlikely to cause cancer. " -American Cancer Society° T • •Mobile •~ World Health Organization: "Electromagnetic fields and publu: health/Eiase stations and wireless technologies. Fact sheet 304, May ?006. ~~ederal Communications Coinrnlssion Otfire of Engln~ronng and Technology lOET) FP.O on the safety of radio frequency (RF) upda;E~d 12/11/02 =The i-ir.~+lth C~ounai of the iVelherlauds. "GtiM bd5e ;tai iii,.' 2000, publication no.200~,/~6r~. ~AinPncan ran :r oCiety ~J~ia; Ar.: lellctl,,~ Tow~rr;, a^;i„ied Otr ~~!U6 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 U.S. 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 Ceu phones and cell 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: recewe 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 than 1 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 ~ 80os. RF signals also • Even when someone is standing approximately 100 feet away, the RF emission is only 1.08 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 www.t-mobile-takeaction.com for additional information about wireless play near a cell site. communications and links to the American Cancer Society, CTIA, FCC, and others. CONTACT US If you have questions on the information provided in this fact sheet, please contact natextaffairs n t-mobile.com. T-MOBILE USA 12920 SE 38th Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 a~~ 209 T-MOb~la USA Inc T-N~ob~e ie a feAeraly regis~efetl tredaineh,. acid the magenta color is a had~meM1. of Uaut~che Telecom AG Sti~~k together is a reyislered tranemarl. o~ I-Ivlobi~e USA. In 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 particular area. Roughly two-thirds of T-Mobile's cell sites are built on existing structures like buildings, water tanks, and utility poles. The equipment includes: t .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. n ~~ 2 Cables ~ ~ ~ Cables connect the antennas to the radio equipment. ,_ ~. 3 Radio equipment A cell site typically includes two or three radio cabinets that are approximately the 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 fagade. 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 be hidden inside their spires, Flagpoles work well, but have special requirements and limitations In areas where there is no infrastructure, aflagpole 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. We are 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 information about wireless communications. CONTACT US If you have questions on 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 landsca~ 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 'S~ 2009 T-Mobile USA Inc T-Mohile i~ a lederalty registered Iredemn~k. and the magenta color is a Iretlemark of Deutsche ielekom AG REAL ESTAI~E 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 resiaenrialproperfyvalues." the needs of local communities when selecting new cell site locations as -The valuation Group, inc. m a study 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 a single example was found to support the test hypothesis that property Cell sites need to be located where people use their cell phones, and people increasingly values decline after the installation of a use them at home and throughout their neighborhoods for personal communications, Wi-Fiorwirelessantenna." commerce, business communications, and more. In fact, recent studies indicate that more - Tarantello 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 2ooa landlines and rely solely on mobile phones.2 • "There is no diminution in the value of homes with a view of a telecommuni- " Dependable wireless service is critical to personal and public safety cations facility - Lane Appraisals, Inc. in a study of Another reason wireless networks need to provide reliable coverage and handle high capacity Airmont, New York, May Zoos is because both people in distress and emergency responders now rely on cell phones in 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.3 • 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 mm 1~ ~ •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 °roperty value studies conducted across the U.S for reduce the visual impact of a cell site on the local community through design elements like -~no~~~ler,~i~de,,ende~~taF,~rai,er~withnove,ted rote,estlntneresoitc.~mel~~~eisencomrany~ T,Jer~ry camouflage and landscaping. In addition, T-Mobile is committed to minimizing the need ~~Ailli ii J `; Tel ~ hone I'~uuceholds are Wireless-Only ~ l for new freestanding structures, and roughly two-thirds of our wireless facilities are built on alion o~,,~i~~ ~r~r,~umiie,,ergenrylvuinbera soc „~r e~~ ~ r~,F vie„~~ ~~e~,Fyeseara,OentersPew existing structures, such as local government buildings, rooftops, and utility poles. ~rn i -1 ~=. vi-e n ~ I.i;e f-'r~ ~,-:ot the ^e~soclated Prcasr- .n p. ii -11 Phn, iF, :~nc„ •.Iv' na l0.:.iq"~ LEARN MORE Please visit www.t-mobile-takeaction.com for additional information about wireless communications. CONTACT US If you have questions on the information provided in this fact sheet, please contact natextaffairs@t-mobile.com. sllwmas S- Andollo, "The VUlreless Fersonl Communicatla~s Services (f'CS) In~WSlre' (he Appraisal Jomne( July 7001, I elerencii Ig apntaisel Ordil ~.. for Rhc de Ishnd a.rd fviassachl~Lits 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. T-MOBILE USA 12920 SE 38th Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 2009 T-MOhlle USA. Inc T-Mohlle is a federally registered !rademark, grid the magenta color is e trademark of Deutsche Telekom AG Stick toge!her is a registered Iratleinark of T-Mobile l~~A I. ic. ~3 .y ,O C .t C 3 0 N _fl. L Y~ c tN/f a~ -.~ C O u a a N N .a ._ O .~ 0 }O i 3 0 a ~ ~ ~ - yuu \' V1 N _ ~ s ' -~' ~ 3 Y m u Q o rte, s T - - _ _ Y v cD t6 ~ ~ - - c: - m J p ~ C U CJ 3 ~ :n ~ _ - ~ U - ~ N - i c - - Q - ° c> m ~ ~ ~ Y ~ E ~ = 3 y _ - `m ~ c =~ C ~ o m ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ m 'o - Y .`-' S ~ c a~ m 3- ~~ v m ° c -~ c .c 3 ~ m m -a w y o~ c ro w 'o ~ m~~ y m _- c m 3 o m C ~~ ~ m ~- N a m v °" ~ N _ o ~ ~ ~ g - _ E i ~n m c -o •H - _ = 3 is ~ ~ N n L Y 30 ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ t `c'> ~ ~ ~° r N ~; c ? ~ ~ ~~ o d r ~ ~ y co ~ ~ c ~ °~ °a d ~ 3 .m Z' ~ ~ O m a _ c= d L° ~ o m e n E a ~ y c E m m- y - m T a :n ~ a n ~' ~ -'~ m ~n c; ~ ~O ~ y 3 > L N C ~ ~ O O V S ~' Q a ~ ~ O ~ ~ ` i ~ ~ C L C d V ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ O C O O ~ N ~ -~ ~ ~ N O O L T O L O 3 3 a v; - a ~ .C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ m ~ _° m a> G~ m 3 m c c- v E~~~~ ° E c C = ~ a~ U _o m ~~ oc c V - ~: c~ E ~ N~~ ~ o m m o ~ m a L c f - .J -- O p ~~ G ~ N Y N O = U C Q _ 2 7 - _c _Y, c _ m - 3 a O °' t a> m o m a; r G m :~'. 8~_ ~ '- w a 3 C~ V r° m~~ a~ o c cLCO o a d ~ ~ - - ~ - = > ~ m o °' ~ E ~ G' ~ c T m E o ~, o c c c y. _~_ _ _ `° V o m o m o o~- o o ~ _ E ~ ._. m a~ ~ cc Z~ Y m - r ti s d= s= ~ ~ 3 ~~ s N °. ~ a N 3 N H d 3 3 0 z c v A .~ u m v c 6 d U -c o ,~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ .Y p d C ~ O ~ O G O ~ C1 ~ ~ V Qi '~ O ~ N O ~ ~ 3 L a ?~ _ ~ ~' j~ _ N C di _ N N V N l /1 ~ Qi ~ ~ t.. ~ v E a' T TJ a a 3 °z > m E .. n >° s ~. t r N o r rn ,~ - m v v a a w a o = ~ ~ _ _ ~ w - - _ ~ ~ - n H _ E 3~ r= ~ i t ~ i ~3 ~ a L, o _ ~ E m 3 3 3 3 - a m ., m 0 = E a n ~O m ~ E m .. 0 a a m m a a a - ~, _ _ ~__ _ti a cu ~ ~ - m __ - r a U ~ o ~ E m c`0i E p c c -~ c- E m ~ ~ G ~ c m o ~ U ~n - °' -- ~ O ~ m ~ m U - y~~ s~ o m E N ~ ~~ o o _ C c N= '= c Vl ;u -o m 3 S ~ 3 E N _ ~ ~ O _ _ _ ~ .- N c c u N c L d ~ 3 0 '~ y~ o m o Q ~ t L~~ m ~ c m ~~ °' m °_- m ~ a~ E~ L E ~ a c ~ U ~ t o ti E Q 3 N ~ _ _ _~ % ~ y C ~ y w ~ a~ ~ v c C -6 ~ ° m ~ ~ _ _ _ m c ~ N .-- ~ O w -o ° 'N ~ s r o 3 a ~ ~ ~1 E rn a ~" m o O v ru m ~ ~ C ~ m ~ ~ L ~ ai ~ .~ v ° o o ° a> n `^ O '' c G _ ~ Q :c D. o o Y ~ ai ~ -Nac -c ~ ~ ~ a ~mT, ~ V ~ 2 y =, 1 u in 41 E `~° ° ~ w aEi d a` ~ ~ U ~ _ o~ ' -- V m m m W F- ~- w 3 ~ ~ a~ a ~ ~ o o ~ o ~ o V .V N N N N O C ~ N ~ p .~. ~ O ~ ~ v ~ ~ O_ N C - O =p d C U 0 0 0 C O N N > N "j ~ T C ~ ~ ~ T d V O ~- O n, a, ~ aci ~a o _ c a m= _ ~? ~ N ~ ~ c _> ~ ~ ` o E V v ~. O~ O C v ~ ~ O ~ ~° .E a .~ ° o v ~ O - ~' .. ~ 3~ ~ 3 W y 4 . ~;~ ? o Er ua~ ~ c$ d o C ° ~ C m vii $ ~ ~ '~ ~• ~ ~ u~~ • r u H ~P ~~ i ~~ A ¢ r ~yr ~~ 5~v~ `~'`' e i s ~ ~. ; A ~ d `c ~ i m o ~ E ~ o .~ o $ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ U ° ~gd=~~ ~ ~~ °~~ o~ ~ ~ d V~ = Y C LL U- d ~ ~3 L m O C 3 3 ~n y d _ ~ ~ m ~ LL v ° a 70 ~ a u° °rn ~ ~ U O w H ~ _~ , ~ ~ U SC~ ~ r `~~ 4 Y ~ a¢ '~ ~ ~ ~ - I ~~ -:= - :C ~ U o: - o y ~ _~ N 2 a~ ~Tm O O_ - ~ ~- ~- o ~ L y c ~ - y - - ? s - a ~ 0 3 c _o o _ ~_ o z c: ~3 ... ~' ~ ~ L e~ m L ' ~' ~; -3 ~ ~ vi vci c ~ ~ a> o~ 3 ~ ~ ~ - -~ -° y c m ~ m ti -- N- oc' E 't - ~ -a _ o_ ~ a ` C ~m m c a~ m- c _ 3 c o N n - - :; C _ U ~ v N ,~ d C N cS ~ U L .G ~ ~ C C cE T~ >, m ~~ _ y O ~ - ~ C L C C C N - ~ ~ .~. ~ - `~ ~ Imo' C v :s - U .~ G lC N ~ C .~ cS C ~ :J i _U ~ _ O m v^ ~ Y ~ U Q C ~ i O U -O C~ O ~ O V ~ ~ -~ ~ N n c9 6Ci ~ O .a ~ >' E~~ ` ~ E~ s U m~ C m~ o'~ a~ a a ~ a~ a ~ _ ~ y ~ s a ~ ~ m s v -o p m _ ~ _ ~ m ~ m ~ ~' ~ ~~ m y G 4 ~~ a ~ 0 'o a c `m o o ts _ pro -c in a~ a ~ U -o $ - 3 r= o N ,. .o N - CS O ~ U G ~ ~ ~ ~ E p U ~ _ ~ ~ ~ L - O ° ~ a ° a O ~ ; ° 1 • m o J 6_ ~ c ti~ E a r ~~ .~ ~~ .a N~ E 3 - o ~ a~ m ° ~ .5 E -m m~ c m° m `c m ~ o - c~ -' ° ~ 3 ~ Y ~~' a': ~ ° L E 3 ~ ~ u~ c o _3 ~ c o -~ c E ~ ~ -m m ~ o ~ N -o ~ ~' •- m o u es m~ °> m c. ~ L N N c m ~' ~~ m~ ? ~- .s. - c ~ i. ~ .may' ~ N ... ~ ~ -a ,- c 3 ~ ~> ti ~ ~c vGi -o ~ r co o f t :_° m i n 'o _ O U ~ ~ (p N ~ v~ QJ ~ ` ~ ~ N ~ .., j 'O C L "O i0 i6 L.. T U ~ Q V O N O _ G O L ~ ~ ~ y~ L O- L :C m :o C ~~ C U ~ ` C N ~ ~ ~ ~ d _c ~ C N YO ~ ~ ~ m ' ~ m m m ~~ m- ~ a~ m °' o- m o~~ Y o n E" °-' a' E -°'o aci °J G. C o 'o ~ m a ~o ~ ~ Z c °J U °> ~ .~ ¢ m axi m o y~ ~ ~ -m ~~ o o ~ ~~ o ~ f/1 d 'O d C N N 3 d C a c d t 3 ~,~f ~ •D y V1 ~ ~ ~ C O ~ p O p > ` ~ 'N- 3 ~ O i 0 0 C u `p L to 4l ~ ~ O '9 d 47 'n d 0O7 ~ C ~ •6 ~ G u p ~ ~ O C O ~ 3 ~ a a~i ~ c o '~ •~ t -p ~ n, o p ~ ~. ~ V ~ ~3 •o = ~ o o a~ ~ o Z a~ a g n o .c C~ ~ o ~ r= axi ~ .o~ £ ~ d ~ d ~ ~ ' ~ : 3 .~ n o > ~ g m Q a m g ~ -. '~ ~. m ? 3 w ~a m a E °' ~- m .m ~^ aE~ •~ 4~ ~ ~d~"W g . ~ r ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ _. _ _ _ ~' ~ - ~~- ~. -_ - a [j ~ ( - C G: O ~ O ~ y - a 3 ~ ~ O ~ C U - y ~ LL N S q a~ ~D _ co - 3 N 0 ..J ~ T d: U N ~ ~ ~ r C - C ~ ~ ` y 25 TJ C ~ ~ C ~ ~ c c y O- - - m ~ ~ ` cj O ~ _ _t ~ c. -c ~ V a~ a o 3 ~ n ~~ _ - O ~ ~ O - t0 _ a O ~~ c r a; >. a 'N y o ~0 ~ (ll (U - _ ~ _ - ~- y a c ~ m vI -) N ° v ~ _ E n y~ > y r ~ tea` ~ 3 ° ~ _ ~ d a ~ a ~ ~ -. o ~_o~~, 3~~~h E - 0 r - ~ m . 3 n `o 3 V - E .. 0 3 _ E U U p l a ~ - y 3 y 3 0 a N N m ~ o y ._ o N ~ L m Y ~ ~ L cp L ~ . O C O 3 ~ 3 m U y N ~ N -O L y g ,~ 3 ~ ~ ~° y =~ - N U ~ 'O ~ j O 2 n vi ~ ~ ~ m ` C t ~ ~ N 'G O ti ~U - p O ~ ~ C c T ~ ` ~ > o' o L ~~ .a m a ~ a~ m a s m . ~ ~ `m ~ a o v' ,_ ~ ~ o m y c m c 3 ~ v 'o ~ ~~ E ro G o `o ~ aUi o .~° > o ~ y~ ~ ~ o ~ y m m r o E c ~ = ` n ~ L C ~ U~ O E v' .-- > _ U N O - N y y a`~ ~ ~- ~ y U ~ Ol i5 - 3 x m .« p r v p- > ~ '-' L y c o~ m a~ = O p~ o ~ J CO W W U -' L_ V _ _~ 0 H V E c 0 o ~ .N - E m ~ O «4i L ~ 3 a ~ y-o. 0 ~ ° o .r ., - w 3 ~~~ ~; ~~~~~ ~~ m ~~~~~ ~~ - - - - -0 3 0 o a L - o -- m = ' o~ ~- _ ° ~ W _ _ ~ - ~ - _ ~ ~ > o ~ o _° L N C ? E L _ U 4J L +- C ~ ~ ~ -C N : C L O ~ ~ N a G ~ L U L ~ F- m -O O ~ ~ 0 L ~ __ C C o ~ N_ ~ o ~ o 0 0 _ _ 3 ` ~ p E o 0 ~ ~ ~ L ~ V _ _ - _ ~ O L a a o =__~ = ~~-= > ~ ^ V! ~ _ y ~; m m ;,; ~ `o ~ .~ C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~°~ _, y ° ~ m ~~ ~ a o V ~~ c o~ ~~~ ' H- u ~ W~= U~ ~~, s - a o °-' _ ~ - _ .~ U ~ y _ ~ ~ ~ a o ~~ c O ~ ` Ul' ~~ G y = Z' ~ ~ ~ y G. yj V7 L_ F C N C: _ ~ N ~ -O U ~ ~% ~ ~ _ [L ~ - ? d ~ _ ~ ~ ~ v U o ~ ~ - 'o > ~ a ~ .n - c t; o ~ ~ E ~ ~: o E 4` `- G Q U O U G: Q ° 3 CJ c ~ ~ U - ~, m a ` ~ - Y t0 O ~ ' O o i p n L Q -o '3 ~_ U tC a s ~ n ~ O .~ ~ y is °i ~ ~ .. U ~ ~ t :'. ~ c ~ ~ ~- - ~ ~°- E L .m o a a ~ O j 3 3 c ~ >} .~ ~c m J ` y ~ L m 3 _ ~ 3 Y _ -_ ' _ rn ~ ~ ~- \'o ~ ~ s ,N ~ -a ~ o o _ - m S L ~ ti a ~ " o~ Oo ~• m- cE a ~ U, '~ ~ E ~ `~ ~ o i C 'm ~ n ~1 W a ~= a ~ ~ c/ `. ~ N Q o~~ 0 0 3 0 ._ 0 0 i e i i i f E t k' f ;: 1..7~~4~ ~~~ I~~P~~T~ GF ~'I~L~Gt~1~IN1U#dIGATIGN: A-f~S'~~I~~di~~ ~N I~E~i~E~i~`1.~1,. PR~D~'~~`r`+t if~4LU~;a p~ of ~~eptQm~~r ~~, ~I1~0 ~y ~Arina D. Ratliws, A~praisErs 1~0 ~,ovYer'~'aa Casjtas #10 Greeubrae~ CA 94904 ~_.~ a3-i.21ZA .,`~~,~ ~, a~.~~~~~~~~ ~?.[~iit3 ~-~i.I;.1 ~4~_'t 1 ~ ~il.J lY d~:'e~Syj~~j~il A, ~dlJ~;i~1. ~nn G,~++~~ti f'hr:tse:: { ~15) X61-1135 y ~iE.t4l~~T ,~~7, ~~~~~ r r s 0 .~gltI1~1S, ~'8lrTler +~ ~..~~$?! IJ~~ ~t#orneys at~.taw r~,ttA: Carrie L. Takeyaau ~ ~(bX $~I'riBCti ~treeL, $llis[91s50 ~ak7and, Califa~~t~ia 9~5f~3Sfl3. R.9: Mfarlte# study ~ni'°f'elrcammuuiestians ~utaennaa Dear M5, Tals~eyasu: ~ursuan# to your request ova 91a~+e conducted a ~nrl.'et Study of#avn ~asa[ian5 in 1Yfarl~u Cannfy, o~1e ih 5au Rafmcl aqd ono ~ Novato. 7'6ese sre referrEd to In the attached report as the 125 I.ttlnealn AvErhue study Area and the i-~~ Ss:n ~Tarin Drive &tady ~r~~x. The purpose of ihfs Market Study was to deterrEiine i# the pxesemce of Cellular f'hnne {Telecomroullicatlott~ ~u#eanae iu these tWg areas has impantad the maxkct value, ss ci¢fioe~i herein, ref re5idettfi~tf prope~es in close pro~lrnlt3~ to the ao.tsnnse. based ,on the da#a prR-seDted in the attaeheci study, rve rouIrd tfnd uo 4rupact I';~c,m the preseacs of the as#eur~ae on ~ark$t values olresidanti$l prop~z'rties in eit3aer location, if you have utty questlgtts after reviewing ihys sporty please feel free to cc+ntaet us at ynt~r convenience. i'a ul~~, or n$ D. Rollins, AfR ~~~'` CA Residenti$1 Certification ARQp~782~" . 'L.r-._ Wilda S. Vaughn, SR,.4. CA Residential Cerfificatlon # Alt~050Z2 ~ ~ .. ;~ ~ , . .. . ('~37';~~l.Ll,: tt] :j'~l2;.2'' :'Y?-~115:~'"•~, f~'CTi~+~ ~ f, ~~~?IA+.C{~ir ,'~.1J~11i21~a t~, l:!';:3 ~~f)L1C1~11GC$Cl sl t~' I'~"4~ i~tll.df ~"r}t P~:S1llr~iltt~d prU~":~'I`{C,j''J~aIU$5 LA'~"c~,'p Ii)aatit}i7S it'! Mx"L~'.k~. ~`OILCI$?jy ~i~'.. ~tl~i OI tlleSe locati+~ns na~ln i~:lwioinrriani~t-ic~n,s a~~#er~ci=ae +~n b~.Lilctin 3;; m close prc~imity t:~ .residential prapariizs. ~T'pc~se t~Vo builtiinQs are cc~, ~nc~r~1.y ~~i;~vyZL ar 1 ~~5 ~.7Sfcoln a~+~e~ue, ;iasi r~~fa.el, ~:~, ar:~1 lay Saa.Mazin 1)zl~re, ~l*I'ts~,af~r, C'!a. ~i1T„~'+_o.4e of ft~e 113ar~et ~thcl~ Thz purpose of this study is to d~termir~e the impact ~' any, ta#' the t~lecommunica~:icta~ antennae vn the market valu$ 4f the residential propcrtie" that are it- al.ose proximity k+a the tele[ammunications antetu~ae: - ~.de iti~cntinn flt'th~ ~i ent 'I'he client is RoblSirts Palmer & Allen, ~ t ~', Atinrneys a# Law, 19Q1 $axrison Street, Suite 1SS0, Qaklan3„ CA 94512-~5~1. Sao oi~h . Market S dv The scope of this Market Study na,4 b::en to idstttify salas of residential pr~~peitiea frorn 1992 to the present that are within l+.ss than d hall mill radl.us of ttie buildings that have tBlceornmuniaations antefWae• Far each sale, whenever possibly, bath agents the buyer's and the seller's, al.a the listirt~ agtint~, were ccttt~ccted or, if ha agents .were involved, the buyer and seller were contacted. All parties contacted ware interviewed t4 determine the naig'nbarhood influerice5 that may have affected each sale, including, but not lieriiteQ Ca, the pr~ximaty ' of tlis telecomt'rituiications antennae, t-n conducting cash inte~r~vinw, a sari3s of qusstisaus ~cresa aslccd >3ased otr iaflu;nces identifcd by these appraisers as being present in the immediate vicinity Qf each of rise buildings. Data from the intazviews was then co~'elated in order to determine the influences identified as being 4f concern by each of the interviaweec. This wzs a qualitative, i~r~t a gnsatitat~e study. A gv.atitative study analy$as all of the data in the identified population, whereas a quantitative study requires a random sainpling of the data Sales within the study areas were of a nurabex that ovoid be 1 ,; ~_1 ~ _~ 5'u?.~T4^:c;1?~tG'..1.:(~ li3i1"; t;:tt~; ~I '4Yt;, -,. y <=:~c? ~~;; ~1tP.Lts.~}~ii~iy ~ W~ th~?i .1 .~sldtd~.ii ~ i~;x~:`t'i1' L= is ~f2r`~~%C: 'f t ~9J~(~..1"a -"tiY ~ C[t'stT`~171 tit i+,{`C4JL` rCiti ?:5'"JY,~~7 'fit} ,E'O 4"iS~:'. l~ ;~,~ v~litl,.t»x~;lu~ions. t':uc easy date tan ;~,~.ch uf'the sales vas atsc~ ersrtelat~d ss to mean and aneclisn valti-:s an- y~:arly hafiis ~ orclex to -view value ~asrges r~v;,r tizn: witbi;t th,. vicinity o.i ~h ;,f t~ze. teleconisn~uuicatic~ns antennae. 'These tha:Dging 'values were ihetl com,parac~ on a .pe:-centago basis tc~ tl;$ changes i_~ market values for tie cities •vri.thin which car,:tz of the ~shtdy ar~:~s err tacat~. ts~ see if't$~1t'rcl;3tiortshjp m the ~.`eatermarketplacs cbangacl a'tscr tlY~, instgllati.orz of the telt:cor~m~unicadoi~5 atktettri~. lle~jutirrns ~7 i~t ~~,tatiy Tlse fallbwltig clefiaitioi#s ere used iz-'rhis report; t4lar~et Va111.~: the mast probable price v~rhich a property should bring in a cAmpati#iv~; and open .market under all conditions requisite #n a #air sate, the ~auyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowleslgtably anti assuming the puce is not affected ley unlztc stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale a~ of a specified date anci the Passing of xitla ftom senor to Uuycti uiSfler conditicns wharcby; 1) the buyer and sallat ale typically motivated; 2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in v~ixat h~ oansiders his ovum best interest; 3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; ~) payment is rnsde in terms of cash in [J~.S, douses or in "terms of finartcigl turangernettts comparable thszeto; and 5) the price represents the normal consideration for tb®property so1i1 unaff'ectecl by specisl flr cragti.vc financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.- . ~-~ tillj,~le.l~l4~: ~'~ "?• a ~ system where Listings for real estate ttre made available by zeal estate bmicers (listing agents) to other agents who ruay have buyer, looking for real pxaperty. By using ~ ~~ service, t~rekers aro a41e to increase tn: exgosurs~pfzeal property to a greater ntunber oFpoteatiat bt2yexs. By placing a listing me Z1'ILS, Ehc listing broker agrees to pay a eornasrssidn. to any agent who brings ~ aeceptabTp offer upon completion of tht; contract. This second agent is commonly referred to as the buyer's agent. ' e~II; the average of a set ofnumbzrs darivid by adding alt of an identified series vf, ar population ~~ neuabars togetllcr and dividing by the total numbtz of individual numbers is the est. The ~[S, is synonornous with the ~,yg~ge ~~zl#n: the middle figure in a set of numbers dakermined by cottzlting the individual numbers in a set and finding floe middle point whero that.. is an equal atimber of numbers both higher sad lower than that middle figure, 'l~alecommtsnir_~finnc; any trans[nission, emission gar reception of signs, signals, urcitisYg, images, sounds ar intelligence of any nature by vrire, radio, optical or aiher electromagnetic systems, 2 ~ - 1 .,. ,. i.'. - . ~~gg ~~~.~~ti 1~~1tTJ~~.~~: i11'1'i ~ti.'t'.lr~~~i12L` ~~i. C~°~'t~_!7rLfa~I.]i'?; ~vh~'~13 `sl1 ~~ 2wt%E:•#~t.~, r~1~~itF y! '3'ill»11P*'isYC ;1f: SR~lr7 "~:i21~t1~'3~a '~•'iii1~'!1' 'CiJ. l~ia+~ :3' ,._...?;:i3~fi~ ;~i ~riY:~= s~~ITl~.:'G~?131. J~i~i' r~nte~tna fel, tl da#rio~ for ~srtii#i32g, receiving or trausrnittirzg and receiving signals of any ,broadcast tts.%n~? frtiGro•.vave ar ;olio tTe~luen,ie5 ~•,izsut ~c use ai' a c:ahle cotnlec;rirln fcr receljti3~n. ~.~11t~~~ . . 1~~1_u1~I~Obile Redid Te eoh©ne Svslen~ a high cepaclty land i+_7dbiie• t3leghone system Yvl~laxein channels assigned to t~ system a;e dividad arnan~ sevetttl geographical "oai19" t:nvcrix-g ti dofinett gervica sins. A cellular system is capable of r9- using the same ohaatlels in di$'ecectt cells within the service area. The use o£many small Gelhg in an area, with lo~cv tzgnsrnl'tter pavers, permits t`~c ititensiv$ re-ube of cha~t$ls, thereby increa,~itig the systesu Capacity. ~lec:~ t~ni~atior~s 1'~.ntenna fel: an antenna(e) ntiiized in a cellulaz system to recaip~ attd trttrsrnit 1#tfoxulatiozt within a defined '"cell" azid to "hand aff' cellular phone ueexs to succeeding "cells" once the user has passed through the cell's beagxaphic yea. Also referred tt3 a3 a "Ce11t1lar Phone Antenna(e)" P_ a~el Antenna lei: an antdn~, that is appro~cimatcly six to ie3a. inches ~ric#a sad Elva to six feet tall used for cellular phcs~e communications. ' 3 7d~ntiflcaticn nice Situ - ~ . The ttvc+ properties vrsth tt~c teIcctsmrruniuatioBS xntenrlae i 1) 1$z5 rrinccln ,4~veAUe, San Y.afael, CA, This is a Ynulti-Iesidentiai ;~onecf parcel r.~f 1.x.1 acres wikh as apartment style building, consisting of 64 residential units based an Fast American Real Este#s Services 1~~'ir~?pa#a 29t}b inf'armstion ssrvicG anr~ vA County Assessor's Retards pzovlded by G'D Data Systems. ' The Legal Descrigtiott of the Slte in its entirety is provided in the addenda to this t"eport, The Assessor's i'arcel l~tttubor is OI 1.04I-29. 2) 155 San Marta Drive, Nov$to, CA. This is the "Apply i~rfarket" building that is located near the center of a shopping center Which is a singles parcel of commercially zoned Iand commonly known as 199 San Maria S]rive, hfavato, CA. The er~tirc parcel consists of 7 acres ut~ixed wholly as a shopping center and its attendant parking lot based on First American RBaI Estate Sei'viceS Win2Aata 2000 ipfozmatiozl service and on Co~ulty A.sscssor'e Records pravidecl by C:13 .Data Systems. The Legal Description of the Site in its entirety is~pro~rided in the addenda to thiE report. 3 i+ F ~t~lt` `~,`::a~'b:~Y'T~-~<i.r;~~ ~`~l,Y~t;itt33 :, i :j4•LI~i? F'~i. ~.ia~~lttrA~~' '- ~~ii gi:+e~ is Inr_ataci at the nc~rthaXn aztd u~t' Lincoln Avenuo ict centrsl Ssn P-:a.faeI. rt is 1~:sw ~han..1 sure s~,ut3~/sauthcvest of the tIS .T~gh3va}~1 a 11l.incolr- kvennue int~srchasage. Tb the notch of it by less #~iai~ 400 linear feat is the enirunue tt~ tunnel that runs vandwr CTS l~l and permits access to ilia northbound lames v:ia a ftte~~: ay interchange oz tea a road that parallels Clfi 1 D1 along the east sid® of the '+s~eu~a}r, Tla.o let slopes upwards t~ the west from the road. frontage which is 147.3 feet wld$ st tb.e stzaet. Pacing the street, there is a driveway to the left and the front parlitin of the apartment building is to the right. C}pon parking is available to the !eft of tiro dri'vewu~= w}~ero it le~ela off above strut grade in u largo pfuk%ng ~n~ tutn~rnus~. area, pram Llncpln Avenue. thew era visible ~taliations on the roof. Fzatn )?Fospect Dziva, which is above and behind the i825 Lincoln Avsntla property, a ;further racyftap installation is visible. Z`he talecornmunicatlon antennae on thin building fact. towat'~ls Lincoln Avenge and are approximately five to six fee# high and are six to ten inches wide, being panel ant~unae, There era four panel antennae and all are visible from Lincoln Avenue. Ta the north side bf the apartment building ate transmission poles, which appear to he dIreotly adjacent to the building. The prelimiaar'y titlo report issued for this property dated September 7, Zt)DO Icy Cal Land Title of Merin rcferenc5s vndtir item 4(b) "unrecorded easen:~nt for joint utility palls a-~d guy aac'bors along the r~artliweste.rly lifle oFherein desatibed property''. Tbis may be a rafQrence to the transmission poles noted. The influences noted by these appraisers that affect this site include the proximity of U5 10.1 and attendant traffic noise, the transmissiari poles ac~acertt tcs tlto building and EMp' fields associated with. high power tension woes, cite telecommunications antennae on the roof of the build.iz3g, oommeteial properties close to the psaperty, and the busy traffic ref l.incaln A`venua and the CTS 101 freeway Interchange. Finally, also of concern is the possibility of US 101 being widened and/or a light rail vehicle being added thaK would run adjacent to i1S i0i ulz tE~e old 1'aclfic Railroad Right of Way. ':this could result in eminent domain proceedings and condemnation for properties that are ditectly along the CJS lOl corridor, This would, indirectly, ,affect the tS25 Lzncaln Avenue property. The impact wou[d be the result Qf the rail line in close proximity or, if the rail ilea is not added, the freeway itself being in closcrpraximity because of widening the road. 7'ha r-a~~el on wh,i ~ 155 S~+ Merin 'Dye. NQV tt is located runs f[om. t}~o corner of sSezt Marie Drive and San Andreas Drive to the east to tl~a eozner of San Raman Way to the west This is app~ximately 1',20(3 linear feet of street frontage along San Merin Drive, 4 ~, , _ . .. , {~I\. ec`~.i~k i 13 !'!1C/~i~- li:~dl, l"s)l;s:(I 71:i? ~iT it. ' $iitS~ fi} i' r Fi 1 ,!/ tr'~ i;• ~ €/ 7 ~ ;~' !+~ 1~ s;.Z.l 7:u~1,t1 3.,1~ ~ Li3d.. li- €~. d.e••~;~Iopecl a;~ a za.i~'t;~~rhou~l sh~~~apirag chafer -with an artchr€t #~~tant lolotivt as ": ;l~t~~~; ~~~ias~~ ~". `"~ppl~:.4.tarket`"' i5 the t 5 r Sa~3 i~,iariti I~.cive aric~ss and is #h~ hsaildiug ~ r> cx1}lrah ~tt~:, t.4lecc~rnerillp~a;r~r,, a,ttennao are fs~~;s~tcd. fipple 1~Isr3t~' 9s tt~a.t tlia .szticltllt ~i~. the tY)"~.' t~f ~-tc~~es that is Ilia main r~t~ea o#` tie slZZ~ppin~ cerxter. 'F.he stases ors loaatecl along ~e north portion oft6a r~arcel with a service iureabehiud b`te sl=ops. Tl~e r~grvicc ~a is gong the natthemtnnst portion of the parcel and appears to he ttata~i for leading anti urt2oading, refuse colTectiuti, etc.- $, fence runs minn~ the r~ottherlY, porim~.~tar of #,he entire parcel sepai~ting the serYice ~rca front a subdivision of residenta.a-_ homes tlsat i5 adjacent to tba entire subject parcel along its north peiimeter. Dn the roof of .Apple ~IVlarlret, slot visible from the front (street) but visible from the side and rear are various root'installationQ. Visible from the street fwd. froar the sides and re=ar ire .a famed in structure, Thorn t~-~s fiothing irnatediataly visible that appeared to be telecotnmunic~ttions arit$nnae, These appraisers leave bC~en informed that ther:, are eight panel antennae, approxirnarely ten .inches wide and five to six feet tall that are hidden by the framed structure, t~csroSs Sari :Ramon ~Vay, to the west of the shopping carttgX, ttre I~.siser I'0rmarierite Ivladfottl offices. Dn the roof of the building facing fife corner of San Mafia Drive a_r~d San Raman Way are vsriaus installations including What appears to he a radio, type tratssrnittc~, Tho intluence~ on residential properties in the vicinity of the 155 San Maria give Inc~tioq i~ciusle the trat~ia along San Marla Drive, the proximity of tke slxonpirtg center ~commercia.l use properties), ao1s4 Born traffic, garbage piclcltg, ,an€d delivuty se3-vic~:s, fhe telecbmmtu~ioations antennae on the Apple Building, the Iristallaiions on and tip proximity of the I~aiset' Pennanente Buildings, and the presence of a tennis and ~avirn club that is to the itzunediata north of the subdivision behind the shopping center. Tlia tennis and s'Wlt`ii. club effects Phis subdivision because these arc flood lights ist9talled above the tennis coasts for night Time use resulting in some noise frorti the club bath in the days and evenings, and considerable light intrusion in the avenistgs, 't'his influence was mentioned by so}ue of the egcnts, buyers, and sellers spokeq with during the ct~uxse of our market study but was not included in our original questiflnnalxe. ~.#~Y~.l: tt a tb~ M~rkec Stt_Yay ~~ The effective data uF this Market Study 1s Segternbar 2$, 2000 which is the dgte the appraisers did a complete exterior isvspecfioq of the two pro~crties that are the subject of this report and inspected. t#ie exterior of all the Coatpaa'abls sales studied in this report. However, the efl"uctive date of the enure Ma=rket Study, the period that 'mss surveyed, is 1992 td the present. ~. ~' ~ .. ',' :l~a~il?l~rt~t. r, .~:#~ ~:.~u~:~ ~~ ~'~~vr~~ ... Il~~ia SYA'~7~`~t. i~34~.7~y ~.,[I,Y)d71iA ~•li iri::t~itfj~ }lli ~y~~:,~ lllit~: tt~;~t ~1,~",•iii:sXtit~ ~G.t~I~L~Il 12t2i1-'?~~;: •(~if; P.hz pressrxt titer suers within a tnaxirnurn of .~ rnilea t~f tt-e two iacatiaa; wiih tzZu tfwlecntnmunirati~sx~s ttr~t~lnae. llxcli3[lesl were parficzl trausfcrrs, n~fer5 ~Stcveen fiunily members, foreclosur,;s whexa K landing instltation toak title, said gny tc-esasaations ~tlter~: there ivas insuLfioient date tc~ infirm the ;ca]e pti~ fram ~vo inclevende~t sources. ~o excluded ~+ere homes to the cast of trS ]. r~l in San Rufsel as these hazzYOS are nn t]ie oppo5tte sills, of t#YC .fr®ou18y f;nxn the 1$25 Lincoln Avenue fsropert~~, aztd the neighboihaed influences an that alde c+f the freevray axe considarab]y dzffertnt frnm.the west of the freeway influences. Specifically, there zs Mess traffic, the road that freers thy f~a~vYsy Ueing rzlrrflwet' than Lincoln Avenue acid Without cammerciflj use properties. Sdomes an the stroets to the south ctf9 still racliatixig offs San i~darin Drive sti+ere else excluded as they are less influenced by traffic ,and the mix of property typos is limited to one and fwo story single £atatily residenrial, detached homes. ~Iaving icleniifisd properties tkia,t fit these parameters, aQ~ts and/or •buyers and sellers 'were coritaated iu. order to dYterrnine the impact of the varying itt.tlueuces identified as present in the immediate locations of the telecommunications atltannae on these sold pryparties, . Attliuttgh this study i~ specif'ieslly to identify any impact on vales attributable to rho presenoa of rho telecottamunication artteYtnae, In order to identify the irnpaat it is necessary to rule out ether iufluenoes that may also affect value. Thersfvrc, the market study conducted. far this report involved a questionnaire that addressed all at' the influences identifterl ss affecting each of tie prope,~iAs in the study. "~peclfically the:~L s~rere; 1} Proximity of heavily tral'~cked streets 2} Traffic noise 3} High power tension wires (IsIv1F f gilds) 4) Cellular phone antennae $} Emissions fram cars due to traf7ic S) Radio transrnitier an the Kaiser Building 7) Proximity of conamercist use properties All questions were conducted as phone interviews. Questions asked in regards to these seven items included: I) At the time of sale, did the scllarslbuyers express coriceras os~ indicate that they were aware of antiy of (eaach of tll~ ~dven items were rhea read to ilrem in rum}? 2} Did the seller disolose the proximity of any of these items st the ~_ima of sale in the Seller's Disclosure Statement? s ~. ~ t ~ ~ 1 1 ~ :~ - - 1 .l' i. (\ ~~TG ~~~:% i!r•'~'1.?~jf"aJ c~~s7ifi~ .. f:i7. i,~~_''yl~Si;: t:~;IY~ ri? Y'~i, j f~t-. }' 1_~:~~:El{t_~i1s'+: ~tE~i1iCi1~'ii:7 ~•} t;S.id ihL „+.Lye~N indicate pastictttar•.ly serious ~:u~ca~ about atz;' of tF~b,~a if~~~s irr~~t curl it appear to iniluencc tbair decision to prtiohase9 ~~} ~,~11?at vya.^, ehe gen~•a1 cnildttion of th€~ prop:.r#.y at the ziane c~ solo r ,~ tc~thl ayf 3~f singl~c :~mi1y sasidences were id~tified tizat sold t~etweett 1992 and tie preset tac~ted lt~.the irnmadiata vicinity of the LinvaltY.rlverxaa propet~y ar:~l $ iota.[ cl' I~ units iti a cramnaan. interest development. .._ .... - A total of"8 single family rasidcnces were ideritifierl that had solli between I592 artd €fir--. .. _ present located •in the immediate :vicinity of tlse•~an 11+farin Drive grnperty as.wall as or,e . carnimon intexast d~vclopment ~wiit, .. .. . V -~ _. •~~ The yi;ur 1~~3~~r~s s~fiasa~•t>yv lha lbis5i~c~ent sale bate because it was prior to fI•ie date of installatifln of the taleeammtuticstion anteangc~. It Was gfter a. period of rapid appreciation j itt the marketplace in 1l~Iarin County and. offered aMoro stable market, { The date Qf tho 1~inal Tz:spaction for the antennae imsfallakion at the Lincoln Avenues ~ property ~uas ;Tanuaxy, 1496. Therefore, sales before January 1996 ware prior tcz the aniivatinn ~f the tglecommtinicnijoYts antenuse wield sales tltcr~ici would hdvp been after it was is foil operation. Thy dato of the activation of the teleconununioations antezmae at the San i~iszrin ~riye property wits Aloveraber '1, 1993. Therefore, ssllas before 7Jovember 7, 1995 tiwould havs~ ~+eett pzior to tla~: aotiv3tian ref the antennae aztti sales thereafter would have bean aFYer it vas in fi~Il operation, As .pre'~llously meted, this was condtxaterl as a quaIitativ® study, not s quantitative study, All identified grapaxtis,; were included; this wan trot a random sampling. Properties v~ere excluded only if th©re was insufficient data to cax~fum. ~,sy were market sales as described by the definition of hdarket Value cited herein. Agents and/or buyers and s$llers an bath sides cf each transaction (sailing, a_ka tip;in.g, anti buying) went int,-rviowed, whenever passible, Of the ~•9 rasiflsritial properties it3aluded in the Lin~colu Av8nu0 study area, responses ware obtained &~rn 351isting agents and 23 selling agents, as well as 1 pni~~ate individual (buyer). Of the 4.9 propertie9 included, 9 had do responses; meaning neitbeT ]fisting nAr stilling agents; seller nor buyer,•respanded to the survey, Therefor®, those 9, although inaiuclecl statistically tie to mean and medianpriec:~i in tba Sut~~y ,Ares, ar$ cxotuded tTOm the tally of responses to the st~.cvdy questions. A total of 62 responses were included. 7 ^s r'tl:i?..~jitv,~'i6:1.i3:i1{~iLi, llt'k i. 1Z`~ilY':+ Mkt.{ .> \'~ `'- Z S tt' 'z F ~~.+ ~_ 3T3 ,i]E: vi~Yl .i~1:;iTfit, ~.!'lY~ ::CS,~i~; ~:f~=.., iu5S7(J1.15L;:~ iiL~;: i~l,t3i;~].~.c} :i=ron? '~:.:tist+nQ nvc~~-tta lu~d 13 se{ling agi~ats, N'a pzivat~ lxarti~:r ~Cespc~ttdad. `' t~)i dx~ .=~~~ ~7~,ueifi :; i.;twlu~ie~, ~ :t!!t•cl.~! r>;.~paxis4s. 'j`tte~Y~ire, ti~~se $, aliflc~~.t};12. ixtcltt~l~~ ~ati~tirally as to mean and median p-Aces in the fiurvay Area, ors e~alu ded frram the telly iz.f i,isponsas t~~ iiria si:evey ga~.estiona..~. total a f ~3 respt~nsc~ +~vere iucltidefl. °Ch3 ~~eaults of the Market ;~~ecveu were when correlated ar~d tlio mean attcl ,-uec~i~>. s~cl~,s prioee iri aa4h yerfl• far o~oa lc~dsttion r~resc ralcttlatcd, Thcso #lg'txrc3 1'VGrc than corupa~fl to tlty mean and median prices in the broader earl. Rafael and Novato xrlarketplaues tc~ determine the relatir~rtship cif prices ~rithin the markeC study axes tc~ the ~'c;a~er ~narketplaee aver rim;., In addition, compfaing the jsercentage n•F' ~hflnge y~r by year in the. mean and median sale prices in the greater maxlcet area anal the iwo locations in this study pxavided fixrther insight into iaour the 1Q+~akions ,~ampata;d evith the mater marketplace in which thNy wex~ looaked. ri~ally, the results of the surveys aru reconciled and surrtntarized to indicste whethaz or not the presence oft©lecommuziications antennae wage a concern to buyers andlar saJ~ors and if they influenced the sale prices of homes in the study areas. Netg,]Zhorhood 1]escri~nnHan of a~c~9~ fh~~gA~~L4o~bons "specific cammenks on fho andividual staighborhoads are inclndad herein, ~as they axe important to art undatst$nding of tba greater maxkct area vritho which. these twc~ t~lecomuxunicatian sites are located. As #a the region as a whole,l4iarin Cowaty hag a papulatifln aP just Qv~ 22S,OOG varrons, with u 13igh rtttmhcr of pre;fesslonals, ~1~l~ df the population having advanced degrees. lyicdian income i*t the County is Duet $Sa,040 per year, one afth;r highest in tllo LTSA. Because of this, the use o.f celt phou8a, and the need far telecornmtxnicatinn tourers to suppozt that use, is inczeasing. TE~t'. Ssn Rsif~r-1 't+~isi 6orb,2~ The San. Raf$+rl neiglsbarhaod in wluoh the 1825 'Lincoln .Avepue property is 1nGSted is bounded by US Highway 101 to the $a.st, Mission Avenue to the south, a ridge running slang l.2ohert 1)ailar Saonic brive and CStttle Vista tc, the west, and the iz~tarseetion of US 101 with Los Rancbitos and Lincoln Avenue to the north. ~lithin these neighborhood ~?Ol#n~lAnes, 1825 Lincoln Avenue is at the northeri,t perimeter near tfze crest of a hill knpwn as ths'Puertu Bugllo HiII". Neighborhood terrain is Icvej along Lincoln AvenuB cuzd the US 101 corridor bu# risob steeply to the west. Horses in the level areas are subject to considerable traffic au.d. noise as Lincoln Avenue is ono of only two alternativs routes to YJS 301 between eeDtxal San ~ia~.xfl~~ !-titCt ?il?Y=~i %i:?~; {~i`.~~s,~. ;~.'.~:~llZt}d!`~.~~}~y ~iJ1s:.1S~"L :i~T~`:~C~ i%k t~l~' ~'!i:f~~.7C13'i1C)i7f~ 37~ :?CC ~' i ~•Sut°i. pia t~ict~~c~l~z ~i°,r;~~cJ~e. ~rraea tri t~se .hills are t~.xl-Jjs~:i: io lass N"a>~c but, b,~cr~c~;. t?J~:y . ,. ::lr±~~"Y (:is~~:.i34s7 .~i.ti'y?il~t':r~iid ~r4s lC~.t, tiff 4T- 3b!J:7,}`4( kit G4C1i.1GlU'3'~1~.31C: ~(i;,~l'" Ti~i:i~ {7 `:i;'. hcith I~~cnl;; avanu:°, arzrt klar. nearby i"reVxuFt~,; i~umnlercial properliJ:., are in.torspersect with resarlc..n3#~t use proper#iss,,~ba#h single family ;axirl multi-fatttily dwatlzn~s, nl~-Jn~ the lengtfi flfLinoolq A.veuus. Because cif thssa influsuees, pri~:r~ of hnmas in the neig}~barhr~o~~. fend t4 'ba 6slow t~E average and median prices of homes in the geeafer San R~.#asl area, f~ffsettinp ie ~i ability to purchase a somewhat larger Noma for a price that is lower than ~. eamparably sia.,sd home ~~yould cost iu a less mixed rteighbtJrhood. .ApFeai of the nei,hb+~rhaod is itafluenccd bar tl,c; p~ximate location of U~ 101 post#ivaly a.s well as negatively. The negati~-e, as noted, is the traffic noise u+hile tlis positive is fir; pFUx~imity of the tireeway. U5 i01 is Maria ~auniy's only fxee~y, running Northwards from the Golden Ga#e Bridge #n the Sonoma Gauuty border where it con#iriues ao,rfhwasd to the Ch'agon border. ,ACCe33 t0 1,JS 1Ql i9 eXCetlont from this IIelg}1b07hOdd anc~ buses run regularly alflng the freeway carzider tie ivetl as alan8 Lincoln Avenue; provsclin~ ~E goad pubtio txaliapc~rtatiau.. 5choais and shappin,g, althaugl~ outside the identified ~neighbazhoad boundas-ies, are still ~, within a five minute drive from all tacatians within the neigl~bozhat-d_ C3vara1l then, ibis neighborhood is r.~nsidered to be sometivh©t leas dcsirahlo, hoc[suae o£ the neg$tivs influenc:s noted, th~un campeting San Rafael nei,ghboxhoads tivith fawn: ~~ negative external izeir7uencas. M~Ck~ Trends in,~,n RefRA in San "Iza~ael as a ~wttale, batweert the and of 1992 and the present, the it~ean (average) price of a home has varied as follawc, according to IviY,S Statisfins (1ro#e that Iv.[L5 Statistics do not "sepazata Qut indivsdual neighborhoods, nor condominiums and PUD davsla}smeuts, and arc lttclnsivs of both incorporated aad ttnincotparat4d San Rafael ~" loca#ions); ~r mate ~~ . jgy~.t~a~ ~a1 e price # ofC'.Ir~~ed fiAics ~ ~},-~.s 2000 as of September Z5, 200n X556,009 based an S52 closed sales +22°~0 1999 as of December' 31, I999 5456,957 based on $18 closed sales +12% 1998 as afDocemher3l, 199$ $409,1,7& based on SZ3 elu5eci sales +l1°!0 1997 as of December 3I, 1997 ~3b8,903 based on 854 closed sales + 7% 1996 os oFDecember 31, 199b 5344,708 based ort 642 closed sales + 3% 1995 as of December 31, 1.995 ~335,2I5 based ono 529 olased sales - 2 u 1994 as of December 31, 1994 $342,848 based nn 746 closed sales -h 3d/o r 9 d . .~ ;?t~f ~~,,~: () s"~a~CL~, tJll g`~ 4 ria.~,;rij S~"" - t °•; 1 t1'.' i1S +.3° . ~~X•v.. ~'., r. L1 i`;~ r~ ~ ~A t J1) 9:.,_ , L ~. ~,.~,,..r i; ). ~~.;. ~~;3n,:~:'~~+ t~:a~r:ct a°f~ Crl~i ~.los.~l zates ' y:'• ~'I~esc figts~:; o~u~ also '/e ~'~t_r~,sse.'l ~ a. percentage ~~'~-~ nvexage sate pri~:•e of hnrnes as cc~rz~s,°ecl ~precetiirig ya,.arb. Thus the rtsr'relst average sale pace ofhouze~_in San.P,afa;:I iri late September 2QOfl, is 22°1o higher then. the avet'sge sale price in ;pan Rafael at the eras, of ! 999, Irt the: grid, toss. `~'~ f:lian;~." column is this pezcentag>;. ~e a'vc~ge Sale plit~e r7T ~ liC~izit', lit $fut.ka#aeI at tliQ cud of 3.99q ~;ras l;~°/a Nigher thou. ai the w11f1 al' 1998. The average: sale l,rice of a hntne in Sun Rafael at the eictd of 1Q98 ~u~ i Laf° Stiglt$r than at the and of 1991, and 3Q fatth. Finall y, the avetrgc solo prior t~f ~ home in sett 1~`se1 at the end bf ~ 99~ vvas ~°:°'1~~>c,~ thou at the etsd of 1991 (tho average sale price at Ilse rnd df 7991. was X343,781), ML5 .~tatisfi~.s also publish the ltiiedian Sale Price of homes lout these figures are only coampilad at the and of eeclt. year and oAly da#e back #0 1994, Trot ~at1 Rafael, they were as follows. ~L-~_$ TV[erT;Bn 4e~ i5ri~t, ~- ~ °rc 1.999 as ofDecemher 31, 1999 $40(l,OOD +11°l0 1998 as of December 31, 2998 $35'3,OQU .t. g% .1997 as of December 31,1997 $329,250 ~- ~% 1956 ,ts of Dccrmbex 3.1,1996 $315,flg0 Qar'6 1995 as ofDacember 31, 1.995 $315,000 ~• 1% 1994 as of Decernbar 31, 1994 $312,000 Unknown .A.s with the meaza, the median sale puce a'ar each year is divided by the median sale price for, the preceding year to derive a percentage of change aver the iderz#:ifi~ pvniod_ 'Chat pCYCBfitege change is shown in the Chart as "0fo trhange". The changing values ~ indicated by bath the means cad median values ever these time getiads must be considered in this Market Study as this is the underlying marketplace withiss wlaioh pxoperties were sold and purchased, Thia is the "background mpisa" so to apaak, which does not relate to any Finglo item but to the much Iargar ruarketplaca. pniy by identifying these market wide trends can trcnds within the inunediate I.ocatians be adequately differcrztiated. The S$n Iviarin neighborhood in Novato, in vrhich the 155 San Maria TXcive pmpe~, is Ioc~.ted, is bouj~ded by ~immotta L~,uc #a the east, Novato Creek to the south to where ii: crosses Novato Boulevard, e~ty Iimits to the west, sn,d the Mount Wardell Preserve to the IQ yl. a.•. ~ tta :, # ?tc+';tll. ~i S~til'~ ~~dJli 'i7{.:?~i;(itidy~tii31'~ ~9s~11TiG1L~.i~~';l, ~.:~"? ~:stl ~.l?1:t1 ~.'il!c i~ 1i3~w:1L'.f~ Ll ~tt~ L};c a~t+i'1'Sl~:°x'~4 jau'~l:3lt~~~t' 3~7;7~Cj;~;i~a3utel~~ .,~~ rG11~1£, tgZS! ~;lZc: ,~l?Tlulls~tl oz ,~s??x 11r~A~.tI~ '.a;-SY=. ~ti=; l~~1~1117(iYl'!~1l1~1 terYa~n 1$ g@ntl~T tolling lulls that rigs mQr$ stee,~ly to the nnt#h of ~sr~ iwfasia Drive to tht neighborhood bpuudary at the Mount Burdalt Preserve. In the xnor° level areas, whieb are generally south of Saaa 4isurin Drive, the predominant lic~ttaittg :5 siz~glc family #raet built h.c~u;wa, I7evelop~txient dates back to the early 195i3's and Flan continued to the prese~at on in611 lots. HovUevez there is limited Land left for dcveioatn~~N. anti thw n€~ighl,orhaad. is almnst carnpletely guilt up- Denser roai$entlal housing i~ located on San Marini J~rive with condominivm~, plaz~e~ unit developments, aad cluoet#es (side by side units with.one common wall). 't7zere arc a #'ew small apartment complexes. The condominiums And planned unit developments extend to bath the north and south of San Maxie Drive taut arQ limi#ed in numbers (essentially 3 complexes ~ln the entire ares~. ComrnFSrcial properties axe alrriost entirely limited to San iVlaxxin I3rive. 1`here sie sav~r~u office complexes, the KaisarHttildings, and the Shappina Center in. ~rhiclt 1~5 San Maria I3rive is located. aarllVIaxin 1Drfve is a four-lane road with a landsasped median stfip. It is one of the wider ~uttl iuore heavily tra++cls~1 streets in this ~rth~n scctian afNavato. At the far western and of #hc neighbothaod, at tfre northeast corner of flze intarseotion of San Maria Drive and Navatcs Boulevard, sti]l within the neighbarhoad baundsries, is San Merin HiPh a~?'GI~PD]. ^ 1t tC less than ,4 7ililes fmm 155 San I+•iarin lJ:t'i+Ie as is the local grade soltaol, which is hlso Iocated within the neighborhood bot.zadaries on San R.axaort Way just 1.~ blc~r>ks down fruxu 5~n IYiazin privo. ;~inally, the local Dire Station is located at t7sc sou#hwest cA:~rior of Set, P.aman Way sus San lvYarin Drive, a block uozth of the grade school that was prevlr~ualy uzet-tioned. Homes that ate on San Maxim Drive sae affected by traffic and traffic nc-ise, Buses run _ .slang $an Marjn.l]riye regularly and also slang severs( af'the side streets, particularly at cnmmufe (Sours. .. _ ... . . Home prices on "an Ivia~t Drive tend to ba slightly lawar..than.in.t'ae surrounding traets, _ _ . , _ .that ate th e, greateT_pottion of the San Msrin neighbarlaaod,, lazgoly because a~ the tragfio ----•--•--._.._....iiifliiersce;..Howevet,-fihe~proximiiy of the Shopping Center and b>'igh Schflol, bdrh ',~ .increase automobile traffic ,and foot traffic, ^ -~ . ~,_.._ _ ._ ___ _ ... 1 Ttie positive f~pect~ of this location are the ease of a~:cess to Zl'8 101 which is ivlo miles to the east down SanMarisa Drive, the proximity of open space far hiking and horao back riding in the Mount Burden Pzaserva, anal the proximity of local chapping. Further ,. . lI - - _... Y~ , 4,a~;:u;~zr~~ ~r~sc~_1 are ~t1~~a .Yrtti;r t nt r,- ? 4-~,~ ~., h~ ~ .t;:~.i..,,t;~xitr~rti~. a, ~7~itniu ~;{it~s~~ .isr:~.a~•~; a~.c ~ta~1~v ~;L~~3Q.S'i1':tU~?, ~4~~~C3~1~, i~.7.3':~ ~ilIG7~~,T1J?~. C~r~r~:lI f'hi s ~eighburhac~d is cpasiclet-cd t;, 3a g~avtl ~~h£u ~viaived m its entirwty, hr~.~avc;;~ the haine;s direutl;~ as San, I~rixl Dive u•>auld Izava lesstir ~:Pr,:zt #l±aatt tlse suYrniusd{ng horu:s an 1cs;; txaf~c!~;ed side streets. '~:~.uti ~'1oS'aEn lzz Novato as a ~vhole, ba#u~eett the end of 1942 and the •presBnt, the rrtean (average) prico of a home lzas varied as follows, according to TrII.,S Statistics (n4t~ that MI.~ Statistics do dot s,.par$te nut insiividual neighb4rhgode oar caazdaminiuni end BUD developments arzd era inclusive of bath incorporated sud ztriincarporaterl N~avata lacaM~tins); . -~---~'~.._._._.~ .1y1ea_n (ayera~e)~.^ fs. "~ P~cr. ~ of C'j~A~S.~ies~_=%.~ Z+aOU as of 5eptamher 2.i, "?000 $'148,444 based on 519 closed solos ~F23% 1949 as of Decexr-bdr 31, 1949 $363,664. bassrd on 876 closed sales + ,~ ~° 199$ as of De~embcr 31, 1.998 $345,679 based on Stl6 closed sales ~-14°lb 1997 av of December 31, 1997 $343,576 based an 738 closed sales + 4a/° 199b a$ afDecember 31, 1996 •$292,3.3t? based on 591 closed sales + 3°~ 1995 as ofpe~cember 31, 1995 $283,799 bas+3d an S21 closed sales -I- 6% I99s1 as of December 9I, 1994 ~267,bgp based on 612 closed sales - 9% 1993 as ofne~ember ~1, 1993 $293,604 based on 629 closed sates -{• 6% 1992 as ofDecambpr3l, 1992 $27`7,485 based ou 672 closedsalrs - 4% 'These fi,8-ures can ales be expressed as a psrcorttsgo ofthe average sale price of haxnas as compared to preceding yeaxs. Thus, the courant average sale price of homes i~z ?~ot~ato in lute Saptan~ber, 2040 is 23% higher than the average sale price i-n 'hro'vato at the end of . 1999. In the grid, the ``Ol Chavge" calwnn is this perc~ttageT as it vvas in the ~tir1 far ,fan Rafael. MLS Statistics also publish the Medina Sale price of homes but ihese Iigvres are enly compiled at tla$ end of each year and only date beck to 1994, ~ already no#ed ?xz the lt!jarket Trends in far, R..f~' cott~naants. In Novato: ~y wore es follows; ~G~ ~a~l~- _ _ Mediatt dal a~,~,~.,,~~°° °~ 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 as afDecember 31, 1999 as of December 31, 1998 ~s afDscember3l, 1997 as of December 31, 1996 a5 dfDecember ~ 1, 1995 as afDecenlber 3I, 1994 5328,400 $299,004 $276,900 $26$.400 $262,504 $25$,000 +10°/n + S% +3% + 2°fo +2% UnknowTl 12 t~.S 'f`ete). tits: 3+.~LFi~ ~}~~ ~7c~dx:~t`1 3~1~.} !~I•ls',~ 'U~ e-~13 ,~[::ltr ~~ .rli'~`.1~1.~;G i3r+' tl'i~ iq.s;s~l~.tt 8i1i° `"1.:'" tc:r the ztx~;.NS~LYt~ y~ttr rfl ~#~~~ R ~~;~#^ez~t~t~v :~f' wl;a~= i~ a.c th;~ ?d~:ni~rr.;# p,rintf, ?'#>r. ~i~9r::.t:tlZht~+ c:~1~9.14`'.', is ~'i~~1~iiS ~ i'.#7~% is°Il;£ti ~i ''FAG :}1:Zjt1`,~''~ `l`ha c,:b~~ges r~~r~„~ iime shtnvst i.n ~l:asa ~ ohazts pzgvided tau "ba:~.grr~urtd nrtise"' ~13i~:rs dog; not relate to rmy single iteea. but to the much larger I+~To•,~ato Trla;iseet~ilaoe. ~1.-'I7r11~of aT~ip~ railCl I~~f1 fa~-i Rfl~,l 'Lnri NbVat^ In San Rafael, a decIixsc in fire average sale price a~rurred ai bot#z 1995 ~~h~ cc~npare~d to 199A and isx 1992 ~vltan compared #v 1991. In Novato rho tlzs; limos ecottz~ed in 199~T when comps-erred to 1993. and. ire 1992 when compared to 1991. Tbcse are olose ~nc~ugh to each other to sttgge9t a zztarket wide tr~td for both cities m tba early to znid-199C1's, 1'h-reaR~:r, priori istcr~sed. stca~dily vv~th the greatest i'ACreases oar erring iii the la.sf thz~e~; yeah (1998 tc, ~e pxesertt). Now that the market trends its both San Rafael ate. 1+Tovato as a whole have beats identified, tits aesults of the study conducted ley these appraisers c„an be viewed in their braar~ prospective. Marke__..3~'rends iiL~~ ~.a3it.~at't+el"~±tttdy A~-Ea The Table of Property Addresses, Tabie irl, lease the sales, alphahetieally, included in the San. Rafael Study lea. Irl the table "SFR" means Single Family Residential .end' "CID" mesas Common Interest I~evalapment (a copdomiuium or planned unit davelt5pment). The dates} of sale era pravideti, than the di5tfxn~e and tlire;,tion from tie tclecvmn~tuttzoations antanilae located on the 1825 Lincoln. ,A.yenue laxtildiag. rl'h~ distances give>x are "as thr Draw flies", that bezug a threat line between locaiions, and not via.suxface streets as the influence of the antennae would riot be gauged by the street address> and would bo instead perceived, by the market, a5 g linear efr'ect. .Tfie aulc price fair each property is lhen Bated under the appropriate year of sale. The antennae wexe iristal(ed, as noted, in January, 1996 sa that the pziees far 1992, 1993, 1994, i99S, Xeptps~ent fhe "befoze°' value trends w$~ilo the. pxices from 199b onwards zepreseni fhe "after" value txends, Finally, aPer all lsm~rm~~ are listed and identifed as to pzioe ar3d ycat~ b#' gale, the average sale puce per year for the study area is calculated with the average sale price per IvtI,S for all of'5an Rafaet given immodiately below. This is followed by the calculated median sale price for the study arcs an ,a yearly basis, followed by doe median sale prina.pelr ~.5 fsr all a#'San Rafael oa a yearly basis. i ., ., ...~. ~~ s _'`ti.°. :351: ~~.ilS~~.'?. 't;`sl:;~:4~1.5~ ~;-~11.~~ s.~~.::t:li:t.i $)i= phi; r'i$ ~1i34i`~i ~iC'~R~1 i;)fi~~i ~TGYIf~~i:~ r7~.~~'C',1 .~. ~td1:' :~%~~1L4i~ ~'l11t, C1.1 .CafSiti ~`,;.~ ~ tSii~~ .'3,"r:+ i%~EX~ric?;it•'ia ~t':1'tii ~~ ~ ,35'u'ik1~73 .'.lLl+;~. ?l^~s~~l v31f% ~P.~:.€7;~ jYpT x th. 5i~#-~~~> ~~.ix, ~~ r;itia Gar~.6~: zi:;t9'a?.[sl:~ r] l~vt:~viceti #fte a~vt;.ag: azxd mydiazt. sal pTiLy:~ i~-t the s~acly =?Y~,a ~i follows: Irz ].9S'2., ttie a~rerage sale price in •tlte study area represanterl a sale priu~: tha.r ~Yas ~~~°lN ref the avera:ga sale prire isi all of San.12a_~ol for that year. In 1993, the aT~erage sale price in the study area wss 65% of the Sate. Rafael a~~atage. In 1994, the average aaln price in the study area was 5S% ~f tti~ San. l?ufasl average. Tn I9=J5, the average sale price in the study area was S 1% of the San I~afaal average. The telecommunicatiutis antennae bvere instal]ed in January of 19yti. Thus, on average, the average sale price cif ~ frame in the stay ease was 66% of the averago Salo price in Spa Rafael as a wholq for the four years prececlm,g the installation mil' the telecommuxsicati+~QS antennae. Iu 1995, the average sale price cif s home in the study area represented a sale price that ,vim 66% of the a:v9raga sale pries in all of San Rafael .for that year, In 199'7, the average salo price it1 the study area was S7% of the San Rafael average. In 1998, the average sale prior ~ the study area was ?~% of the San Rt`~el average, I.n 1999, the average sale price in the study area was 65°/A dithe San }?~fae] average. Zn 20od, year to date, the average sale price is the study azea is 63°!° of the San n.sfael average. Therefore, fb'r the $ve years after the lnstallataan of the taiecomrnuniasticns antennae, #h.e average sale price in the study area i5 b5% of the art@raoe sale price of a home in San Rafael as a whale, a difference thaC is, statistically, identical to the fiwre for tfia four years preceding the installafion of the antennae. The median figures also support this same Qattern with virtually no ohange ixt the t'elalionsltils of ]tame prices in the study area fa e'en Rafael as a whole when aomp3rirtg ratios before and after the installation of rho teletamrnurur,~t#ions antennae. ' In 1994, the median. sate price of a hams in the stuffy area was bs°!° of the median for S an Rafael as a whole. Ire I99S it rose to 85%, The median of these twd is 76%. Thus, the median price in the study area was 75% for the fi~vo years preceding the installation of the teleronunuaicatians antennae, Iri 199, the ntedzaa in the study area was 73% of the median in San Rafael as a whole. 14 ~~ .~%: .lr~, ~~ Ssfi~ l?~.isu. ~[1 i=~~~, ~~. 4'.'~.a i^~in, jt1C 1, 2ui • lii ,L_ .% }, i 6v~`+ 4~~ ~v. Tri8 T1.~:i~t3i'! Yi11` tti ~w<77E,5 's3~'c'ri t{l+v STiSt$I~:11:~Di3 ~~> t11C3~~01'E'--~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ uJn: ~t~t11n 5:3`~$ti: all. ' l- ~. vAI.~~L~ l-5 A;le ' ,a'"v3'IL.i ~'iL~.~.;;1C1111ijyT ti'Yts itt~tall¢tit,:2 ~~~}air'. C~'.lei:(?.fT.E.Tilt-3C11(~2a1t7T?S 31r1t~`i;~1T1A:., Tlxese r~ltit}s ific~icrd~ no ~d#'anaatic: sllackex a~nges ir- the 'ycacs iit~:nl~di~itic~Iy Geicrw or atra~• thu tel;.comm~.inicatic~,x~s sntenuae .vela irlstallad. titi.a~ll3l~'~~~, The Table o.#'Froperiy ,q.ddresses, Tt~ble #2, llv-ts the sales, glphabatically, included in the Sfln 1Vrerin Study .rti.rcr.. In thu table, "SFR" mcana Single Family Residential and "C~=, irzeans Gammon Merest TJe~elopment ~a cattdo~minium or plaur~ed. unit dovclnptnerlg). The date(s) of sale are provided, then the distance area dirCCtlon froaz t11W t~ ecomottuucaiinns antennae located nn the 15S San Maria priv$ budding, T11e disfa.tides given era "as 2be cro~~v flies", that being a direct Tine between laoatious, and not via surf'ace• streets a~ tlxa ;n#la.szzce of the ar-#azthae would ant 13n ganged by the a[reet addzsss, and would be perceived, by the marlce#, as a linear effoct. 1 The sale price For each property is then Isted under the apgrapriate year of sale, Tke antennae were issued their final pcrrnit in Noveatber, 1995 so that iha prices for t 992, 1993, 1994, 1995, represent the "before" value trends tivhilQ the .prises from 199G onwards rePres~nt the "afteC" vQlu.c trends. b'inally, after all pmpert;ies qxc listed artd identifiacl as fa price anal year of sale, t11L average sale prise per year for the study arse is calculated ~vitll the avenge sale pric4 par Prl1~S i'or all of'Novato given immediately belo3v_ This 15 f411owad by rho calculstell median sale pt~tce for flee study area at1 a yearly basis, fol loured by the median sale price per I~fI.,S for all of Nrivata on a yearly basin. The 1~1•ovats~ average and median sale prices have already been provided earlier in this report but, on Taf~le #~> try azs contrasted with the average and median Sale prices from the snrvay data. A ratio can be established between the average and lriedian sale prices in the study area as follows; ~ 1992, fhe av~ge sale price in the study area rcprsents a sale pzico that was 115°!n of the average sale price in Novara for that year, In 1993, the average sale price in the study area was g8°/a of the Novato average. Tn 1994, the average sale price in the study area was 1 Y6% of tho Novato average, In 1995, tha average sale price in Che study area was 100% of Wa Novato average. 15 a ~ .. ~. _ -.. .. ..-. ~' yyr i €~ ';11 ;. 3ili'~Igti~:3u '~PV~;'l."s% ts',slxAti_ 4g ?a 't r 1 , .1 i,iz' 1 tJ~`l;l'119 aTA ~,~~ ~i u~C ? ~ >;v _ .. f'ti:I'~St~Jr~. 7.~lci fi ri3fl~! ~'ffi"3[~1 ~.~]'~~ t~~~i'~(~S ~'%`7!`'.5~.;1]~S t~.~% `%1:~$Y ~1lSt~r~ t• ~ " x '~ i~7}S6, ~5t~ tt'YyX1~~~ fhb ~'J~:t'£i 6 - "~ ' Qa >a~ b ~ ~.' ~~ly p~~ t~f a h~~e ~ tl7e BLndy ilrU3 4vFis 'lr~~/° of the ~a=~r1~age sale pric: in i~=~vat~ as a ~aliuie foe tfie tour ea,-s pr~,:edu~g tJie ir~tslf:~.ir~;~ of lit ~~ telecotlur;]tnicarioxls antennae, In 7936y ~e avezaga salty prcc of a k~amss in the study+ a]['ea repres~.ted a salt lx3'ice that '~; ;~ "1061, of~th~ e3vet~ag~. sale print; its all ofi<T>avs7tr~ for tliat,ycax_ In 1997, lbe average sgle price in tine study area was 108°r a£tha Novara avsragt3- In l h9$, the avar~go sale price in the study ax'ea was 123°/n t~f the Novato aweraga. in 1999, the average cktls price in the study aces was 99% of the Novato ,Etverage. Izi ?OOO, year tm date, the ave~.~age s=31e price in thQ stLLCly azea was I L71 %~ cif the 2vDVHto a~reragr5. 1'hereforc, .for the #lve years after tlae i;t~tallati.on offihe tolBcpmmtmicatio.US .antennae, the average sale price in the study area was S07S% of the av$rag8 sale price of a home ir_ l+Iovato as a whale, $ difference that is, statistically, identical tp the .figure far the four years preceding the installation of the antennae, Tt]c: median figures produce a some~rhat different plcturc. In 1994, the median sale price of a home iri the study urea was 112% of the median sale price For Novato as a whale. In 1895, it dropped to 97%. ?ha median of these two is 105°/a: This mear]s that the median prlca in the study area was 105/° of the Novato median sale price for rho two years preceding th$ installation. tat: tl•~c telecc~mmuniQatinnF antennae. lti 1936, the median sale price in tb.e study area. rose to 121 % of the gceclian in Nc+vato as a whale. In 199'1, it was 1-I3°/a. In 199$, it was 125°I°. Tn 1999, it was ID7%, 'The median for the years after the installation waS, thorcfore, t 17%. This is much hiQbtr than in the two years preceding the installation. Tb3s means that- the irectian prices .4n the immediate study area have actually ristyn in relationship to the media>~ prices iu Novato as s whole sinct the instatlatiQtt of the telccornmt'enicatiotzs antcnn;2o. $~lrnmtarv nf~aASlD~iaa~frc~m the Niar~~,~'t'rend Stzdies 1vt bow C.,~,d'~ yeas The market values in the San Rafael Study Area did not alfar signifoantly after the installation of the telecommunications autcllaae om the 1825 ,lincalxi Avenue building either ou an average price or median price basis. This suggests that there has been, to date, no identifiable impact of the telecommunications antennae on residcsitlal real estate prices aorass the broader marl~et. 1£ :~'t;:` 't3'ini'~'.;( `+IFJ~t1~'S .iFd i.1~~ ~itI2 ~~TYYLl i ti?tl`f ,E~ii;3 U1Cl ,LkU~ duet nk~l7.l~ls'.a'.141~ ::~C•~' ?[:r. iYls;sliakiacs of tkae t: ~e::i.~narts:~tiiratlgi[5 adlr::stia~: un ~k° 1.55 SxA l~eritk ~-3riye iui~dia~ u~- arx :sveragd prise bans but did :alter t1n a median l:ri~.c b~~v,s. 1;z .cac,y t~ .mcc~is~, ,~,:is.n ;•+],: di~,'proporti~artatwly aloc~va the aiediaJq. price iil a lt~vato as a wltcle ai~:er is? b tele~:ornmunieatit~ai antennae yve're i»stalled. It is unlikely this irkcze`ase was related to the i'nskallatioa itsdit xts t~Fovato hao sLon ats increasing ~.cseptar-ce is xltemaxkctplacc as horse pric.~_+s have rise~~ prnhihztivt ly iu most ~oufharn 1V11arin Caimfiy' ldcati+crss. ~t~~ouse___ F~.th~ t__ a~~~,~edv San $af~~.d~ Area Tabls #3 and the `"Ta11y of Reap, anilrnts fflr Bach Property in fhr; San 12a.£ael study Area" ausz~marize the variorss responses to the cltteski~rss asked in the Mearke~t Study and the nuASlaer of ia5gunses ree~+ivxjd, Only thnsa respandirig are inalud$d in the study ratios rt?suiting frgm the correlaticsn oftherespobsas and respondents. Thus, there were a total of 6~ zespondents {individuals) excepring where thL listing and selling agent were the same, in which case the respondent is counted twlcs:. Iii tlaa "N41es" an the Tally Sheet. these apprais$ia have indicated if the listing agent (iA} an+i sellirkg agent. (SA) were the s$ma. This occsits when. the same agent represented bath rides of the tr~nsaCtion and responded as bath the listing and selling agents}. For same properties, there were two, or even three, sales dutriug the years included in the study period. Irk tlsa,ee cases, two listing and two selling agontts (or three listing agents and three selling agents) were cQitta~cted Respoudonts are es shown. J?or instance, for 7 Glenwood Drive, ther:. were three sales but only orze listing agent responded. TEaerefore, for the tally, only one response is included despite the three separate listings, There vrere a possible 11$ individual r$sponse5. hs fecal, we wore ablo tv contact and intcsrviaw a't:ly 62 of #lkese possi6lt~ respondents. This is n zasporsse ratio flf 53%. Thew ware anoth.°r nitre rosponsas {actually fine agent with nine tiansaetidrss zn. ~e candinninium comple~c at 1579 Lirst~In Avenutr} but his assistant ditiFt't xt3marnbor tho propestlrrs sir siknply irniic:uted `~ttti ' to avetythirsg witbaut allowing the interviewer t~ gb through all the qucstians. Therefore, those nine are riot included in the ~2 respondents identified. In a survey, a resp8aac rate of aver 2S% is considered acceptable, so that, fox s study that relies on a. survey, a 53% response ratio is considered very high and wc11 within. the prkruuteters resluirec3 far statistical actut'~ay. In the San Ka.farl Study Aran, the intlucnce that caused greatcat concern was ttaf~tc noise with 32°!0 of the respondents indicating this did concern the seller and/or buyer. The influence that was second most in concern was tho proxiiniky of heavily trafficked stzeets which garnered Z7~/a of the respondents indicating this aoneazncd the seller and/or buyer. 17 ~t.S::'t1C3:Y}.'1}~ii [rt~~ Y %xt i~"Ji ~7 •a c' .i ~Yi t'. . t s:+a_~_. f~"'' . ~. y~ jiii.~-is'i'tlty Gs.l COD".CsSii]~L~,: 115;7 'E)~i~~t~i~l~S 'a'.It;R '~~~BI' ~1~~.~].t%b'='s3 ;fir '?.7~z'., nisi ~•U;'t3T~~ trt cji~r S1UYc5~ ~e$tICsIlS, Tl-e.S~' « ~Il.-'~' } it i; ~ ia~~iacr:.:es'" in Cite ,~,;az~ l~,,afgel St~iy :~ixd;a'tvsrc~ th:,pnssib]e sv~idening..,i tJS it:11 at,cl tt-,4 pL~ssa~ske a~3ciit'sor~ ~£ a light rail ve3ticle $d; agent to t}~~• frb~way rcrridn:. •~. t'Ir1211J, with a ~°,~h 1~3g51tiye I~S~QiT.xiHy was el'~ssianS from cats due #o traffic, rnean.ing 3 °r, ai thL respondenks iderztdzed this as a. concern to sel]arb urtdlor buyers. ! - ~1'llis tot9ls :~~d/o q~' ~C rB5 axtdents, p thus 2S°lo of the respondents said Char none ct' t'r~e items zn the ~u'Vey raotxeerned Cho ssllers ara@/or huyars. ~~ Nunc of the respoatlents identified the tre]lular :E'hone Anten~laa as a cotzcea: and none idonti.~ted Elvi7~ Fields, 64th items that have had considerable ~~po~ure in Cho press and vfhich, thct~forc, wauid ba sxpected to be a selevan# item for sellers and be~yei~s alike. 'Cable #~• and the i`TBtly of ~tespondents for Baoh Property in the Sen. ~tarin study Area" stuntnarue the v~-iqus responses to the quespons asked in the ~lerket Study and ttr~: number o.t'responses received. Onty these respDnding are included in the study zatios resulting from the cozralatian of the zaspansas and respanclents. Thu&, tla8~ were a total of ~S respotideflts (iudividua3s} excepkir~g where tine Iisting and s.lli~gg agent• were the same, ire 'which case thb respondent is counted twice. In the "N'otea" on the Tally Sheet, these apprsisers have indicated if the listing agent (LA) and the salllng agent (SA) were the same. 'This occurs wha.~ the same agent repzesented bo#1~ sides of the tzazisactiou Aad responded as bath the Iist7ng rind s911ing ages{{s}. kar Borne properties, there ware t,~o sales dozing the years included in the study period, in those cases, twa Iistizig mid twa selling agents u-ers Contacted, Respand$nts are as shown. For instance, fnr 37 Andreas Circle, there warn two sales but only one listing agent responded Therefar~e, far the tally, only one respansa 1s included despite the two sepantte Bala dates. There w$ra a total of 64 possible individual zcsponscs. In fact, wa were able [o contact and interview only 35 of these possible t8sporidents. This Is a response ratio of 55°l0. In a survey, a ,response rate of aver 2S°!p is considered aactiptable, so that: for a ~tv.dy that ne]ies on a survey, a 55% resporyFe zatia is considered vary high and well within the parameters req[uted for statistical rr4Ci11S4y, 7n the Sao Maria Study Area, the influence that caused the gre$test concern was tho proximity of'the heavily traffic]cer3 Streets with 33°t° of the respondents izidicahng that this did eonccrn the s®llar and/or Buyer, The second most cited influence was the proximity of cnmmsrcial use graperties .with a response ratio of 23%a, meaning 23% of 18 7 ~'~'~~~LF- ~"c..llt~+t.'t li~2jl's,; '~'l~~'it:~f:~ :)t.!iZs«..CA.S ~~.7C~1.[t ~(5, 1,it2'i~,{,;,~rbl~, ~~ la„i.; , ~":'~',CS,~ii'731~. lrti'liL2~.#s,r? t138$ a'!iS t~~f;t:~lz ' ~ ~ i S+ ~ a .,,~ ~f+3t'.:~tJ(?3:,rlYte'~.3 t~lX lltl+j~::° fil+A~ $11~•..be`lf±~~. .I Elie n;.xi: mast oitecl rPSpt~t~c ~z+~s h.•r~c anise with ~~''lp Af thk.: ?•espondents iYtc~i~.sxiral; il,~.t this Somas a ccr~cern t+~.tbe seller aad/ar boyar. '1'h;: s~str~;ory of `bfihsr'' iza tlae ~sn. Iaiaria Stud~v Ar:,a was the taroity pP-the ze~uis courts and the floodli$6ts ~a# rose abovfl them, directly h~hind ~, nutnbet~ of h+~mes, s~ Natal oP6% of the respondent5 idcntifis~# this a9 a concern to sel7:,rs and/or buyers. piaally, of those ite;tns causing concern, the treat concern v~ras amissioas froze aa.~s due to traffic at 3 /o of respondents. intone of the respandezit; identified the Cellular Phape tlxftermar: rar Ecl~IF Fields an 2 concern, both being items that have had considerable exposure in the press $nd, tl7eretorc, woulst be oa~ectr-d to be a relevaut item for acilers ands p~riicularly, fQr buye,eq. ~ Slfrv~ys R'i A cancel to tine ~11glaLGT,.i'lsaem~jnn~, +ior~l AntenT As stated, She pu~ase of tlils Study was to determine the impact, if any, of the telecornmunicahions antannaa an the market value Qf residential properties in oltsse proximity to the antennae, Zn 1,oth Study Areas, San Rafael and San Harlot, no impact could be identified. In botl: # areas, the inl7erex~t lacational factors -busy street, camn4.ercial properties 2nd tr$ffic noise # - 'were the main influences an property values. Cellular phone arltenriae were r1s~t reported as au influence by any ofthe agents and/or buyers and sellera crantacted. The market itseifsuppotts this with the ratio ofSala prices in each of the Stttciy Areas, pat average, xining the same far the years bath taefore and after the installation of tl_ie antennae. Further evidence is provided by the ratio of medlun prices ixt each of the Study Areas that indicate na ch.aztge in #hc Sea Rafael Study Atea, both before and after the installation of the antennae. For the San Mahn Study Area, the ratio of the.rnediaxt price of homes increased suggesting that not Only was the~'e no nogative 9mpact but that the market, in fact, improved. It is #hQ opinion of these appraisers that, in these two study areas, the pzesance of the cellulaz phone artennae had no i.rApact on tho market value of residential properties in close proximity to the cellular phone eiitennae. 29 ~. ~ ~ ,. i3 s.., ezi '.=. ~c%~"ii'1E; ~t7rlL, 1:.t,1 tI'3~ ~OCrSi ~1,~ UL2.: 1L.ili)`+Y'1~s~4C', iitcCk. UC~lt,t~; - ~e 5f$ta~i+dnf,~ crf'f8c± C~)'l~3iIleC~ i.~i #his 7'eport ;u~ tTIL~: 8714 COrref~:. .~ tll.e repeated analyses, opinions, sad canclusiolzs axe firnited . vz~Iy 6y the repcrtec3 assumptions and limitil;g conditions, and ue fliu p~rsan:~l, u-ubiased pzo;Fwssiortal titialyscs, rapiluntis, sad roaclusio•ns, we have no presen# or pmspcctjve interest il~ thepraperties that are this subject ol; this rcpnrt, and. w~ 1>fiv~ Ptb ~idrsonal ~terea~ wiclt respect tt] tl~e patties [evolved. •- we have no big with respect tv any property that is the subject of tliia reps~tt or to the partiss•anvolyeci with this t~ssigtlment, our compensation is not contiage7lS vn an cation or zyant resuhixig from the analyses, opinions} nr coucZu~ioils ill, or the use oii this report, '- Qur sttalyses, opinints, and conolusiuns wars ~di+eloped, and this report has been prrpared, in Gonforrnity with the ~Inifortn ,S`tars~urds of Prafesstatt~l Appraisal Pracli~, - we hawc made a pereonal~ oxtei'ic~z, izaspcation of the properties that are tlt.e subject of this report. - no one prayided significant professjpnal assistano® to the persons signins this report e~;c~pt for Niichelc~.Tee who acted as ;eSesrcb: assistant £or this market study. Her participatiol~] included con#acting agents, boyars, azld sellers, desi~lirlg and anterirlg responses -into spread .sheets, and producing the grmphical illustl~fions in this ragort. 5igaed.: ~QILi1~ ~. R41l7I1s, CF.PA/R ~ zr, ~s CA ~ Residential Certi fisatiQn #ARa{72I82 waaa s. '~'aaghll, sRA `~" cA Residential Certification ~ ~Raa5022 za ~ ~ ' i' i '. . 1. ..7illl ."n+sJ Z{. t'?ISi1~'~'~+ '7~t • ~~ ~~ I Y i ty t .. R. ./ 1 ~ 'S t~ ~ ~.+. '. Oueruiew major cellular phone provider recently hired our firm to conduct a study of the impact on residential property values due to proximity or view of communication towers. A sufficient amount of empirical data was available to develop a comparative analysis model to demonstrate the findings of this study ByAllen G. Dorln, Ir., M/Jl, SRA and/oseph W. Smlt~j, p/ The methodology employed indicated that the presence of communicatiot towers insulted in essentially no impact on residential values in the price range of $70,000 to $150,000 in those areas investigated. The upper part of this range is above the average sales price of asingle-family dwelling in the Richmond MSA. tmradut:tfen The crux of the market study was to inform the client of the economic impact that communication towers may have on nearby improved residential housing values within the Richmond Metropolitan Statistical Area. The client specifically wanted to use the findings of the study to determine whether there was sufficient market evidence to conclude that the presence of communication towers does in face, negatively influence the market value of improved residential dwellings by reason of proximity or view. In cunt, the client intends to use the findings and conchtsiotts o[ the report to assist in the acquisition of new tower sites. Background The subject study area is in the Richmond-Petersburg Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which consists o[ the cities of Richmond, Petersburg, Colonial Heights, and Hopewell; and the counties of Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Goochland, Powhatan, New Kent, Charles City, Dinwiddie, attd Prince George in central Virginia. The follotiving snap provides a brief overview of the Richmond MSA market study area. At the request of the client, the market study was restricted to the counties of Chesterfield, Goochland, Hanover, Henrico, and New Kent and the city of Richmond. A thorough seat~h for adequate market da4~t on which to base the findings of the study required a great, deal of research and analysis from the counties previously mentioned. By process of elinunatiott, the study parameters were reduced to the counties of Chesterfield and Henrico. The counties of Goochland, Hanover, New Kent, and city of Riclunond were excluded, due to the Lack of sufficient market evidence available to prove the existence, if any, of any adverse effects upon residential values because of an individual tower location. The individual test sites were eliminated for reasons such as location in remote undeveloped areas, industrial neighborhoods, commercial corridors, or along interstate highways. From the research available, six test sites wcin located. These tower sites were selected based on their proximity [o or visibility from residential properties that were deemed to have the possibility of potential negative unpact upon property values. LocaBOn otiest Sltes The county of Chesterfield, located in the south and soudtwesl quadt;tnts of the MSA had one test site located just east of a townhouse project. This county tvas traditionally a bedroom community of the city of Richmond until the 1970s during a period when a building boom occurred. It has become a heavily populated suburban county with a full complement o[ residential, commercial, and utdustrial land uses. The county of lletuica, located in dte western, noriltetn, and eastern quadrants of the MSA had the remaining COMMUNICATION TOWERS ~ Study Area loeatlon Map lloubtetree Subrlfiutston 1 ' ,~1 ,~ Section 2 ~ ~~ (1995) Doubletree Tower w Subdivision r ~ ~ ~. Tower G;~rte~aornir,n r 1 ' ` _ Section 1 I! ~'; ' (1994) :~ . five test sites used in this study. The county was t)te original bedroom community of the city of Richmond. Because of proximity to major linkages with the city of Richmond, its establish- ment as a signi[icant suburban entity preceded that of Chesterfield County. Tawer 8esearch The client was particularly interested in identifying and locating communica- tion towers in excess of 150 feet in height that may have potential negative impact on nearby residential property values. Ottly six existing Eower sites were deemed applicable to this study out of the 77 sites inspected. The struc- ture of the cowers varied from steel lattice type to steeE columnar type with guy-wire supports. Three of the tower sites were located within close proximi- ty of single family detached residential subdivisions ranging in price from $70,x00 to $150,000. This price range is typical of mast first time hotnebuycrs in the areas investigated. Of the three remaining tower sites, one was located near a multi-family residential apart- mentcomplex and dte other two within view of a single family townhouse development. To clarify the methodology and analysis. used to arrive at a conclusion, only one of the tluee residential subdivisions studied will be discussed. EMplanation of Research Methodology Research was conducted at each of the respective localities previously tttentioned in order to locate existing communication tower sites. Tltis task was primarily accomplished by inter- viewing planning department officials familiar with this type improvement, obtaining copies of meeting minutes of the governing boards or council authorizing the construction of the towers, and familiarity with the gen- eral vicinity o[ the Richmond MSA. Based on the data obtained from re- search, dte tower sites were plotted on maps showing their relative prox- imity to residential development. Primary attention was focused upon residential properties adjacent to or surrounding each of ttte tower sites investigated. Those properties deemed to be located in sparsely de- veloped areas, industrial neigltbor- Itoods, or cotnntercial corridors were eliminated from further study. After selecting the six test sites, fur- ther information was gathered including physical information on the respective towers, correspondence regarding the perntitting process, specific public data on the residential sites deemed to be 12 MARCWAPRIL 1999 • RIGHT OF WAY thin the potential impact area of the ..Iwer, and sales/physical data on similarly improved properties in the general vicinity but not considered impacted by the tower. if possible, inter- views were conducted with property owners and real estate agents who had current listings of properties included in the analysis. Alter assimilating the gathered data, a summary of each test site neighborhood was prepared by means o[ quantitative and qualitative adjustment techniques for a comparative analysis. Brlel Ottetntiew ofAnatYSls According to the Eleventh Edition of The Appraise! of Real Estate, published by the Appraisal institute (Chicago: 1996, page 414), "A comparative analysis includes the consideration of both quantitative and qualitative factors. Quantitative adjustments are developed as either dollar or percentage amounts. Factors that cannot be quantified are dealt with in qualitative analysis." In ;sence, the quantitative method is a mathematical procedure that is typically accomplished through a paired sales or cost comparison analysis. The qualitative analysis is much more subjective in its approach, and is commonly used when no basis for a quantitative adjustment can be concluded. The sales of the properties included in the analysis were sorted according to price paid per square toot of dwelling area after adjusting each property to a common denofninator (quantitative). The potential impact of the respective tower sites was rated for each property based upon observation. The isnpact rating was then compared to the adjusted prices paid per square foot as an indication of any definitive correlation (qualitative). M8IYSIS Doubletree Subdivision, one of the three subdivisions studied, will be examined in order to explain the methodology and thought process used hroughout the study analysis. Doubletree is a 67-lot subdivision located t-WE ARE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE FORMER i CHIEF COUNSEL 70 CALTRANS AND MAYOR OFYHE CITY OF DEL MAR HAS JOINED MHdA • RICHARD WILL PROVIDE COUNSEL IN: ^ EMINENT DOMAIN ^ INVERSE CONDEMNATION ^ NfPAICEQAGTIGATtONFORPUBUCAGfNGES McDoNOUCH HOLLAND RICHARD RYi1NSK1 CAN eE REACHED AT OUR OAKLAND OFFICE. & ALLEN ---.,...._... ~_._.... -.._ AROnirys al rnW SACRAMENTO OAKLAND YUBA CITY (916) IN•1900 (510) 27J~8160 (S70) 671.9761 www.mhalaw.com Choose tll<e Rigl~t Wayy to our Career. Caltraus is hiring Rigl><t o~WayAgents. MARCH/APRIL 1399 • RIGHT OF WAY 13 4•year college degree lBachelorsl OR registration as a senior in a 4-year college. Must pass civil servito exam avnilnble on gee at hltp://exams.spb.ca.gov/ssaexam. Yisll our webpage for more Info: COMMUNICATION TOWERS in a developing area in Hentico County on the east line of Prancistown Road bettiveen Hungary and Springfield Roads (Sec Exhibit 1, page il). Section I was approved in 1994 and Section 2 in 1995. Construction of fire dwellings began in 1995. The majority of the lots sold over a two-year period, a rate considered average for this price range. "fhe average lot size is .204 acre (8,903 square feet) with a minimum width o[ 63 feet. hnproved properties sold mostly in the $135,000 to $145,000 price range. Alt of the dwellings are two story and most have front-loading garages. There are lwo communication towers visible to properties in this subdivision. One is located on the west side of Francistown Road at the west end of Wildtree Drive. [t is a 168-foot high steel lattice structure, which was built in 1964. It is visible from all of the Cront yards of the lots fronting on Wildtree Drive and the rear yards of those lots backing to Francistown Road. The other tower is also located on the west side of Francistown Road but south of the subdivision. It is a 305-foot high steel lattice tower, which was constructed in 1982. Because of the wooded area between it and the subject subdivision, its visual impact is less dra- matic; however, it is within noticeable sight o[ the lots in Section 1 baclung to Francistown Road. Out of 671ots, 25 improved properties were studied within the subdivision. [n analyzing the properties, all those adjacent and nearby lots deemed to be impacted by their proximity to and/or view of the two towers in question were researched. In addition, several other properties in the subdivision considered to have only minor or no impact at all were also researched. The recorded sales price for each of the 2S properties was broken down to a unit price per square foot for the purposes o! comparison. The unit prices, before adjustments, range from $b4.54 to $93.75 per square foot, with a median unit price of $77.47 per square Foot. For the comparative analysis model, a hypothetical base dwe!!'sng was created to represent the typical improved dwelling in Doubletree Subdivision, The hypothetical dwelling was a 1,800 square foot two story, colonial style having central air and heat, 2 U2 baths, no fireplace, attached one car garage, no frontage on Francistown Road, and sold itt 1997. All of the 25 hnproved sales were then compared to the base dwelling with adjustments being made relative to time of sale and major physical and location differences. A 5 percent annual appreciation rate for time was used itt the model. In an effort to achieve total sellout, the lots abutting Francistown Road ~vere given a $4,000 discount, according to the developerlbuilder. Thus, an upward adjustment of $4,000 was made to the improved lots that abut Francistown Road for inferior location on a busy thoroughfare. The remaining adjustmets were based on differences in the costs of the various building components. After application of the adjustments, the prop- erties were then sorted in ascending order by the indicated adjusted sale price per square foot. The spreadsheet in (See Exhibit 2.) provides a descriptive sununary of the contlrarauve analysis model. I rimary attention was focused upon seven improved lots that were deemed to have major impact potential, clue to their proximity to Vie tower located on the west side of Francistown Road directly across from the entrance of llte subdivision via Wildtree Drive. Two out o[ the eight lots are situated at the northeast entrance of Doubletree Subdivision fronting the intersection of Wildtree anct Kimberwick Drives. The remaining six contiguous lots are located along the northeast line of the subdivi- sion fronting Kimberwick Drive. Each of these lots has direct rear exposure to Prancistown Road and the 168-foot high tower. A rota! of seven improved lots were classified as having significant impact potential due to their exposure to the two towers. Pive of the lots are located along the northeastern line of the subdi- vision facing Kimberwick Drive and abutting Francistown Road to the rear. The two remaining lots in this classifica- tion are located along the northern line of dte subdivision facing the intersection of Kimberwick Drive. The classifications of minor and no impact were given to properties that were considered to have little or no impact at all due to a buffered view or suflieient proximity away from the nvo towers. Eleven of the lots studied in this subdivision, located along the north- western and southwestern lines of the subdivision via Singletree Lane, Singletree Court, and Wildtree Court fell under these two classifications. Summant otAnafflsls The adjusunent process used was an attempt to equalize the properties. Overall, dre range in unit prices paid per square foot was narrower after adjust- ments were made in the comparative analysis model. After making adjust- ments for the major items categorized in the adjustment grid (See Exhibit 2.), a range of $66.29 to $92.31 in indicated price per square foot was reflected. Even after making adjustments Eor these items, a significant range in unit price per square foot remained evident. However, the [lucuration in these tq MARCFUAPRIt f 999 • RIGkT OF WAY adjusted unit prices per square foot can be attributed to a variety o[ amenity packages that the individual homeowner may have purchased in an attempt to customize their homes, such as upgrades in appliances or finish features. Although, no adjustments for the vary- ing degree of aruenities or custom work were made, the range o[ adjusted wait prices per square foot is deemed to be supportive of showing the effect, if any, of the two towers on property values within the subdiviston. Frotn on site observations, each property was rated relative to dre impact of dre tower due to proximity or view in one of [our categories: major, signiftcant, minor, or none. Those properties in which the tower was deemed to have a "major" itnpacl were tnosdy adjacent to and/or having full view of the tower. "Significant" impact was assigned to those properties having full or obvious view of the tower. "Minor" impact was assigned to those having a "winter view" or noticeable presence of the tower. Those rated as "none" had little or no view of rite tower. The rationale behind this rating system is that if there were a noticeable trend where those properties rated as having a major or significant .impact were at the lower end of the range of unit prices paid per square foot, further research would then be warranted as to the cause of this tendency, In an effort to further sabstantiate the findings of the comparative model,.personat inter- views were held witlr'property owners whose property was ranked in the major to significant categories. All of the respondents stated the towers had no impact on their purchase decisions. However, those property owners adjacent to Francistown Road did slate that die seller discounted the tots Cor exposure to that road. Summary olSwdy The chart on page 16 is a summary categorizurg rite t~esults of the invespga- tion of the six existing communications towers in each of the localities included ~n this study: THERIGHTO~FWAY EDUCATIONFOLINDATIONS 1999 T~OADTZUNNET~ CLASSIC TTiends of the Right of Way httemational Echtcatiou Foundation and Canadian Right of Way Education Foundation are hosting a golf tountautent onltnte Z 3 « 1 in Albuquerque, New Mexico hr cotrjunctton with the i 999 Anmtal International Education Sentirtar. The tountament proceetl s will benefit dte Foundations for use 6t developing educational materials and lxoutoting professiottai development for the right of way profession. We are seeking coatpauies. agencies, FtIItI IIItllvldndl5 thd[ N'Oltll) ilke [O itelp make this toumautent a big success by sighing up foroue oftlte seven levels ofspoasorship or tlortating prize Items. Sponsor uantes will be disl}layed at the tounrament as -vell as the Seudaar site so we may recog-tize anti show ourappredatiou to those who contributed. We are expecting 144 golfers. Sponsorship is a great way to get came recognition fu the right of way field anti benefit a very worthwhile organization at the same riute.5pecfal recognition will be given to tl-e Diamond, Gold attd Silver conttibtttors at the SeminarSice and at the GolfCourse. .......................................................................................................................................................... 1999 ROADRUNNER CLASSIC Sponsorship Form Company Name and Mdress Level of Sponsorship a Diamond st,soo o cord st.ooorast,a99 Q Sliver s5()Oto1999 ^ Scoreboard5ponsor ST50 O Horsd'oerrvrePartySponsor s60p O HolelnOneSportsor 5500 ^ HoteSporrsor 6300 7ltattk you kt adva-tce for your generous stgrport if yotr have any queatiorts, please call T7ennls Werkmeisterat G 12-88 7- l 73 5, Please tndicate yota resporege by Wednesday, lone 9, l 999. Make checks payable ro RWIPT, anti detach atut return this form to: RW1EF c%Deraris Werknretster, Enron Corp, 1600 West 8 2ttt Street #2 t 0, Mhtneapolis, MN 5543 J MARCH/APRIL 1999 • RIGHT OF WAY 15 GOMMUNICATIdN TOWERS No.lPoreerltage ~ '' alProperDes ~' Considered as tower Higher Higher aeinglmpacted tower Quartile Hatl Hatt Quartile Na.ol InEtttteraMalar Malorer Maloror Maloror Malaror Properties arSlgniRcarH SlpnHicant Signpicartt Signffleanl SlgNflcaM LacalhY Suhrl'Mston Studied Category Impact* Impat:t* impaet* Impact* [tl RollingNpls 23 10144X 20.OX 50,OX 50.OX 20.OX Chester0eld alaulard l21 JloUblehee T5 l7/683f 29.4SG 41.r1f 5T.8Y. 23.5X NenrJco (31 Eaglesaidge 10 9150X 22.2X 68.1X 33.3X 11.1X Henrtco i41 EdenherrY 21 11152X 21,3X 59.1X 40.9X i8.2X Henrtco [5l fielunfters 22 10148X 20.OX 40.OX 60.OX 30.DX Henrtco - [el wlktnsen 31 14145X 143X 64.3X 35.1X 7.1X Henrica Estates * Allocation of the percentage of properties considered as being impacted in a major or significant category; range in comparison units htised on adjusted sale price per square foot of 13nished living area. The graph below represents the results of the investigation of the six existing communication towers. Graphical repre- sentation is a useful technique that provides the reader with an overall picture of the empirical data previously mentioned. Irr each o[ the study areas, approxi- mately half the properties were deemed as being impacted in a Major or Significant category. The remaining properties were in the Minor or None category. The allocation of the percentages was based upon the number of properties impact- ed in the Significant or Major categories in the lower and upper quartiles and Summary of Study Results for Malor and Significant Impact Categories 100.0% 50.0% ; t ___+k i u t~ i~ ' 0.0'/. ' ' 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ lower Quartile ^ Lower Hatt +~i Htght3r Hal[ li@ Higher Q1lartlte lower and upper halves divided by the total number of properties impacted as such. For,exarnple, in the Doubletree subdivision, 2S properties were included in the study. Of those 25 properties, 17 were considered as being in the Significant or Major impact category (68 percent). Five of those 17 properties impacted as such, (representing 29.4 percent o[ the total number ofproperties in those categories) .were in the lower quartile (bottom 25 percent) of the range in adjusted unit prices paid. Eight properties {47,1 percent) were in the lower half of the range. However, nine (52.9 pereenl) were in the upper half and four (23.5 percent) in the upper quartile o[ the range in unit prices paid. Because of the diversity of represen- tation in each of the allocated segments of the range in adjusted unit prices, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest there was any mea- surable impact on value. This is further supported by the responses Irom personal interviews with the property 16 \ MARCWAPRlf.1999 ~ RIGHT OF WAY owners who slated that the towers had no detrimental impact on their decision to purchase their homes. Several listing agents and the builder stated that the two towers were never an issue. The impact of Francistown Road was the only concern that came from potential purchasers and a discount of $4,000 was made for this reason. Statistical analysis can provide back- ground information to enhance the understanding of a given environment and directly assist in making specific decisions. It can range from simple summaries of data to dte identification of patterns o[ data that can form the basis for a conclusion of central tenden- cies. For the purpose of this study, measures of relative standing for charac- terizing the distribution of empirical data were used. This technique served as a useful alternative to frequency distribution and was indicative of particular data values relative to the entire data set for each test site. Similar findings occurred with the other study areas where properties in the Significant and Major impact cate- gories were found at both ends of the range in adjusted unit prices paid. Again, interviews with the affected property owners revealed no impact upon puthase decisions. On site man- agers were interviewed in regards the potential tower impact upon individual units for bode [lte apartment complex and town house development itt an elfart to establish a basis for any potential rent Loss. Not one negative impact response could be attributed to the towers. Overall, there were S2 interviews conducted with individual property owners. None of the interviews resulted in a negative response. In fact, several of the interviewees said that they paid a premium for their homes in order to be within close proximity to the towers. When asked the reasoning behind this decision, the most common reply was that the tower was perceived as being a potential asset because it served as a buffer against further development. The only adversities noted throughout the entire interviewing ptacess were towards busy thoroughfares running adjacent to dte residemial developments and close proximity to shopping/relail centers. Conclusion Based aeon die comparative analysis methodology used in this study, as well as interviews with purchasers of proper- ties located adjacent to and/or in full view of co-ntnutucation tower structures, it cvas concluded that there was no consistent market evidence suggesting any negative impact upon improved residential properties exposed to such facilities in the areas included itt the study. The tuodet used in this study could be applied to any type of perceived adverse influence such as a water tocver, overhead transmission line or sanit ary landfill. The validity of the study is enhanced where the comparative analy- sis includes similar type properties that require minimal and well supported adjustments as wet[ as interviews with market participants potentially affected by the respective adverse influence. The statistical measure of central tendency trot only validates a typical variate but also dte lack thereof. ^ Alert Dorin, Jr, is President of Knight, Dorin Cr Rountrey Real Esta[e Services, Ridunond, Virginia. He enrned a bachelor's degree in Comrne-ce front the University of Virginia and a ntaster~ in Rent Estate and Urbart Larrd Economics from Virginia Comntonweatth University. His appraisal practice has most recently focused on property acquisition for public and semi-pteblie rights of wny. Joseph Smith is an MAI candidate in the Appraisal Irtstituie's Graduate Valuation Program al Virginia Commonwealth University located in Richrtro-rc~ Virginia. He is curneutly wont- ing as intern for the appraisal Jirm of Knight, Do--in fr Rottntrcy gaining experience credit hours to apply toward his MAI tlesigrtatian. Mr. Smith canted his baclre[or's degree in history front Hampden-Syd-tey College, Harnpden- Sydney, Virg!-ria. MARCH/APRIl.1999 • RIGHT OF WAY 17 ATTACHMENT D INFORMATION PERTAINING TO WIRELESS FACILITES I-Iuman Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular &PCS Sites S~dr ~ iZ~S I Updates I E-Film I fniti~tivcs I Consumers I Find Peor~le Consumer & Gov®rnmental Affairs Bureau FC > CGB Home> Consumer Publicafiorta> Human Exposure to RF Fldds Guldelhes Page 1 of 2 __~ FCC alto maa Human Exposure To I~tadio Frequency Fields: FCC Guidelines For Cellular &PCS Sites Consumer Facts Background Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and Personal Communications Service (PCS), an: usually located outdoors an 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 PC5 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 1998, the FGC 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 Counal on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), anon-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), anon-profit technical and professional engineering society, and endorsed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), anon-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 http://www.ice.~ov/cab/consunierfacts/rfexposure.httnl 1 210 8/2 0 1 0 Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular &PCS Sites Page 2 of 2 centimeter. This limit is many times greater than RF levels typically found near the base of cellular or PCS cell site towers or in the vicinity of other, lower-powered cell site transmitters. Calculations corresponding to a "worst-case° situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that, in order to be exposed to RF levels near the FCC's guidelines, an individual would. essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam and within a few feet of the antenna for several minutes or longer. Thus, the possibility that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote. When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on rooftops, RF emissions could exceed higher than desirable guideline levels on the rooftop itself, even though rooftop antennas usually operate at lower power levels than free-standing power antennas. Such levels might become an issue for maintenance or other personnel working on the rooftop. Exposures exceeding the guidelines levels, however, are only likely to be encountered very close to, and directly in front of, the antennas. In such cases, precautions such as time limits can avoid exposure in excess of the guidelines. Individuals living or working within the building are not at risk. For More Information For more information on this issue, visit the FCC's RF Safety Web site at www.fcc.QOV/oet/rfsafety. For further information about any other telecommunications-related issues, visit the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Web site at www,fcc.4ov/cgb, or contact the FCC's Consumer Center by e -mailing fccinfoCc~fcc.QOV; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888- 835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing ta: Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Govemmental Affairs Bureau Consumer Information and Complaints Division 445 12 St. SW Washington, DC 20554. For this ar any other consumer publication in an accessible format (electronic ASCII text, Braille, large print, or audio) p/ease write ar call us at the addn3ss or phone number below, or send an a-mail fo FCC504~fcc.gQv. To receive infomtatiov~ on this and other FCG consumer topics through the Commission`s e/ectrvntc subscriber service, click on httpJM~ww. ficc. vov/cQWcontacts/. This document is for consumer educatkur purposes only and is not intended fo affec! any proceeding or cases involving this subject matteror related issues. ~ ~rosna Fedarel Communic~iona Commlesion • Conaumsr Q OovsmmenW Afrefrs Burew • 446 12f1t St S.W. • Waahfngfon, DC 20564 1-888-CALL-FCC (t-898-225.5322) TTY: 1-88d-TELL-FCC (1-886.836.6322) • Fau: 1-8Qb-41d-0232 • y~g~•~py(~( last reviewed/updated on f 1/09/07 FCC Home ~ ar ~ RSS ~ Updates ~ -FE fling ~ Initiatives ~ Consumers ( Find People Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 More FCC Contact Information... Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322y TTY: 1-88&TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) Fax: 1-866-418-1?232 E-mail: fccinfoCdtfcc.aov - Privacy Policy - Website Policies 8 Notices - Required Browser Plua-ins - Freedom of Information Act http:/Iwww.fec.gov/egb/eonsumertacts/rfexgosure.html 12/08/2010 WHO ~ Electromagnetic fields and public health Pa~,e 1 of3 y ~," ~`'~ World Health s~f~ 4r~anization F':rct ~hcx;t N`'tiH play : utw Electromagnetic Helds and public health Base stations sad wireless technologies ~1obile teiephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upon an extensive network of fixed antennas, ur base stations, relaying. information with rtdiotrequency (RF) signals. Over L4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation tec:hrxrlogy. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed intemet access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in hcnnes, otFces, and many public areas (airports, schools, residentitrl and urban areas). As the number of brio stations and local winless networks increases, so does rho RF exposure of the population. Rexetnt surveys have shown that the RF expasuttis from bash stations range tnxn U.OU2"/o to 24~a of the levels of international exposure guidelines, depending on a variety of factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding envirottment. This is lower or comparable to RF cxposurcs from radio or television broadcast transmitters.. Thee has been conexzn about possible health consequences from. exposure to the RF fields produced by wireless tcchnologiea This tact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from continuous low-level htmtan exposure to brave stations and other local wireless networks: Heatlth concerns A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates ut the possible long-term health effects tfiat wholo- body exposure to the RF signals may have. To data, the only health etiect from RF fields ielenti!ied in scientific reviews has been related to an increase: in body temperature (> I °C~ from exposure at very high lick! intensity found only in certain industrial facilitiese, such as RF heater. The levels of RF exposure from base strttions and wireless networks are so low that the temperature increases are insignificant and do not affect human health. The strength of RF fields is greatest at its source; and diminishes quickly with distance. Access roar base station antennae is ractriettsl where RF sigoala may exceed internadonal exposure limits. Rex:ent stuveys 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: [n fact, due to their lower Frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body abacxba up to five times mare of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the trequexrcies used in FM radio (around. 100 MHz) and is TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) tree lower than Chase employext in mobile telephony (900 MHz and I S00 MHz) and because a person's height makes the body un efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and televisiem broadcast stations have been in operntion for the past SO or more ycazs without any adverse healtfi consequence being established. While most radio ttxhnologiea have used analo;signals, modern wireless tdeeommurrieationa are using digital transmissiats. Detailexl rcwiews exmductexi so far have not revealed any hazard speciiie to ciifferatt RF modulations. Cancer: Mydis or aneidotal rcgxrrts of cancer clusters around mobile photte base stations have hesightened public concern. It should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Given the widespread presence of base stations in the crtviromnexet, it is expexted that possibly caner clusters will occur neat base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in thcve clusters arc often a collection of r1iPlbr'ent types of cancer with no common e~raracteristics aru! hater unlikely to have a common cause. Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancel in the population can by obtained through carefully planned acrd executed ~~pidemiolctgical studies. Over thy past ! 5 years, studies examining a potential relaHnnship betweeq RF transmitters and cancer have been published. These studies have not providexlevideatce that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the risk of cancer. Likewise. Icing-term animal studies have not established an increased risk of cancer fYom exposure to RF fields, even at levels that erns much higher than produced by base: staticura and wireless networks. Usher effects: Few studiew have investigated general health effects in individuals eecposed to RF fields tmm hose stations. This is because of the dit~iculty in distatguishing passible health effects tiom the very low sigrxrls t:mitttxi by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in the enviromne:rrt. Moat studies have focused on the RF expnsurFS ofmabile phone users. Human and animal studies examining brain wavy patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF Feleis, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adversy effects, RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than those associated with general public exposure tmm base stations or wireless networks. No consistent evideatce of altered slcep or carclinvascular thnction has boert reported. http://www.who.int/mediacentrelfuctsheets/fs30Men/print.html l0/29/201O WHO ~ Electromagnetic fields and public health Page 2 of 3 Some individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted tram base stations and other EMF devicr~. As recognized in a recent WHU fact sheet "Eleetramagnetie Hypersensitivity", EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these symptoms. Erom all evidettc;e accumulated so tar, no adverse short- or tang-term health effects have httitt shown to cx:cur from the RF signals puxiuced by lxise stations. Since wireless ne.•twiuks produtx generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exlws-ttre to them. Protection standards International exposure guidelines have preen developed to provide pro[ee;tion against established eti'ects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 1998} and the Institute of ElecKrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE, 2005). National authorities should adapt intematinnal standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas why-r•e e:xposuro limits may be excexxied. Public perception of risk Same people perceive risks fram RF exposure as likely and even possbbh+ severe. S+.wcxal rczrsons for public &xu include media announcements of new and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a Peeling of uncertainty and a perception that there may be unknown ~ undiscovered hazards. Other factors arc aesthetic concerns and a feeling of a last of rotrtrol or input to the process of determining the location of new base stations. Expericnt:e shows that education programmes as well as effective communications and involvement of the public and other stakeholders at appropriate stages of the derision process before installing RF sources u~tn enhance public confidence and acceptability. Conclusions Considering the very tow exposure IeveLg and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects. WHO Initiatives WHO, through the International EMF Project, has established a programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature, to evaluate the health effects born acposuns to EMF in the range from U to 3W GHz; to provide advice about possible EMF ha~tds and to identify suiW6le mitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the International EMF Project has pmmoted research to fill gaps in knowledge. In response national governments and research institutes have funded over $Z50 million on EMF research over the past l0 years. While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from base stations and wireless networks, research is still being promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences ftom the higher RF exposures from mobile photte>s. The Internatiaral Agency far Research on Cancor (1ARC}, a WHO specialized agency, is expected to wndnct a review of car-cer risk fram RF fields in 2006-2(107 and the International EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2tNHi. Further Reading ICNiRi' (199A) www.iunim.ure/dcx;tuner~s/em-~dl,rxlt_' IEEE (2006) IEEE C95.1-2t)<i5 "IEEE Standard far Safety [.evels with Respect to Htunan Exposuro to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 3txl GHz" Related .links - ti•~re stations ~ wireless networks: Eztxtsures & health conseuuences - F:x-t shc•et• Elcxtromag~dic fields and nublic health• Etrx:tramag •tnc, is Hyoet~nsitivity - WHO handbook un "Establishinrt a DialoQUe ctn Risks fiam Electroma$n~ic Fields" For more information contact:. WHO Media r~ntre Telepttone: +'i t 22 79 t 2222 E-mail: mediainyuiries~i whu.int http://www.who.int/mediuentre/factsheets/fs304/en/print.html 10l29/2U 10 11/2/2010 WHO ~ Electrornagneac fields and publ... ~~'(~~ ~~ Worid.Health `'~, ~~ u~Organizatian -~- Fact sheet iV° 19:3 stay ZOIO Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones Key facts • Mobile phone use is ubiquitous with an estimated 4.fi billion subscriptans globally. • To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone. use. • Studies are ongoing to assess potential bng-term effects of mobile phone use. • There is an increased risk of road traffto injuries when drivers use mobile phones (eithQ handheld or "hands- free") while driving. Mobile or cellular phones arc now an integral part of modern telxammunications. In many countries, over half the population use mobile phones and the market is growing rapidly. At the end of 2009, theta were an estimated 4.6 billion subscriptions globally. In some parts of the world, mobile phones are the most reliable err the only phones available. Given the large number of mobile phone users, it is important to investigate, understand and monkor any potential public hcakh impact. Mobilo phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a network of Fixed antennas called base stations. Radiofrequeney waves are eketromagnetic fields, and unl~7ca ionizatg radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays, cannot break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body. Expostu~e levels Mobile phones are low-powered radiofrequency transmitters, operating at frequencies between 450 and 2700 ~ with peak powers in the range of 0.1 to 2 watts. The handset only transmits power when it is turned on. The power (and hence the radiofrequency exposuro to a user) falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30-x0 em away from their body -for example when text messaging, accessing the Interact, or using a '`hands free" device-will therefore have a much owes exposure to radiofrequency fields than someone holding the handset against their head In addition to using "hands-free" device, which keep mobile phones away from the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also reduced by limiting the number and length of calk. Using the phone in areas of good reception also decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power. Theuse of commercial devices for reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not been shown to be effective. Mobile phones are oRen prohibited in hospitals and on aFplanea, as the radiofrequency signals may interfere with certain electro-medical devices and navigation systems. :ire there stay health effects? A large number of studies have been performed aver the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse heahh effects have been established for mobile phone use. Short tetTit effects Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skm and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible tempcraturo rise in the brain or any other organs of the body. who.int/mediacentre/.../printhtrnl 1!3 11/2/2010 WHO (Electromagnetic fields and pubs... A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequeney fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive funetian, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relatmnship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self reported symptoms, or "electromagnetic hypersensitivity". Tn contrast, research has clearly shown an increased ruk of read tratFic injuries when drivers use mobile phones (either handheld or "hands-free") while driving. [n several countries, motorists aze prohibited or strongly discouraged from using mobile phones while driving. Long-term effects Epidemiological research examining potential fang-term risks from radiotrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers arc not detectable unttl many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones wrxe not widely used until the early I990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for bng-term exposure to radiofrequency t fields. Several large multinational epidemioogical studies have been completed or are ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of heath endpoints in adults. To date, results of epidemioogical studies provide no consistent evidence of a causal relationship between radiofrequaney exposure and any adverse health effect. Yet, these studies have too many limitations to completely ruk out an association. A retrospective. case-control study on adults, INTERPHONE, coordQtated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARG), was designed to ddermine whether there arc lurks between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults. The international pooled analysis of data gathered ftom 13 participating countries found no increased risk of giioma or menatgioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. 'There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported tho highest 10°/a of cumulative hours of cell phone uses ahhough these was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. Researchers concluded. that biases and errors limit rho strength of these conclusions sad prevent a causal interpretation. Wht7e an increased risk of brain tumors is not established from INTERPHONE data, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobib phone use over limo periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone. use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mabik phone use. among younger people; and therefore a potentially Longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studios investigating potential health effects in chitdt~ert and adolescents are underway. Ealwsttre liatit guidelines Radiofrequency exposure limits for mobile phone users are given in terms of Specific Alssorptinn Ratc (SAR} -the rate of radiofrequency ena~gy absorption per unit mass of the body.. Currently, two international bodies t Z have devek>ped exposure guidelines for workers and for the general public, except patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment. These guidetirtes are based on a detailed assessment of the available scientific evidences WHO`S response Tn response to public and governmental concern, WHO established the International Electromagnetk Fields (EMF) Project is 1996 to assess the scientific evidertce of possible adverse health effects. from.elxtromagnctic ftekis. WFIA will conduct a formal health risk assessment of radiofrequency fields exposure by 2012. Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to review the carcinogenic potential of mobile phones in 2011. WHO also identities and promotes research priorities for radiofrequency fields and heath to ftU gaps in knowledge. through its Research Agendas. WHO develops public information materials and promotes dialogue among scientists, governments, industry and the publk to raise the level of understanding about potential adverse health risky of mobile phones. who.int/mediacentre/.../print.html Z/3 11/2/2010 WHO (Electromagnetic fields and publ... i International Commission on Noa-Ionizing Radiation Protection - ICNIRP. Statement on the "Guidelines for limiting exposuro to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagetic fields (up to 300 GHz)", 2009. ~ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE Std C95.1 - 2005. IEEEstmrdard far safety levels with respect to hunrun exposure to ruJio,/'iaegtrency etecUY~magnetie j'letcLs, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Eor more information contact: WHO Media centre Telephone: +41 ?~ 791 22~ E-mail: me~liainauiries(wwho.int C-ontacts ~~-mail scams ~ Emolovment ~ FAOs ~ Feedbac ~ f'rivacv ~ RSS feeds ~_, WHO 2010 who.int/mediacentrei.../print.html 3/3 International Agency for Research on Cancer ~ World Health ~,,~v Organization PRESS RELEASE N° 208 31 May 2011 IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 -- The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinosenic to humans (Group 261. based on an increased risk for lig~ a malignant type of brain cancers, associated with wireless phone use. Background Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices. The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at 5 billion globally. From May 24-31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries has been meetins at IARC in Lvon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. These assessments will be published as Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs, which will be the fifth volume in this series to focus on physical agents, after Volume 55 (Solar Radiation), Volume 75 and Volume 78 on ionizing radiation (X-rays, gamma-rays, neutrons, radio-nuclides), and Volume 80 on non-ionizing radiation (extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields). The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long-term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children. The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: - occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves; - environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication; and - personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones. International experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the studies of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data. ' 237 913 new cases of brain cancers (all types combined) occurred around the world in 2008 (gliomas represent 2/3 of these). Source: Globocan 2008 Page 2 IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS Results The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limitedz among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate3 to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10-year period). Conclusions Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk." "Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long- term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting. " The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete list will be published in the Monograph. It is noteworthy to mention that several recent in-press scientific articles4 resulting from the Interphone study were made available to the working group shortly before it was due to convene, reflecting their acceptance for publication at that time, and were included in the evaluation. A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncoloev in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online. z 'Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': Apositive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. 3 'Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity': The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available. ° a. 'Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case- control study' (the Interphone Study Group, in Cancer Epidemiology, in press) b. 'Estimation of RF energy absorbed in the brain from mobile phones in the Interphone study' (Cardis et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press) c. 'Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones -results from five Interphone countries' (Cardis et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press) d. 'Location of Gliomas in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: ACase-Case and Case-Specular Analysis' (American Journal of Epidemiology, May 24, 2011. (Epub ahead of print]. IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX O8, France -Tel: +33 (0~ 72 73 84 85 -Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75 © IARC 2011 -All Rights Reserved. Page 3 IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS For more information, please contact Dr Kurt Straif, IARC Monographs Section, at +33 472 738 511, or straif@iarc.fr; Dr Robert Baan, IARC Monographs Section, at +33 472 738 659, or baan@iarc.fr; or Nicolas Gaudin, IARC Communications Group, at com@iarc.fr (+33 472 738 478) Link to the audio file posted shortly after the briefing: http://terrance.who.int/mediacentre/audio/press briefings/ About IARC The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization. Its mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. The Agency is involved in both epidemiological and laboratory research and disseminates scientific information through publications, meetings, courses, and fellowships. If you wish your name to be removed from our press release e-mailing list, please write to com@iarc.fr. Nicolas Gaudin, Ph.D. Head, IARC Communications International Agency for Research on Cancer World Health Organization 150, cours Albert-Thomas 69008 Lyon France Email com@iarc.fr http://www.iarc.fr/ IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX O8, France -Tel: +33 (0~ 72 73 84 85 -Fax: +33 (O~i 72 73 85 75 © IARC 2011 -All Rights Reserved. Page 4 IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS ABOUT THE IARC MONOGRAPHS What are the IARC Monoeraphs? The IARC Monographs identify environmental factors that can increase the risk of human cancer. These include chemicals, complex mixtures, occupational exposures, physical and biological agents, and lifestyle factors. National health agencies use this information as scientific support for their actions to prevent exposure to potential carcinogens. Interdisciplinary working groups of expert scientists review the published studies and evaluate the weight of the evidence that an agent can increase the risk of cancer. The principles, procedures, and scientific criteria that guide the evaluations are described in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs. Since 1971, more than 900 agents have been evaluated, of which approximately 400 have been identified as carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic to humans. Definitions Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity. Group 2. This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 26 (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data. The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic. Group 2A: The anent is probably carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. An agent may be assigned to this category if it clearly belongs, based on mechanistic considerations, to a class of agents for which one or more members have been classified in Group 1 or Group 2A. IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDER 08, France -Tel: +33 (O)4 72 73 84 85 -Fax: +33 (O)4 72 73 85 75 © IARC 2011 -All Rights Reserved. Page 5 IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS Groua 26: The agent is vossib/v carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data. Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinopenicity to humans. This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals. Exceptionally, agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans. Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category. An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non-carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations. Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group. Definitions of evidence, as used in IARC Monographs for studies in humans The evidence relevant to carcinogenicity from studies in humans is classified into one of the following categories: Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity: The Working Group considers that a causal relationship has been established between exposure to the agent and human cancer. That is, a positive relationship has been observed between the exposure and cancer in studies in which chance, bias and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence. A statement that there is sufficient evidence is followed by a separate sentence that identifies the target organ(s) or tissue(s) where an increased risk of cancer was observed in humans. Identification of a specific target organ or tissue does not preclude the possibility that the agent may cause cancer at other sites. IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDER O8, France -Tel: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 -Fax: +33 (O~l 72 73 85 75 © IARC 2011 -All Rights Reserved. Page 6 IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available. Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full range of levels of exposure that humans are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and any studied cancer at any observed level of exposure. The results from these studies alone or combined should have narrow confidence intervals with an upper limit close to the null value (e.g. a relative risk of 1.0~. Bias and confounding should be ruled out with reasonable confidence, and the studies should have an adequate length of follow-up. A conclusion of evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity is inevitably limited to the cancer sites, conditions and levels of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition, the possibility of a very small risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded. In some instances, the above categories may be used to classify the degree of evidence related to carcinogenicity in specific organs or tissues. IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX O8, France -Tel: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 -Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75 O IARC 2011 -All Rights Reserved. H d O W W a 3 W w z W V a w z w O v W z E-+ ~ ~ ~ - o ° ~ Q Q U w O W C7 ~ W a o ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -d ~ ~, ~ 3 .r at +.+ ~° 3 ~ 3 .3 ° ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ao ~ ~ ~ 0 3 ~ $ ~ ~ on ~ ~ ~ o .r o ~ ~ ~ oo ~ o o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ •~ a~ ~ v b Cq o ~ `o ~ ~ r r ~ ~ o O 00 ~ F ~ ~ ; ~ ~ -' ( is^ 1 ' g ~ Q ~ N U [~ N O~ ~ F ;, w ~ ~ t) ,~ O~ N ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ . ~; 3 w c ~ a 0 ~a 7 QT Unit ~, C ~ « L O~ y V d o v 'v y° w q n' ~ o ~ .7 y ~i q ~ a ° ~ ,~ ~ ~ y r7 C ° 3 ~ `' ~ °' to ° Q `. C ~ w +~ o o° - `~ ° °' e L. ~ C Syr q ~p t7D ~ et O C ~ ~ O. ~ ~ 3 '~ ~ ~" .s C V V t y pp O a O -• ~ F V a 'C ~~ ~ O ,~„ C o~ C•co3Q~~ ~g.a;~ `~ ~ U i w ~ _ ~ s ~ ~ - o ~ H 3 H sec ° o; ~ i ~ °' e J q u `' ~ ~ ° " ~ q > 4. ~"" ~"' y N L C 3 L i. ° V t i •VJ V ~ .r ~ ' .d a U ~~ ; ~ U ~ ~ O O C ,~ ~ O Z W y y u b ~ u C q y i ~, G ; v y adi u , ~ ro y G °' `n ~ o °' U y ~ / O , ~ j +~ c S c u ] ~ W d y °' ~ m a0 ~ j ~ O O ,p ~ 4 G• 4 >a 'y O V] O b ~+ Y. ~ p C q V `o„ d O o ~ ~ ~ C ~ rr d ° .y ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ C G a0+ a+ d ~ O v O C ~ A ~ O V d C C ~ y ~ ar . ti. D a i# ~ V C ~ y U U v ~ ca E'" Q u s CA > N C O aC0 W W OG .d 'A'' O v 3 iq L at eC w w ~ w O V O O W . ' ~ 3 ay+ ~ "~~ y y C U y L y n C ~ C p O C ,~ aS ,~ >, C O aLi a0i 4 v ,t d a0i ad C t0 b0 y W ed d0o ~C ~ O ~ ~ S C ai 'y ~ y y ~ +U+ v O y O ~ ,c ~ C 'p L G~ w • y y , vi .b ' 4, ~ V V O ~ d ~ ~ U C U G •~ 'b 'fl O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y y ~ 7 W V U i ~ y .y C m d d O V ~i > .+ 4 t. 3 d V 4 a0 C d . ~ a+ 'O ~ ~.. ad V ~ d ~ w 'O 6r O ~ y ~ ~ ~ O C ~ O O O O 3 ~ b0 O d ~ vi L O ~ O W J7 3 V " d •y 7! N ~ ~ C O U 00 E L ^C t. a~ r p V 'O y 'O ~ L 6i y L O ~ O O 0 3 ~ ~ W C O 00 y, i. J7 O •C > > 5 .y . L 7 y 17 L Vl ~ C ~ O ;~ a + y H d w O ~y U tl ~ 4 O' O O w ' i ; ~ ~ y . . • ~ ~ ~ ^ t7 a ++ ` > U O C , pp >> C~ p p L O ~ ~ v yi b0 O • W~ O O C ~ ~ a+ w .C l.~ ~' W a~ s i d C y a0 O ~ .. o u h o o. .~ ~ y O ~, ,. ~ o °' '~' ~ «' ~ u • L m o ~' ~' , oo ,°', as E 1 V~ VJ Gi a Q, v y ~ O =i N d v ~ Z ro U 'a .p C a0 .-r ~ .~ m 0 ~ ~. v Ca ~ C L: a0 4 w p .° + d O > d ~ ~ ' .n . [ ~ y 0 O d 7 y > O` 4J O w " ° 0 Q ~ y O d ~ 0 O . rn ~ ri r+ W H y ~ C . 6 7 ~ G y y F a .. 4 a+ 3 a + >' y ~ z p - y L ~ ~ U O ~" ' 'fl a9 C V A ~ ~ O u Q ~•, o C C ~ ,~ a u >, ~ w ~ a ~v' ~ d i' ~ w a~i C c. 3 y a~+ `7 ~! C J i ~ ~.+ ~ ~ ~ y • 7 O O W N ~ .~i ~-+ O O ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ p p R 4 u ~~. C G ~ +' y w- •t~ O . . Qw p~ L O ~' y ~• ,b d U ~ ~ d at ~ ~ n ~ ~ E i' C aC d d a~ a ~ ~ y0 a+ ~. • O U ~• °e O Y -_ V~ a u ~« °' O d d s : .y7 .+ a '~ O y ~ 4 ~ a p 4 a0 a ao p ~ _ p °' ~ d `° ~ ; W g L d 3 ~s ; g ,~ ~ ~ ~0 4 ~ .~ ~ L ~ _ ~ ~ d ~ o ~ ~ y ~ s ~ ~ e ~ a ~ ;, y ~ ~ a ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~~ c ~ ~ o s o ~' u o >' O °~ E ' i w ~ V `" i •S ~ , „ C .o a o °° '~ f'^ ' ~e K d J7 'O '~ 3 as ~"' V O ..' i 1~' ~ ~ 1 O 0 r v' V g C v' ra . Ti F ~ U s7 ~ . iC W ~ O L CJ C L v i • v. A L y C ~ 4 s . 4 rn ' O w G. O H u '~ C ~ 'C a C d L d C ~ 6 O ~' L 7 O 7 ~ ~ O O L. ^ ~ ~ w w O ~' ~ a> t .d 4 O 'a d y „ 7 at u W ~ .c a0°a ~ .o o d ~ ~ w ~ H ~ a :: 1a `' ? ~ as d " ~ `' c ~, •~ on u y '~ °° C ~ V "~, a+ >. y O _ 6i 'C O C O > > 4 V w y "~' ~. 3 O w y ~ u 7U dD C = rn ~ G7 vl `~ y ~ a~ . d C C d ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ •p 00 h ~ ~O a ~ 4 y rn ;r p, " ~ y I r ~ it •~ ~ ~ r •u0 . V ++ W y V d a d i ~ y y y O .~Vi ~ ~ ~ C ~ r V L ~ O y ~ O d a ' iL ... ~ ~ GTi ~ y ~ d L O ~ ~ d y a~ ° ~ L v' a~ 'C CO ~ > U U ; p > ~ L. ~+ a+ ~ ~ a w O 00 3 C7 5 n •3 '$ a ° F~ n ° ' o ~ d ~ o „ „ ° a o ~ ~ ~ a ,~ ~ ; 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ U OC U . , a L ATTACHMENT E GRANT DEED - Fp18T Al1EftlCAN TITtE W9. CQ R~oAoE u~ o~ont r~a0gp4 Of CouNrir, 0A{!~plfq RBCORDINQ RRQUSSTSD gY, ANA fiHBN RBiARDBD NAIL T0: r9~ ~ ~, 2~~.9 City of Tustin x00 CeMetmial Ysy e. et. Q•`~+onet~p Tuscan, CA 92680 Attn: Alreator a! The Undoreigned daalerea that this Casaunity Developaaat document ie reeerded at the requoae of and for the benefit of the City of Yt~tin cad thereforo is exenpe from tho payment o! the recording tea pursuant to Qovertuoont Cods ;6103 and ~+~ tram the payment of the Doautaeutnry • Transfer Tax pursuant to levenue and Taxation Code ;119Y2. +9 (Above Space for Reaordes's Uw 7 THA I1tVIlf6 COMPAHII. a Michigan aasporaeion (•Orantor•) hereby gtenes to tho City of itietin, s sunicipel aorporatio:t ("6sentea•), for public aotemq-ity "'' park purposes, the following real property in the City of Tustin, Comtty of Orange, Calitorsia: Lo: Z2 of Tract !b. 11627, a• recorded on , 1989, in Book 644 ,Pages 1 through 40 inelaaive, of Nlsaellaneoue !(aye in the Office of Che Canty Rsaordet of said County (five •Property'). ';hie aotn+eysncs is uada puxauant to the provisions of California Cowrnnent Code ;66477, AND R88T4<IIING unto GRANYOR, 1u auaceaaora sad aesigres, together with tM right to great and transfer all or s portion of the same, the lollowing: A. Any sad all oil, oil rights, minerals. mineral rights, natWral gee rights and other hydrocarbons by whetaoever Woos known. geothermal etaer and all products derived fto~ at~yr of the foregoing, that may b• within or under the Property, together rith the perpetual right of drilling, mining, exploring and operatit~ therefor and storing in and removing the Brow iron the Property or amy other lewd, including rho right to whipstock or direetieaally drill std sdne from lands other than t!w Property. oil er gas we1L, tunnels and rbafta into, ebsotegh or aczoss the subsurface of the Property and to bottan such wbipstocked or directionally drilled wells, turotsls sad shafts under and beneath ox beyond the exterior llaits elureef, and to redrill, retmnel, equip, maintain. repair, deepen and operate arty such walls or s-lnea; but catboat, however, the right to drill, Dina, afore, explores or operate through the surface or the upper S00 feat of tM aubsurfaas of tM Property. g. Any end all rater, weer rights or inter~ats tbrrein appurtenant or relating to the Property os owned or used by tirantor in aonneotion with or with respect to the Property (ta matter bow enquired by Grantor), whether woh warner sights shall bs riparian, overlying, appropsiatiw, littoral, percolating, prescriptive, ad)udicated, statutory or eontraatusl, together with the right and power to .:ecplore, drill, radsill sad reteove the same from or in the Property. is store the caeca beneath the sustaoe of the Property std to divert oz otharwlre utilise such water. rights or 1Mesests ea nay other property owned oz loaned by Grantor; hue without, horever, any right to enter upon er use the surface of tits Property in the exercise of such rights. C, ton-axalusive easements in gross on. aver, under or across the Property within 10 feet fzea ail property linen bordering oa and parellrl to ~ public atreot for ttw conatruation, icstallatian, eapLeaeieont, operation and aaintemace of alectsic and/or wtes facilities, without untaasonably interfering with Grantee's reuonable use std enjoyment of the hoperty; and (11) a non-exelnsiw easetwtt oa, over. uttdes attd seroas fire westerly portion o! the Property >!or the oonetsaction, itutalLtien, operation a~ naintensnos et aeorm drain facilities xeLted to the Peters Canyon fatarding Lain. without atnessonably interfering with Grantee's reuonsble use aM onjoytient of the Psoporty. Twtia - Costsimity lark J ~= teet.atfaeles ~-~ST52 TN8 GilANTS Ate g8S8AYATIONB HBRBINABdNg drecribrd shall ba aub~ect to: 1. General end epealal noel property foxes and aupplemestol ssaaesmeato, !t any, toe the ousrent tiecal year; provldad, havevar. that Grmter :hall pay for (a) cagy suoh eosaa and assaae0enta applicable to the Property prior to the date of reeordaeioe of this deed, and (b) any asareseauate. special to:os or oeMr payants arising iren bonds, oontraata or lions craarad by, ehrough or as a result of the ettorta or eativitias of Greneor; 2. All aevetlallta, Coedlti4ria, rnatriotione, receraationa, rights, rights of way, eseasants anfl other eattan of reaorl or apparent ether than monetary liens; end ' 3. The soquisooeat that oxcept ae psovidad herein, Grande accepts tla Ptaporty •A! IS• in the aondicioa +hat the Psepesty exists ae of tho date at Gsanter•e aaaopeanca theroef. Crontor seproaenes sod warraets tbat, to the best of Grantor•a knoelsdgr as at the date of 6rantaa•o nceeptsnce of the ProparCy, the Property is !a ooaplirrta. with ell State and Federal hesareou. waste law. Grantor agrees that it shall comply with all of Grantaa•s Coaditious of Approval for Trans 17627 ae they relate to the lroperty, inoludigg pesfsseiag aeq+ semediation sequined to cause the property to comply with those eonditiena. Bsaept as provided above, Gsaator mskos no soprerrntatiopo or rarrantiea concerning t!u cenditim- of the Property. 4. The sequireaunt that, prior to the installation at the initial lapsovso-ents for ebs entire pack (tho 'Initial Park Improveoenta') open the Propoxty, Grantee shall provide Grantor rith copies of plans of the proposed Initial hrk Isprovenents. Granter say. within chitty (30) days alter its reneipt of snob plans. giw Creates eoa®oob on the plane, to ~hioh aootents Grantee agrees to give tearonabls ooneideration. Grantee shall not comfosnae comtruation of the Initial Park Ioprovemeate prior to clis espiratios o! the thirty (30) dry review period. chin sequiromene shall apply to the Iaitiel Park Improvements only and not to auy subsequent improvoe<eMS, reaonetrnatioe, repairs. sepiasameme, additions or changes. IN RITkRdi ~F, Czaator has osaouted thla Grant Qesd e. of the Y* day o! ~~~' 1St89. lUis grant Dood shall not bo ettactiw for asgr purpose unless and until the Aeceptaeco bslor is dolt rsreuted by Grantor, Tiig IRVIII/B~Ce~Oa~R a Niabigan`' /rpo a on M Ita• l s bye Yl Its: Granter, by its ruoaatioa of this Grant flaad, herby aaarpte tM dedlaation of the Property upon end subieat to the tares and provision stated above. CITY OP TQSTIII a ~~~~~t~. ~: Ia• L lam' I4MA~1~~ ~~ Its: feN•faIO~IM BTATB OY CAWFCIWIA ) )eo, CWN?Y OF C tANOB ) On .1989, before .the er d. a Notary Public its an d ats, psraoaslly appeared, and , paraoaally f~tovn to aia (or proved to 00 on tM is of fa enr ea ) to bo the pa cone dte cod a0 tllo ridtin inat as reepeatlwly, on shelf o e eorpozation there n Heated sad ackneNledga to oe chat the oorporatiea executed it. WI'[N889 ay hoed and official essi. Koury 1 e and f said State armcuc. ~w~ ClMiEVOtIf4G • aOTAAY ~4 • Gt110pN1A E11 ~ ~ ~ liil This is to certify that the intazaat in real property rotneyad by eho viehin Cram Dead from the Irvine Company, to tfte City of Tustin, is hereby accepted fry the underai8rtsd offioer or erawt oa babelf of the City e! Tvatia oa .and Craneae eoaaeata to rererdatlon eftereof by its duly authorised offioer. Dated: gy; ATf'~ST: V ~.J~..(~i.l.`• ' Clark STITft OP CALIFORNIA ) )ss. cnr a ofeA~cB ) Oa this _ 11th dey of August 1989, before ae, the undoreigraed a Notary Yublio is and for said State, psrtloaall~ appoarsd ~~~____,~,, and M1: ~ 1 aai Huston knora to or to ba tla xi11t olltt f the City o! Ynatia, the City that executed t6a rithia iwtrtasnt, and koomt Lo a to be the paroona vho aerated the vithiri luatrtmsat on befall of the city tMsaia nsaad, sad arknovlodped to eta that such city oxacutad the vitltin iaatrtaxtat poreuatet to a resolution of iea City Counri2 YI'IIi68! sty head and official aval. .,s.`,~m • QFF1CiAL SEAL ~~~ ~ ~~ x0e10."f rURIC • GU%ORM~A Notary Ptcbile !a and foe said Sute N,co„r~.pm ~ 2A wt . i .,:. .. felLiNfOrfM ATTACHMENT F CITY ATTORNEY COMMENT ~~ WOODRUFF, SPRADL[NbSMART A Y r a i• i. a n. i ~ o~ ~ o..[~ a n 155 AN fON I4DULE V.1RD, 5l!ITE 1200 COSTt MEtiA, CA ')262G-7670 17Lt)i9R-7000 MEMORANDUM TO: honorable Planning Commissioners City of Tustin PROM: City Attorney's Office DATE: April 19, ?011 RE: DR 09-033: Cedar Grove Park Deed Restriction "Chc 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 Proieet 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 Ueed and "Deed Restriction" "the 1989 Grant Deed from the Irvine Company conveyed the property that is now Cedar Grove Park to the City of Tustin '`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 anon-exclusive casement along the property lines for installation of electric and water utility facilities. A copy of the Grant Dced is attached for your reference. 762956,1 City of Tustin April 19, 2011 Page 2 C. Law Governing Cities' Use of Dedicated Park Property 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.) 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 primarypurpose 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 parka Courts have also looked to the extent to which the use will interfere 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 tlagpoles 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 casement along the property lines f'or installation of electric and water utility facilities, ~ See Cal. Gov't Code §37354 ("[A city] may hold and dispose of the property ...for such uses as arc prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest, or d~vise.") '' City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court (1964) 231 CaLApp.2d 295, 299-300. ' See e. g., Abbot Kinney Company v. City of Los Angeles (1964) 223 Cal.App.2d 668. ' See .Ahbot Kinney Company v. City of Los Angeles; Vale v. Sun Bernurdino (1930) l09 Cal. App. 102. s See e.g., Sluvieh v. Hamilton (1927) 201 Cal. 299, 309; Simons v. City of Los Angeles (1976) 63 Cal. App. 3rd 45~ (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). '62~)j6 I City of'Custin April 19, 2011 Page 3 it clearly contemplated that there might be structures and utility facilities constructed on the property in the future. 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 llescription of Cases Cited in February 9, 2010 E-Mail Ms. Wierks's February 9, 2011 e-mail references ntunerous Califomia 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 9`h email is included below. 1. Roberts v. City o1~Palo Verdes (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 545. [n 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." "Che 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 "Curtin does not contain similar detailed and restrictive language and, in tact, contemplates that structures of various kinds will be constructed on the property. 2. Griffith v. Department ofPublic Works (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 376. This case concerns the construction of a_ reetiv on property dedicated for public park purposes. 3. Spinks v. City of Los Angeles (1934) 220 Cal. 366 and City and County of Sun Francisco v. Linares (19401 16 Ca1.2d 441. Both of these cases address a city's right to divert park ~ It has also been asserted [hat 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. [7~e 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 terms of the deed itself, or Califomia 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 that this requirement dots 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 Vule v. San Bernardino (1930) 109 Cal, App. 102}. City of Tustin April 19, 2011 Page 4 property not subject to a deed restriction to another use, and are thus inapplicable to the instant situation. 4. ~ Sr~r Properties v. ,L1ott (1976 6~ 2 Ca1.A,pp.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 expressl,~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. ~. City of Hermosa L3each v. Superior Court (1964) 231 Ca1.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 explicitly preventing use of the property 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 upheld 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..~letropolitan Dade County (Fla App 1990) 563 So.2d 117. "Phis is a Florida case in which the court held that the use of a permanent tennis facility in a public park for a np 'vate 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 I i. EGGART ASSISTANT CITY A"1'TORNEY Attachment: 1989 Grant Deed ?62956.1 ~°~~ per uiu~~s.~- ~~ca°vh~, o ssco~lro a~lra~tgn at, aen 6iNBU sel~b lazL To: ~+~~,! AM flCT20'88 City of 11uRia goo Ceausdsl try ~~,ti. Q.~ Tustin, Cg 92iBY Attn: Direatee d The thdauipnd doolacea that ehia Caaaaadty OawLpaant doewaat is nestdad at ehs reproof of acrd fat tM benefit d tlM Cats e! Twtin sad therefen !a e:ampt fsm the 94ywt oL tiro naerding !as riZ tr ~ pgemt e[ a ~e~j transfer Ta: purwaat to Bawnsa sal Taxatlea Coda 111972. .~ .~ (a6evt Bpsw ter Raeoedat'a We t~t~ y~ ~.~~ ~y 7115 IOY1tiR OOIaMltY, a ••~'.•!..` OOrpetatiea (•Oraater•) 4a•o_7 leases u the Clts e! Tuatla, a a~miaiptl eerperation ('Ctantee•), fes pehlie eesa:niq "• peek paa~paeee, Che telloris~ Beal proparts In tlr City et Tuetlt, Counts d firaap, Califetala: Io: 77 0! tYaat Ne. 1~i17. u reaerMd of , 1919, 1n Bees: 6M pope 1 ehtq~gl m inelaaiw, e[ ltiecellaaewa !tape is tba Office K eha Ce~r Rseordat o! cold Cousry (tbe •froperty). this aoawsatae L wade punarat a efie pev+lsiena d Calltoenia Oowcasent Coda IgBat~. AIBD BBStevlsB vsu OAAAlDt, its aeeewera sal auiBea, toyethar rith the right to graft sad traaets all o: a portion of ohs tear, the fo1Le~las: 4. Any sad alt ell, oil rightr, miwraL, amoral rights, nswtsl Sae rlghts and other hydreeateeas 17' tiataeewr naaa lame:an, potMraal stew sad all prodreu dsriwd irw sat d the tsnsaias. Chet aq L viehia os wader the Ptepezts, tag~athrr rrlth the perpeeul rlSht d drillitg, ainlus. eaPleriag std opantias tbarelor sad «~orie~ !a sad r..o.ias the ease fraw ohs trap.:ep .s .ay other Lai, iaaludius the rigps co ahi}eteek er attestlmalls srlll rod tine l:o. Lade ocher flan du hrpesty. ell or aw calls. tmrL ad shs[u into, tMwg)t of efface t!M aBsucLoe d the sropesey ad u batten aaeb W~ipudrd n direatieaaily drlLLd rolls. euaoeL rod ehdsa wider wed betraffi et beyaad the macterlar llalb shared, end is sedrill, tsWtsel, eaaip, taintalt. repair. deepas wed opeuu atry auel calla or Sian: but trithoat, ha:evat, ebe risbt to drill, tine. store, eaPLrii or operate through the wrtaoa er flu eppez S00 feet of the aabauriaas et the lrepsres. ~ i. Any and all ware:, taut righte er inunau thenia appurtaaast or reLtia{ to ~~ ~ °lac~ ~ a~ ir~id O~raaioAOr with or dtti r.ap.ae a the ecoh tour rights shall 6e tipariw, owtlslas. rpprePrlatiw, litural, pescolatisg, prsaosiptlee. ad~adieaud, eeatutety er eeatsaetwl, tapdMr vlth the right and povsr to ..tplore, drill, redrill wed sAew tlr acs Lsor ee if- tie lreperty, a orate the eaau 6eteath the auriaoa d the I'teperty rod to divert or otharwlse utilita aeah water, tights sr ineare.u er say Other prapeaty aeoad or !cooed bf Crastes; bat witJret, hewnar. ens right u anur apoa os nee t!a oarfaoe d rate leopart7 in eM exeraiaa o! acah righu. C. lion-axaLuiw eeeoseab it puss ea, poet, cedar et astou the tropesq dthin 10 tees !Scat all preparty live borderins oa sad parallel u ~ pubila street Lot the aonetsuotion, Sueullstiot, e:epLeewne, operation sad aai~e e! aLetrio and/or roar faollitiea, wit)rus uaeeaaaneDls laearlarias riW Orantee'e reuoaabL uw sad eo,~osteat of the lnopesty; and (t!) • nos-aueeLsive aaeateat m, cwt. urdet ad accost fir waarly portiw of t9a sreparq rot the ooaatrvetiaw. itrulLtim, opesatiat asd tainunoaa e! story drain taoilitiu rsLted Co the latara Canyal B~etardias Dasia, vithatt eaeeuaeaDls intarf~rles rith Osaaeee'a raeearbL car and ao~eyaett d tae qty 1Uatla - Cowriity last J ,. suL.aUWaa 'sis CRAATg A!>p Aggaw-tsoMg it~IiMICiYg dseerlhN sksll ti• auh~eet :os 1. Cenaral sai apeolal reel prapesty trine ana a>tppleasagl aeaeeoasate. u any, Yes eha eeensit llaeel yeses presddsd. has-aaer. that aYssbs shall pay Gr (a) sap anah tasty sad uaaaaumta applleahlr a do lsapssty psies to the acts et teaetaecism ei this deal. and (1) asst esaeesaaaq, apeelal tsrea os other ps~rauer esleip liar •ossda, eastsaet:a er llama ezaatad yr, er u a zewlt of eha atierts a< aativltiee of Crststor; 2. All eevamesta, ooetltiesu, teata:iectesr. seeervatian, ruts. zigfies of •ay. eaeasnis ens ednr aattsn of raoeti or sppareat othes thae amsstary liens; sad 7. The reaultbaaet that asaspt d prerlaad Mrein, Csartae aoepte the txaperty •Ag IS• is the eoMitlON *.bat the lrepertp eselaq au el sise eats al Crutee•s eaeeptassee theread. Csaater sepreserta eet wrraets t3et, q tIN 0eae of Granter's lmaaisd~s u of the data of Otantee'• aoaeptanse of the Propasty, the lrepacty is !n eaa~plieaw sttk ell 9s;aq ed Yedssal hasasdeus er..q law. Gtastdnt agaeea riser !e atWl eesPly a!W ail el Oraabs•s Caadittens of Appsrowl tee lrsas 17427 u tbaY zelaq b ehe lreperty, leel+sdint ! asq saredlntias sagidrea to carp tin property b oesply olds close oealitiare. 7Staepc a. ptoKdN abew, Granbe rakM ne repcesentstiesss er wttaatlw cotimer+slrg tM eenditlea o! tin lrepesg. 0. the >;esielsaaosnt drat. prior q do ltntallatiew of the ialtsai iapi+ssaemta tar die atstire pads (die •Inlelal lark Iapserasassts•) Ws ehe Yrepasty, Granter akall preride Otaabr ritY aapip of plains of the prgesed Initial latti Sopsso~e. Crantns sry. vitisin CMirty (30) dsye alter lq seoeipt at sash plena. g!w Gsaabe ao®essste ar dsa prase, b a6ieh eararite Cranae egseN CO giw zeesssnlls aoasidetatler. CrastM aisell not eaaatr+satim e! r6e Initial lark Iaprerrarsaii prlst is rise esgirstler o! the ehirey (30) deY r+sviev parsed. Zhia resissirersae ahril apply b tM Irltlel lark tstpsooaseapRa Qtly sad net b aaq sssbsespssnt iap:oaaraate. reaoorttaeesea, repairs. repiaeasseota. additsoaa or ohangea, I/ VISBi/ iAliSYO-, Grrabr ha eaeeusad this Crest DeN r o[ the ~TM day of Fttbtx~s' 1!-E!. S!a grant Daad rAall, nt he alteetiw foz say purpose seises ad mseil the Aawplarw osier i. duly esseauted by Craaeee. rya Isrtrs a Mick an ~' -- Iie• gy. Ire: Cramtse, i7 its eseoatlea of tole Gsast Deed, hneby aoaapa the dedlutlan e! ehe pcopesty epos sad asbjeet b rise tens sad pserrfelona stated abo.o. clz7r ar xossni a ~~~-. 4~ Ib: _ i7Y HsIAViALl~L ~~ Iq: 9W..aafNiaa area a eelasaiun ~ )ea, ~Y or ~ ~ oe _. lm, be£sse tne,~w . ~css~r r~slie 4~ of q, psesaeslly used ~ `_ Cat ~~~~ !~e[ ) n~be~t~ sauq ~ ~~ ~~ -iel~ln a. casoeotiraly, 011 of sec1wcatiae theca nmrd tad acimsaladas to ss mat eM secpratiea o~casugd !t. YIlAiii 4 hmii aed of£iaial asal. Olt1CiA1. liAL eovw- wsueiaeati- • 0y e•a ei1e~1~ NII Aotury 1 asd ! told ltaa rhie is eo mccliy that the lateceat !n real Rs/nt7 eoewerad by two viehie Ccant Dead f:~es rho Icnlse Caepa+~, to tLe City e£ lbatln, is hataby aeaaited y tq ~odesYipad offiaee er pone a1 bshrlf K tha City e! illetir N Ond 6sattae ceaseata b YreecdetlM CSeeeeE er tee duly authorised etflaas. Dated: sy: arraar: Ut+~.K.( ~` lren a~ aullaars > )aa. cauttt~t a aierci ~ oa qW 11CA dyr of Auieit 1919. bafo:• aa, the uadarsiinad a lbtasy iublls !n and fos said ttaa, pecweellJ~ appeased .rte.. Ited N1:11e. Hmta _ __. liners to ne a ha tAs'e! eha City e! ibesis, el~a Ciq that axeeeted eha rithtp ldtsv_t, eed lmern a • a bs eha prssaoe the aeaaead the rlthle liresunat oa bshal£ et tM eiey tfaseis nasal, asd aolmovleipd to ar that auaA airy eusasW eats rltltis lmtsannt yosauant a a tweleties e£ !ta Ciq Carrell VlalEfi 4 hood ad offieial seal. _ / ~_ ~ _ • /1 _~._. ) ~ YILLl11d ALWN11fMAN Wetasy trblie !n asl fee aid itto \~/ yy~:~ A ~ ~ fa1L~NM/a- ATTACHMENT G TUSTIN CITY CODE 7260 ET AL & CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 01-95 Municode Page 1 of 2 Tustin, California, Cade of Urdinances » ARTICLE 7 -PUBLIC FACILIT#ES » CHAPTER 2 -STREETS AND HIGHWAYS » PART 6 - DESIGN REVIEW OF ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FAClLIT#ES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND #N THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY » 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/ABAND®NMENT 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. (Orti. Nr~. 12:12 Sec. 2, 12-3-0;71 7261 -LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRED No person shall place, construct, install, own, control, operate, manage, maintain, or use any aboveground utility facilities ', and their accessory equipment in, above, beneath, or across any public property, exclusive of the public right-of--way, without first obtaining a Lease Agreement or License in accordance with the Design Guidelines. Franchises and Right-of-Way Agreements for telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way are governed by State and Federal regulations and pertinent provisions of Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code. ;Ord. !Ves. 7262. Sec. 2. 12-3-t'7j 7262 -DESIGN REVIEW REQUIRED No person shall place, construct, install, own, control, operate, manage, maintain, or use any aboveground utility facilities ', and their accessory equipment without compliance with the Design Review requirements in Tustin City Code Section 9272 and with this Part 6. This requirement applies to existing and future franchisees and any other person who wishes to locate replacement or new aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment on public property and in the public right-of-way. Aboveground utility facilities located within Redevelopment Project areas shall be consistent with the respective redevelopment plans. No Design Review approvals or any permits can be issued unless the Redevelopment Agency can make a finding of conformity. Existing aboveground utility facilities and accessory equipment installed prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not be subject to this requirement. (Ord. Nv. 7232. Sec. ,'~. 72.3-t?1) 7263 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW....... http://library.municode. com/print. aspx?clientID=113 07&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2~/o2flibrary.munico... 06/30/2011 Municode 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. {C?rd. No. 1232; Sec. 2; 12-3-0111 7264 -DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS...... _ ___ Upon the application being found complete by the Director, or designee, the Director or designee shall review the plan (the "Plan") using the criteria set forth in the Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right-of-way adopted by resolution of the City Council. If the utility facilities are to be located within redevelopment areas, then a finding of conformity by the Redevelopment Agency would need to be made prior to the Director's consideration of the Design Review. The Director may conditionally approve or deny the application. Amendments to the Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director concurrent with or prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit, Lease Agreement or License, as provided for in the Design Guidelines, or Right-of--Way Agreement as defined in Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code. The aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment must be installed pursuant to the approved Plan. The noise generated from the aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, shall comply with the City's noise regulations. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec. 2, 12-3-{~1) 7265 -APPEALS... _ _ _ _ _ __ Any person may appeal any decision of the Director in accordance with Section 9294 of this Code. {Ord. No. 9232; Sec. 2; 92-3-0'?; Card. No. 136b, Sec, 76; 91-17-G9} 7266 -TERM/ABANDONMENT (a) An aboveground utility facility is considered abandoned if it no longer provides service. If the use of the facility is discontinued for any reason, the operator shall notify the City of Tustin in writing no later than thirty (30) days after the discontinuation of use. If no notification is provided to the City, the facility shall be deemed discontinued. (b) Aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, that are no longer being used shall be removed promptly no later than ninety (90) days after the discontinuation of use. Such removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements. All affected areas shall be restored to their original condition at the operator's expense. (c) The Design Review approval shall remain valid for the term of the Lease Agreement, License, Right-of-Way Agreement, or as long as the Encroachment Permit is valid. If the Lease Agreement, License, Right-of-Way Agreement, or ', Encroachment Permit is terminated, notice and evidence thereof shall be provided to the Director. Upon termination or expiration of the Lease Agreement, License, Right-of--Way Agreement, or Encroachment Permit, the aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, shall be removed from the public property or the public right-of--way. {'Ord. ~f~. 9232. Sec. 2. 12-3-{~11 http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientID=11307&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2f%2flibrary.munico... 06/3 0/2011 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 facil~i~ies on public properties such as parks, community facilities, or othet~City-owned properties. New comprehensive guidelines are needed to establish design criteria prior to installation of aboveground utility facilities on public properties or in the public right-of-way. D. That guidelines and development standards are needed to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and preserve and enhance the quality of the City relating to the orderly development of aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2001, and the Planning Resolution No. 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 19th day of November, 2001. ~2~ Tracy Wil Orley Mayor Pamela Stoker City Clerk Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right-of--way EXHIBIT A DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FACILITIES ON PUBLIC PROPERTIES AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of these guidelines is to implement Part 6 of Chapter 2 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code (Ordinance No. 1232) and regulate the placement and design of aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment in conjunction with any City- permitted use of public properties and public right-of-ways. These guidelines are intended to protect the health, safety, aesthetics, and welfare; and secure fair and reasonable compensation for permitting private use of public property. SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS For purposes of these guidelines, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings, unless the context of the sentence in which they are used indicates otherwise. "Aboveground Accessory Equipment" or "Accessory Equipment" means any aboveground equipment located in enclosures, cabinets, artificial rocks, boxes, or other structures to facilitate the operation of their associated utility facilities. "Aboveground Utility Facility" or "Utility Facilities" means any aboveground public or private plant, equipment, and property including, but not limited to, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, antennae, utility poles, street-l+eles; utility towers, or other structures and their supports, electronics, and other appurtenances used or to be used to transmit, receive, distribute, provide, or offer utility services. This does not include street light poles being used solely for providing illumination, but includes facilities #9r 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, orground-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. e. In addition to the information requested in the Development Application Form, the following items shall be required for an aboveground utility facility: 1. A statement providing the reason for the location, design, and height of the proposed aboveground utility facilities; 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; 4. A site plan showing the locations of all proposed and existing aboveground utility facilities; 5. A screening plan showing the specific placement of landscaping or any other proposed screening materials to be used to screen the aboveground utility facilities, including the proposed color(s); and, 6. A signed statement that the applicant agrees to allow for co- location of additional aboveground utility facilities on the same structures or within the same site location, or whether such co- loration is infeasible, and the reasons for such infeasibility. Comprehensive Manual for Aboveground Utility Facilities. 1. 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. 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. j. Undergrounding. The City reserves the right to require that all utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, be placed underground when technologically feasible. SECTION 6: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development standards, including height limits for any aboveground utility facility on public. property and in the public right-of-way, shall be determined pursuant to the Design Review process. SECTION 7: ABOVEGROUND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT Aboveground accessory equipment for aboveground utility facilities located inside cabinets, enclosures, artificial rocks, boxes, or other structures shall be subject to the following criteria: 7.1 Process a. Replacement Aboveground Accessory Equipment that are the Same Size as Existing Aboveground Accessory Equipment. Installation of replacement aboveground accessory equipment shall be approved in conjunction with issuance of an .Encroachment Permit, provided the replacement aboveground accessory equipment is the same size or smaller than the existing aboveground accessory equipment and the aboveground accessory equipment complies with the height requirements set forth in Section 7.3 herein. b. New Aboveground Accessory Equipment or Replacement Aboveground Accessory Equipment that are Larger than Existing Aboveground Accessory Equipment. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 7 Installation of new aboveground accessory equipment or replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than the existing aboveground accessory equipment may be approved in conjunction with issuance of a concurrent Encroachment Permit/Design Review application, provided that each the following requirements are met: No aboveground accessory equipment may be located adjacent to a front-yard area of a residentially zoned or used property. 2. The aboveground accessory equipment complies with the height requirements set forth in Section 7.3 herein. 3. The aboveground accessory equipment complies with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 4. No aboveground accessory equipment may be located in an area that obstructs line of sight at an intersection, driveway, or alley. 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)J require a Design Review prior to issuance of Encroachment Permits. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 8 e. System Upgrades System upgrades which require substantial installation of new and replacement aboveground accessory equipment shall require Design Review approval prior to issuance of Encroachment Permits when Design Review is required by these guidelines. A comprehensive Master Plan depicting the locations of all new and replacement aboveground accessory equipment shall be submitted concurrently with the Design Review application. 7.2. Development Guidelines Location, size, and screening of proposed aboveground accessory equipment will be considered by the Community Development Department in accordance with the following criteria: a. Location Whenever feasible, accessory equipment should be installed underground. If it is not technologically feasible to install accessory equipment underground, the utility provider shall submit a letter of explanation regarding the hardship associated with or infeasibility of underground installation. One letter may be included in the comprehensive manual described in Section 7.1(c) for all proposed accessory equipment within the manual. 2. When underground installation is not feasible, the following order of preference shall be considered for aboveground installation of accessory equipment of any size: a. Aboveground accessory equipment should be designed as stealth facility. b. Aboveground accessory equipment should be located adjacent to non-residential properties in an area where no modification to the existing right-of-way would be required and existing landscaping is present to screen the accessory equipment. c. Aboveground accessory equipment should be located adjacent to side or rear yards of residential properties, preferably on major streets where no modification to the existing right-of-way would be required and existing landscaping is present to screen the accessory equipment. d. Aboveground accessory equipment should be located as closely as possible to the shared property line between the Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 9 front yards of residential properties where no sight distance from driveways would be obstructed. 3. Consideration shall be given to the number of existing aboveground accessory equipment within a particular area and over- concentration of aboveground accessory equipment shall be avoided. Over-concentration is defined as more than one (1) aboveground accessory equipment installed adjacent to the same side of a property. If a sufficient distance separation is not technologically feasible: a. Aboveground accessory equipment shall be located as far as possible from existing aboveground accessory equipment; and, b. The accessory equipment owner/installer shall submit a letter of explanation regarding the hardship associated with or unfeasibility of installing the aboveground accessory equipment at a sufficient distance from existing aboveground accessory equipment. 4. Aboveground accessory equipment located in parkway areas should be located at the same distance from the curb as other aboveground accessory equipment along the parkway to create a uniform setback distance and appearance. 5. Aboveground accessory equipment shall not: a. Obstruct line of sight requirements at intersections or driveways; b. Obstruct or hinder opening of vehicle doors; c. Obstruct disabled access along public sidewalks to the extent that a minimum of four (4) feet clear sidewalk would not be maintained; d. Interfere with any existing or proposed improvement projects. 7.3 Height a. The height of any replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than existing or new aboveground accessory equipment to be located adjacent to the front, side, or rear yards of residentially zoned properties may not exceed the permitted height of fencing as determined at the property line in residentially zoned areas. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 10 b. The height of any replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than existing or new aboveground accessory equipment located in non-residential areas will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 7.4 Screening a. In residentially zoned areas, aboveground accessory equipment shall be enclosed or screened to match or complement surrounding features such as fencing, buildings, or landscaping. The use of a matching accessory equipment color or applied paint, texturing, or faux finishing, or other techniques shall be applied in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. b. The use of crash posts is discouraged. However,. if shown to be necessary, the exterior finish of the crash post should be painted the color of the aboveground accessory equipment. c. Access openings shall face away from street frontages whenever feasible. 7.5 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a. Noise emanating from aboveground accessory equipment shall not exceed the City's adopted Noise Ordinance standards. b. The accessory equipment owner/company shall file the accessory equipment identification number, company name, person responsible for maintenance of the accessory equipment, and the phone number with the Public Works Department. This information may be included in the comprehensive manual described in Section 7.1(c) of these guidelines. 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 f. 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. h. 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 CITY OF TUSTIN RESOLUTION NO. 01-95 SS 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, COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None l~~co~~ ~~~~-- Pamela Stoker, City Clerk Thomas, Bone, Doyle, Kawashima ATTACHMENT H RESOLUTION N0.4163 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 TWO (2) FLAGPOLES WITH A HEIGHT OF FORTY (40) FEET AND A THIRD FLAGPOLE WITH A 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: 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 two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a 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. That on January 6, 2011, that applicant held a public outreach meeting at the Tustin Public Library. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Wireless Master Plan. J. 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 K. 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. L. That the proposed facility will provide wireless coverage to an area that is currently deficient of wireless reception. M. 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. N. 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. O. 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. P. 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: Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 3 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 two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a 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 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. Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 4 Q. That the proposed wireless facility complies with the City Council Resolution No. 01-95 (Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment) in that: 1. Locafion -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; however, future technological advances may allow for co-location. 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. At the time of removal, restoration of the area and reinstallation of the original flagpoles would be required. 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. R. 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). Resolution No. 4163 DR 09-033 Page 5 fl. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 09-033 to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 26"' day of April, 2011. ~~ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) e i /y 'Y/ ^` ` ^ ~;~( n J ~' MPS N Chairperson I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4163 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26~h day of April, 2011. /may ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION N0.4163 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. At the time of removal, restoration of the area and reinstallation of the original flagpoles is required. Time extensions may be considered if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty (30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.4 Approval of Design Review 09-033 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning to the Community Development Department a notarized "Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form and the property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk-Recorder a notarized "Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of Approval" form. The forms shall be established by the Director of Community Development, and evidence of recordation shall be provided to the Community Development Department. (1) 1.5 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the issuance of an administrative citation pursuant to Section 1162(a) of the Tustin City Code. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW "''""` EXCEPTIONS Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.7 The Community Development Department may review Design Review 09- 033 annually or more often to ensure that the project is in compliance with the conditions of approval contained herein. The Community Development Director may initiate proceedings to amend or revoke Design Review 09-033 if the project does not comply with the conditions of approval. (1) 1.8 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.9 The frequencies used by the wireless facility shall not interfere with the Public Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS). (1) 1.10 The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported. To ensure continuity on all interference issues the name, telephone number, fax number, and a-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. Two (2) of the flagpoles are to be at a maximum height of forty (40) feet with the third flagpole of a maximum height of forty- three (43) feet per the approved plans. 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 aback-up set when necessary. Illumination for the flagpoles shall be installed by the applicant and shall include photocells subject to the review and approval of the Parks and Recreation Department and the Community Development Department. (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 seats 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 agood-faith determination of each such requesting carrier's compatibility with the applicant at this location. If, in Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 4 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. (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 All facility equipment including the flagpoles and any 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 above round accesso a ui merit shall () g ry g p 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. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 5 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. 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 Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 6 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." FEES (1) 7.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall be made of all applicable fees, including but not limited to, the following. Payments shall be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and are subject to change. a. All applicable Building and Planning plan check and permit fees and Orange County Fire Authority fees shall be paid to the Community Development Department. b. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, a CASHIER'S CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to enable the City to file the appropriate environmental documentation for the project. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the statute of limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental determination under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act could be significantly lengthened. ATTACHMENT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 11-47 RESOLUTION NO. 11-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF TWO (2) FLAGPOLES WITH A HEIGHT OF FORTY (40) FEET AND A THIRD FLAGPOLE WITH A 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 City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve 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 two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a 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. G. That on January 6, 2011, that applicant held a public outreach meeting at the Tustin Public Library. City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 2 H. That a public meeting was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on April 26, 2011 before the Planning Commission. That on April 26, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4163, approving Design Review 09-033. J. That on May 6, 2011, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design Review 09-033 was filed by the City's Mayor Pro Tem. K. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said appeal on July 19, 2011, by the City Council. L. The proposed project is consistent with the City's Wireless Master Plan. M. 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 N. 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. O. That the proposed facility will provide wireless coverage to an area that is currently deficient of wireless reception. P. 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. Q. 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. R. 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. City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 3 S. 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 City Council 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 two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a 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 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. City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 4 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. T. 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: 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; however, future technological advances may allow for co-location. 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. At the time of removal, restoration of the area and reinstallation of the original flagpoles would be required. 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. City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 5 U. 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 City Council hereby approves Design Review 09-033 to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of two (2) flagpoles with a height of forty (40) feet and a third flagpole with a 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of July, 2011. JERRY AMANTE MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-47 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 19th day of July, 2011 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 11-47 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 July 19, 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. At the time of removal, restoration of the area and reinstallation of the original flagpoles is required. 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 City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.7 The Community Development Department may review Design Review 09- 033 annually or more often to ensure that the project is in compliance with the conditions of approval contained herein. The Community Development Director may initiate proceedings to amend or revoke Design Review 09-033 if the project does not comply with the conditions of approval. (1) 1.8 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.9 The frequencies used by the wireless facility shall not interfere with the Public Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS). (1) 1.10 The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported. To ensure continuity on all interference issues the name, telephone number, fax number, and a-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 City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Page 3 USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 2.1 The facility shall be limited to three (3) flagpoles with interior antennae and associated equipment. Two (2) of the flagpoles are to be at a maximum height of forty (40) feet with the third flagpole of a maximum height of forty- three (43) feet per the approved plans. 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 aback-up set when necessary. Illumination for the flagpoles shall be installed by the applicant and shall include photocells subject to the review and approval of the Parks and Recreation Department and the Community Development Department. (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 agood-faith determination of each such requesting carrier's compatibility with the applicant at this location. If, in Exhibit A City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Page 4 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. (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 All facility equipment including the flagpoles and any 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. Exhibit A City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Page 5 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. 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. Exhibit A City Council Resolution No. 11-47 Page 6 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." 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.