Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02 CONTINUED APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 09-033
Agenda Item 2 Reviewed: AGENDA REPORT City Manager Finance Direct;' irect N/A MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2011 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CONTINUED APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 PROPERTY OWNER: City Of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 SUMMARY: APPLICANT: T -Mobile West Corporation 2008 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 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; one (1) 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, an appeal of Design Review 09-033 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. On July 19, 2011, the Tustin City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of Design Review 09-033. The City Council requested additional information on the project and continued the appeal hearing to a date certain of October 18, 2011. 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; one (1) 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. Continued Appeal of DR 09-033 October 18, 2011 Page 2 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. ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 (Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BACKGROUND: At the July 19, 2011, appeal hearing of Design Review 09-033, the Tustin City Council continued the item and requested additional information on the project. The following is a list of the requested information and responses. Further background information may be found in Attachment I — City Council Staff Report dated July 19, 2011. Request: Provide alternative site analysis which evaluates the line of sight from the project area to the proposed OCFA location. Response: The sight lines from the proposed project location within Cedar Grove Park to the OCFA headquarters may be referenced in the photos contained within Attachment A. In general, there are obstructions consisting of two-story residential homes and trees between the two locations. The project site at the OCFA is approximately twenty (20) feet higher in elevation than the proposed project site within Cedar Grove Park. Request: Provide information and data related to the T -Mobile facilities at the Salvation Army site and along Tustin Ranch Road pertaining to their reach and penetration. Response: The coverage maps for the existing T -Mobile facilities at 10200 Pioneer Road (Salvation Army) and at 12380 Tustin Ranch Road are included as Attachment B. The data provided by T -Mobile shows that the "in Building" coverage of the Salvation Army site extends south to portions of the Presidio Tract of residences with "in Vehicle" coverage extending further south towards Cedar Grove Park. Coverage mapping for the facility located along Tustin Ranch Road shows "in Building" coverage extending northerly into portions of the Montecito Tract of residences with "In Vehicle" coverage extending northerly to Portola Parkway. Request: Provide status on the proposed AT&T acquisition of T -Mobile. Response: On August 31, 2011, the United States Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit to block AT&T Inc.'s proposed 39 billion dollar acquisition of T -Mobile USA Inc. The trial is scheduled to begin in February 2012. Continued Appeal of DR 09-033 October 18, 2011 Page 3 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would also need to determine that the transfer of spectrum licenses from T -Mobile to AT&T serves the public interest. As of the writing of this staff report, the FCC has not yet made a ruling on the matter. Request: Evaluate how the proposed facility would meet the needs of AT&T if a future merger was approved. Identify the location of existing AT&T sites in the vicinity of the project site. Response: The closest AT&T wireless facility within the City of Tustin to the proposed location of Cedar Grove Park is located in the Tustin Sports Park at 12850 Robinson Drive. As seen in T -Mobile's provided coverage maps, the wireless coverage at the Tustin Sports Park does not extend to the area surrounding Cedar Grove Park. Request: Evaluate the impact the tree growth in Cedar Grove Park will have on the proposed wireless facility. Response: Radio frequency is absorbed by obstacles which block signal. Trees are included as one of the primary outdoor obstacles to radio frequencies. The facility as proposed would be taller than existing trees within the immediate vicinity, however, the future growth of trees in the vicinity may pose as obstacles to the proposed wireless facility. Due to external factors, it is difficult to anticipate if and when the trees would block signal or to what extent they could potentially block signal. Most likely any study performed on the effect future tree height would have on the facility would be a prediction and/or estimation. Request: Provide City Attorney review of case law from Washington pertaining to wireless facilities. Response: The City Attorney's response is contained within Attachment C. Request: Identify how the proposed facility meets the criteria within the City's wireless master plan. Response: The City's Redevelopment Agency and ATS Communications have provided a response which is contained within Attachment D. Request: Evaluate the preference of co -locatable facilities over single carrier facilities. Response: "Co -location" is defined as the locating of more than one aboveground utility facility provider on a single structure -mounted, roof -mounted, or ground - mounted utility facility (City Council Resolution No. 01-95). Continued Appeal of DR 09-033 October 18, 2011 Page 4 City Council Resolution No. 01-95 established the City's development guidelines pertaining to aboveground utility facilities on public property and in the public right-of-way. The development guidelines state that aboveground utility facilities shall be co -located with existing aboveground utility facilities where possible. In designing aboveground utility facilities within the public right-of-way or publicly owned property, co -location is a preferred alternative. Co -location offers the ability of clustering utilities in order to avoid proliferation. Excessive amounts of visible utilities can create visual blight. In the particular case of the proposed project there is a choice between the aesthetics of the facility and the need for co -location. In order to provide for co -location at this time the flagpole designed facility would need to be much higher than currently proposed. By providing a higher pole design the facility may become out of context with the site and surroundings. All proposals for wireless facilities within the City are conditioned to evaluate co -location. However, it should be noted that of the approximate forty (40) existing wireless facilities within the City only (9) accommodate co -location. In the future it may be possible to co -locate on facilities as wireless technology advances. Request: Revisit the City's existing wireless master plan developed by ATS Communications. Response: The City's Redevelopment Agency and ATS Communications have provided a response which is contained within Attachment D. Request: Provide status of the proposed wireless facility at the Orange County Fire Authority from both OCFA and the City of Irvine. Identify which providers have pending leases at the proposed OCFA facility. Response: The proposed wireless facility to be located at the Orange County Fire Authority is in the entitlement application phase. No approvals have been granted by the City of Irvine. The current proposal involves a single mono -pole structure designed as a 67 foot tall Eucalyptus tree which can accommodate up to five carriers. Currently there are three (3) carriers proposed at the facility: Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and Sprint. The other two positions on the tower are at the bottom and have top antenna position heights of 40 feet and 32 feet, respectively. Further details of the proposed facility can be seen in the attached set of plans (Attachment E). Request: Provide a more recent study of the effect of wireless facilities on residential property values. Response: It is difficult to find unbiased studies related to the effect of wireless facilities on residential property values. There are studies and articles to support both accelerated as well as depreciated residential property values due to the installation of wireless facilities. The majority of studies Continued Appeal of DR 09-033 October 18, 2011 Page 5 and/or articles are not empirically based, but rather anecdotal accounts of particular situations. Furthermore, there is not an established board or organization responsible for conducting such studies. The context of many studies may also not be attributable to the particular project being discussed. There are a number of studies that analyze data within foreign countries, states other than California, as well as varying housing situations. Location and demographics may play a crucial role in determining any potential effect that wireless facilities may have on residential properties values. There may be different circumstances for single family properties than multiple family residential properties. Residents of rural properties may view wireless facilities differently than residents within urbanized areas. As in real estate, comparative analysis is heavily dependent on a localized level down to the street block. There is not an across the boards comparison between one value to another and valuation can be very subjective largely depending upon a potential buyer. This may explain why there are many opinions related to any potential rise or drop in real estate value due to the location of wireless infrastructure. The Orange County Division of the League of California Cities has published a pamphlet entitled "Challenges and Solutions to Managing Quality Cell Service: A Guide for City Officials and their Resident." This may be the most localized information for Orange County pertaining to wireless facilities and potential affect on residential property values (Attachment F). Request: Provide the number of T -Mobile customers in Tustin Ranch within the vicinity of the project site. Response: Staff is not aware of the number of T -Mobile customers within the Tustin Ranch area. This question may be better addressed by the applicant. Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Project Sight Line Photos B. Coverage Maps C. City Attorney Comment D. RDA/ATS Response E. OCFA Project Site Plans F. OC League of California Cities Pamphlet G. Updated City Council Resolution No. 11-47 H. Public Comments received after the July 19, 2011 public hearing I. City Council Staff Report dated July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT A PROJECT SIGHT LINE PHOTOS I ATTACHMENT B COVERAGE MAPS s s Rs T IT C y E m - ? `r?, o O -a !z00 o coo ✓S Jap/J ! co j N t �N m a �.��a cl qtr 9/ E !M — 'offr `pfi. E O BAq r O p S ca 11 Sp so r 8 i CC �,. ., � ,,r.cm pj1 > ccoO 0 c r> m E rt a m d 3 d d l/ly Ue y0m 0 3 3 c v /r > 3m hem W 2 vo O `C9�^7i- O a� �a� Isumhom Or .52-X ao �o�m ® ��a }� stet A a > ® IDa ce' �JBo J �'C Gj �' c 'ca N' w. ca a c R. her ¢ E o, E ala U, � •- o c c �jg�oCL MM r m c y m 3 car 0. ,,^^,, J `Lk :c E d PooeAuon ®s�/ ® �\ o o °7 —Ir WOO\ m X08=� Cc 0 WbnBy3� T 4 g Q _-�a T� osy co`yrn fE ��®H W v c rn o r —�1 T2 > m p) p c c f0) � U T -C C d �O O _ > O O Rs T IT C y E m - ? `r?, o O -a !z00 o coo ✓S Jap/J ! co j N t �N m a �.��a cl qtr 9/ E !M — 'offr `pfi. E O BAq r O p S ca 11 Sp so r 8 i CC �,. ., � ,,r.cm pj1 > ccoO 0 c r> m E rt a m d 3 d d l/ly Ue y0m 0 3 3 c v /r > 3m hem W 2 vo O `C9�^7i- O a� �a� Isumhom Or .52-X ao �o�m ® ��a }� stet A a > ® IDa ce' �JBo J �'C Gj �' c 'ca N' w. ca a c R. her ¢ E o, E ala U, � •- o c c �jg�oCL MM r m c y m 3 car 0. ,,^^,, J `Lk :c E d PooeAuon ®s�/ ® �\ o o °7 —Ir WOO\ m X08=� Cc 0 WbnBy3� T 4 g Q _-�a T� osy co`yrn fE ��®H W ATTACHMENT C CITY ATTORNEY COMMENT RN tk�Q WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN &SMART A P, . ( . . I . . . I C . , P . , . , 555 ANTON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1200 COSTA MESA, CA 92626-7670 (714) 558-7000 DIRECT DIAL (714) 415-1083 DIRECT FAX: (714) 415-1183 E-MAIL dkendig@wss-lawcom VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL TO: City Council DATE: October 10, 2011 RE: Cedar Grove Park Application (DR 09-033) In connection with Council's evaluation of the Cedar Grove Park application (DR 09-033), Council requested that the City Attorney review of case law from Washington pertaining to wireless facilities. As background for the discussion of the 4nacortes (Washington) case discussed below, a brief summary of some key limitations imposed under the Federal Telecommunications Act ("TCA") is provided. The Federal Telecommunications Act In general, cities retain their normal authority to approve or deny applications for the establishment of wireless communication facilities based on most normal land use considerations. However, that authority is subject to three primary limitations under the Federal TCA: 1. The City May not Consider Health Impacts: Under the TCA, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may 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 regulations concerning such emissions." (47 U.S.C. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).) As a result, the TCA prohibits cities from considering potential health impacts of radio frequency emissions when acting on wireless facility permits, except to require compliance with FCC requirements. Il. Denials Must be Based on Substantial Evidence in a Written Record: Any decision by a city to deny an application for a wireless facility must be in writing and 101"M City Council October 10, 2011 Page 2 supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. (47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(B)(iii).) III. The Cily Mqy Not Effectively Prohibit Wireless Service. In addition, the TCA prohibits cities from denying applications for wireless communication facilities if the denial will "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting" the provision of wireless service. (47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(13)(i)(11)) According to case law, this generally this means that a city may not deny an application for a wireless facility if the carrier demonstrates that to do so would result in a "significant gap in coverage" and that the application is the only feasible means of filling that significant gap. Review of Anacortes (Washington} Case As noted above, in connection with its earlier review of DR 09-033, the City Council requested review of the Washington case cited in the materials. The Public Comments for the July 19, 2011 City Council meeting, at page 518, reference the Ninth Circuit case of T -Mobile USA, Inc., v. City of Anacortes, 572 F. 3d 987 (2009), which has its origins in the state of Washington. The Anacortes case involved a challenge by a wireless communications provider of a city's denial of an application for a special use permit to construct a 116 -foot monopole cell phone tower. Specifically, the applicant — T -Mobile — argued that the city's denial of its application violated the TCA by effectively prohibiting the provision of wireless services. As noted above, under the TCA, a local government may not deny an application to construct cellular facilities if such a denial would effectively prohibit the provision of wireless services in the intended service area. To prove a violation of this part of the TCA, a wireless communications provider must establish: (1) the existence of a 'significant gap' in cellular coverage, and (2) that the proposed facility is the 'least intrusive' option for closing the service gap. Identifying the least intrusive option requires a meaningful comparison of alternative sites. (Id. at 995.) In Anacortes, both parties agreed that a significant gap in service coverage existed. The dispute in that case centered on whether T -Mobile's preferred cell tower location was the least intrusive means to close the gap. In denying T -Mobile's permit, the City of Anacortes had relied on a report prepared by its consultant that identified at least four other potential alternatives to the preferred site. Rather than accepting this report, however, T -Mobile presented the City with evidence showing that the alternatives were not viable. The City of Anacortes did not offer any further evidence to rebut the additional information provided by T -Mobile. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit held that the City's denial of the application without showing the existence of some potentially available and technically feasible alternative constituted an effective prohibition of service in violation of TCA. (Id. at 998.) The Position Paper of Save Cedar Grove Park, references the Anacortes case at pages 13-15. The Position Paper mentions the two -prong "effective prohibition" inquiry discussed above. In so doing, it suggests that, pursuant to the Anacortes case, the City of Tustin may not approve DR 09-033 unless T -Mobile both establishes a significant coverage gap, and evaluates the feasibility of all potential alternative sites. However, that is not what the Anacortes case requires. The Anacortes case addresses the evidentiary burden placed on the wireless facility applicant when a 790195.1 City Council October 10, 2011 Page 3 cijy has improperly denied a permit. The test does not apply to a city's determination to Lapprove a permit. In other words, the two -prong analysis in Anacortes would become relevant only if the City denies DR 09-033 and T -Mobile brings suit alleging that the City violated the TCA by effectively prohibiting the provision of wireless services within the targeted area. We hope this information proves helpful to your consideration of this matter. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart avid E. Kendig City Attorney 790195.1 TO: City Manager's Office FROM: Tony Ingegneri, President DATE: October 11, 2011 RE: Wireless Master Plan Update L Introduction At the July 19, 2011 City Council meeting, the City Council requested that the City's consultant, ATS Communications, do a full analysis of the Wireless Master Plan approved by the City Council in 2009_ City Council members requested that an update be provided to them at the hearing scheduled for October 18, 2011. The following is the requested analysis as conducted by ATS Communications. In June of 2009, ATS presented its Wireless Master Plan ("WMP") to the Tustin City Council. ATS determined that within the City of Tustin there were 33 wireless facility locations with a total of 39 carriers. Many locations had multiple carriers within the same location. There were also an additional six sites in process while the WMP was being approved. This was the culmination of 18 months of study in determining how to address each of the sites identified. With a population of 75,540 in Tustin, ATS has determined that Tustin has approximately 1,350 callers per cell site under the most conservative of analyses. It is generally believed that a single, three sector, twelve antenna (macro) cell site can handle approximately 150 to 200 callers at any given time. Therefore, with 70% of the population using cell phones, 52,000 residents are serviced in Tustin. Most cell sites are located in non-residential areas including commercial and industrial land uses such as the Tustin Marketplace and even churches. The WMP indicated that, due to the lack of cell sites in predominately residential areas lacking commercial and industrial uses, alternative uses should be used to provide residential areas with coverage. The WMP demonstrated predominately residential areas such as Tustin Ranch were underserved by wireless carriers due to the lack of non-residential properties including shopping centers, office buildings, institutional uses and industrial parks. The City of Tustin does not allow cell sites on residential properties (Tustin City Code Section 9276). Although Tustin Unified School District states it has no policy regarding cell sites on its property, it has only allowed one such facility at Tustin High School in CALIFORNIA OFFICE 22642 Lambert St., Suite 401A Lake Forest, CA 92630, Phone: _ (949) 305-7848 Fax: (949) 768-6984 Website www.atscomm.com •3 email: info@atscomm.com 1986 and nothing since within the boundaries of the City of Tustin. The City of Tustin has leased/licensed four cell sites in the Tustin Sports Park. The principal objective of the WMP was to identify areas of Tustin deficient in cell site coverage. The objective was to identify city -owned properties that would be suitable for cell site installations including city -owned parks, water well sites, and city -owned public facilities such as the civic center. Part of this determination includes evaluating the locations of all of the then -existing cell sites in the City. Making use of proprietary location identification techniques, ATS personnel performed a drive survey to visually identify cell site locations. ATS mapped cell sites within Tustin, and cell sites located along Tustin's borders, where sites were close enough to provide coverage within the boundaries of Tustin. This search was exhaustive with several personnel performing the task in order to ensure all sites were discovered. The WMP evaluation included collecting data on the height, number of antennas and number of sectors for each site located in the City. The WMP data assumes that installed cell sites contained the full number of radios since the wireless carrier can always increase their equipment at their discretion and within their lease area. In other words, the study assumed full capacity for each site. ATS conducted a radio frequency engineering analysis of the existing sites. This isolates areas where coverage is lacking or non-existent; in industry parlance, these areas are termed "coverage holes." ATS then overlaid coverage holes with Tustin assets to determine which Tustin City -owned properties could serve as cell site installation locations. Population density, demographics, existing carrier coverage, sites in process for new installations, and traffic patterns were just some of the factors employed for determining where future sites would be necessary. One of the main factors taken into consideration by carriers for the development of sites is the evolution of the cell phone usage. Currently, at least 26% of the U.S. population has abandoned hard -wired "landline" use in favor of cell phone use (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, www.CTIA.org). This use has grown three- fold over the last 5 years due to a number of factors but especially the sluggish economy: people reduce costs by getting rid of their hard -wired home phone. It is widely accepted in the Wireless Industry that the evolution from landlines will continue to rise over the next few years in the U.S. to above 60%. This, and other changes in phone usage (data, texting, video streaming, music, etc.), puts a significant demand on existing cell sites, and drives growth for new cell sites located in residential areas like Tustin Ranch. And it's only going to get worse. Cell phones are not cell phones anymore, they are smart phones. People want their phones to do more than just talk to someone, viewing any of the wireless companies' commercials provides CALIFORNIA OFFICE 22642 Lambert St., Suite 401A Lake Forest, CA 92630, Phone:, (949) 305-7848 Fax: (949) 768-6984 Website www.atscomm.com •'r email: infoC@atscomm.com insight into what the projected demand is going to be in the future. Accessing the internet while on the phone is going to take up bandwidth. Watching You Tube videos, video phone calls, and a plethora of new applications place a strain on the current network for each carrier. Perhaps more important to Tustin is not what the phones can do, but where residents use their phones. The reduction in land -line use is attributed to the use of cell phones at home. In the early part of the wireless revolution, people primarily used cell phones while traveling on highways, which explained the explosion of towers along Interstate corridors. Soon after, people wanted to use their cell phones in the office, which,began the boom in cell tower construction on commercial and industrial rooftops in dense urban areas. In the last several years, more and more people are using their cell phones at home. Due to the lack of non-residential uses within Tustin Ranch, the installation location choices for the cell phone service providers are schools, institutional uses such as churches or public parks. At the time of the development of the Wireless Master Plan, the Orange County Fire Authority did not allow cell sites on their facilities or at fire stations they operated. In addition, they did not support cell sites located at city -owned fire stations. The City's fire station across the street from Cedar Grove Park was not identified as a possible solution. At this time, the OCFA is only evaluating this first venture into allowing a cell site at their headquarters. To our knowledge, their position on cell sites at fire stations has not changed. The public right-of-way is an additional, but more complicated, alternative to the parks. It is a choice of last resort for the carriers because they can only place their facilities as high as the light poles, about thirty feet. The optimal height for a cell site is about 45 feet to 60 feet, enough to clear the ground clutter, homes, trees and anything else that might interfere with the radio signal. Because of the height of the homes and trees in Tustin Ranch, this would result in a number of small installations to provide the same coverage as one conventional cell site. II) Implementation of Wireless Master Plan Upon acceptance of the ATS Wireless Master Plan in 2009, Tustin directed ATS to work with wireless carriers to develop new sites on identified City -owned properties where deficiencies were most prominent. The Wireless Master Plan identifies four Tustin City - owned properties that would directly facilitate the needs of wireless companies. The ATS analysis did not conclude or recommend that Tustin steer new applications away from existing commercial properties, and to ATS' knowledge, no commercial CALIFORNIA OFFICE 22642 Lambert St., Suite 401A Lake Forest, CA 92630, Phone:. (949) 305-7848 Fax: (949) 768-6984 Website www.atscomm.com email: info@atscomm.com property lost opportunity to Tustin as a result of the ATS Wireless Master Plan implementation. All City -owned properties were included in the WMP. The City -owned sites identified by ATS were optimal locations in that they satisfied carrier coverage objectives, pursuant to the analysis of the WMP. Potential cell site locations that fell on property other than City -owned property were not identified in the Wireless Master Plan. If the ATS analysis had identified a location for a needed cell site that fell upon a residential property, school property, or any other type of property, it would not have been shown in the WMP. ATS did not make any adjustments to the location of an identified site to move it to a city - owned property. In the event a carrier identified a need for a cell site that fell upon a property such as residential, which is not permitted, or a school site, a carrier could, on their own, make the decision to modify their location. The list of both City -owned properties identified as optimal locations as well as City -owned properties not identified as optimal locations has been available for interested carriers and they have made inquiries and submitted applications for these sites. ATS works with the carriers both on the City -owned sites identified in the WMP and those City -owned properties where the carriers have made the decision to move their site to a City -owned property. The design criteria are available for the carriers to evaluate in the WMP. III) Design determination ATS took great care to preserve the principal function of each property so that cell tower installations would not visually dominate the property. ATS has made design and location recommendations for each and every application to date. Every effort has been made to identify the best area within the Tustin -owned property for the applicant installation in order to minimize the visual impact of the proposed cell tower installation. For example, as part of the application of T -Mobile at Cedar Grove Park, the facility was designed to accommodate AT&T Wireless. This was consistent with one of the goals identified within the WMP which is to reduce the number of cell sites through a coordinated co -location process. In T -Mobile's attempt to appease community concerns pursuant to ATS guidance, they abandoned their original design for a smaller design that would only facilitate their needs for the location. Both proposed designs for the Cedar Grove Park facility are consistent with the design guidelines as identified in the WMP. The design criteria outlined in the WMP is still appropriate with developing sites in the City of Tustin. The guidelines are current and allow for changes as necessary for any new technological changes that will minimize the look of cell sites in a multitude of locations and applications. CALIFORNIA OFFICE 22642 Lambert St., Suite 401A Lake Forest, CA 92630, Phone:. (949) 305-7848 Fax: (949) 768-6984 Website www.atscomm.com email: info@atscomm.com EM Taking into consideration the design criteria identified in the WMP, ATS has been working with staff on a case by case basis to determine the best possible cell tower design to integrate each facility into the affected Tustin asset. IV) Reviewing Submitted Applications Working with staff, ATS reviewed the applications. ATS has coordinated with the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, Community Development Department, Parks and Recreation Department, as well as the City Manager's Office. ATS has also coordinated the activity of the carriers and their contractors, including the communication, organization and feedback of information related to each application for development. ATS has integrated the concerns of each of the constituent departments as well as the expressed public objectives and preferences for each application. Following full coordination and completion of the design, the applicant begins the application process by submitting application paperwork, applicable documents and information. ATS has assisted in the evaluation of each submission. V) Applications Submitted Since the receipt of the WMP by the City Council in 2009, the following applications have either been approved or are in process for facilities on City -owned property: • Tustin Sports Park — Sprint/Nextel request to add Clearwire, a related company providing broadband service as well as continuing to operate existing facilities on site (license agreement was executed in August of 2010 for existing facilities on site.) • Tustin Sports Park, Metro PCS new wireless facility — license agreement was executed in February of 2011. • Cedar Grove Park, AT&T Wireless — AT&T has abandoned its application for a new facility due to T -Mobile changing its design. • Cedar Grove Park, T -Mobile new wireless facility — T -Mobile has modified its original design to appease community concern. The approval of the facility is currently pending. CALIFORNIA OFFICE 22642 Lambert St., Suite 401A Lake Forest, CA 92630, Phone:. (949) 305-7848 Fax: (949) 768-6984 Website www.atscomm.com ❖ email: info@atscomm.com • Heritage Park, T -Mobile new wireless facility — T -Mobile has submitted an application for the site, but the site is on hold pending the outcome of the Cedar Grove Park application. • Citrus Ranch, Verizon Wireless new wireless facility — ATS is in discussions with a company representing Verizon regarding the financial aspect of a possible submittal. The discussions have been placed on hold until the outcome of the Cedar Grove Park application. • Pine Tree Park, T -Mobile new wireless facility — T -Mobile had submitted an application for this site and has subsequently withdrawn the submission pending the outcome of the Cedar Grove Park application. • Tustin Sports Park, AT&T Wireless — request for site modification to add equipment and antennas. This application is in process at this time. VI) Public Process The public process is determined by the City. ATS is in attendance at all meetings to answer questions when asked and provide input. VII) Current Status of Wireless Master Plan The existing wireless network has changed minimally over the last couple of years. There have been five sites approved since the WMP came before the City Council. Of those five sites, three were private sites in process at the time of the development of the WMP and included in the study. One site identified in the WMP on City -owned property was approved. One site was approved that was not considered in the WMP analysis. Three additional sites on private property that were in process at the time of the development of the WMP and considered in the future coverage have subsequently not been approved. VIII) Effect on Willingness of Carriers to Work with the City The carriers are watching the outcome of the T -Mobile Cedar Grove application. This location is identified in the WMP. If a site specifically identified in the WMP is difficult, potential carriers will be less inclined to apply for a license on those sites identified in the WMP. While there are additional City -owned properties identified in the WMP that are not optimal sites, these sites are identified so that in the event a wireless carrier can't locate their facility in an identified optimal location, it can be shifted to a suitable and adjacent City -owned property. IX) Emergency services overload CALIFORNIA OFFICE 22642 Lambert St., Suite 401A Lake Forest, CA 92630, Phone:. (949) 305-7848 Fax: (949) 768-6984 Website www.atscomm.com ❖ email: info@atscomm.com am During the recent San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) blackout, the landline network went down because of a lack of power and wireless networks were overloaded with too many callers. The landline network is susceptible to emergencies because it relies on the power to the property to operate; if the power goes down than so does the phone. The wireless network power is supported by batteries in each cell phone. Almost all cell sites now include some sort of energy backup system, typically a power generator. Therefore, during an emergency, the network is still operational, but less effective. There are approximately 6 times as many wireless callers in emergency situations than normal, so the wireless network is overloaded during times of crisis. It works during normal hours because callers aren't on the phone all day long. But during rush hour there are strains on the network, as everyone has experienced. When an emergency occurs, the wireless network is not robust enough to handle the extreme increase of callers who, once they obtain their call, stay on because it is so difficult to get the call through, making it more difficult for subsequent callers to get through. The SDG&E blackout shows the vulnerability of the communications network in Southern California. While Tustin is not in SDG&E's service area, the susceptibility to the problem exists with any type of emergency that might occur such as an earthquake. With 1,200 people for every cell site in the City, the wireless network in Tustin will not support the community if the landline network goes down during an emergency. X) Comment on New Technology Cellular technology is a culmination of old and new technology. Radios have been around since the turn of the 19th Century. A cell phone is nothing more than two walkie- talkies powered by a computer. Therefore, the new technology employed to make cellular technology and its underlying network operate is the computer. As computers have evolved, so has cellular technology. Email, internet, texting, apps and more are all originally computer generated components that are now readily available and part of the cellular phone menu of services. Cell phone companies aren't building their networks for today, but rather for where they see the future of cellular technology. This is a race to the finish line with the winner being the provider with the best coverage and most robust bandwidth to handle the services their customers need. Three industries are merging into one, Cable, Wire Line and Wireless. All three are and will be providing the same services as they each try to establish their service as the dominant service to meet consumer demand. Industry watchers observe that there has been a vast increase in usage of smart phones, which offer text, Internet and video capability. Early and complete adoption of this technology by younger Americans bodes CALIFORNIA OFFICE 22642 Lambert St., Suite 401A Lake Forest, CA 92630, Phone: _ (949) 305-7848 Fax: (949) 768-6984 Website www.atscomm.com •'r email: info@atscomm.com well for an increase in usage. This means that Tustin should expect an increase in cell site applications. CALIFORNIA OFFICE 22642 Lambert St., Suite 401A Lake Forest, CA 92630, Phone:. (949) 305-7848 Fax: (949) 768-6984 Website www.atscomm.com -9 email: info@atscomm.com ATTACHMENT E OCFA PROJECT SITE PLANS VIVO 103rOSd 'NVId NOIIVOOI '133HS 311UMU Lm 1� Z09Z6 VO '3NMI suolinloS eii ssals�Vy} - - - OV01 MWOH1(1V 3211.E l 0a 2I_ f 1 -SN 410 Vd00�'` yry o i. Ca O ou �z =Q Qryoa � o� C� Wi>-"� �C)a a z Q W Lr) 3 w O L /�\ G w Q m CDry o 17!1 \ a O _ „y if o 5 } w ��� �aG xl.. ac �, �aos,o880� yry o i. Ca O ou �z =Q Qryoa � o� C� Wi>-"� �C)a a z Q W Lr) 3 w O L /�\ G w Q m CDry o �o. H oda i>ca 2 5� $ 4 z �j F20.2 Off s oz € J� wo ate_ mom. 5 I I ? E z gG �s`�5�z i boa o� -gig 2�,5 c3'4 ge,- _�oz��<��dMa��Poa��xgz-Sews LINNIO C) w Z: so zs ilk' i0- O a s v�12 so zs O a s v�12 NVId inokV us iivNoAo m 1336 zo9z6 Vo 3NLMI GULM 0 U; avod kV80HinV 32113 1 - lip vJ30 SIA NVId inoxb1 1N3Wdino3 3uu 3 N _4 • Z09Z6 '31311 og ssai�IM OV01 A1110N1N (ib 3113 L suognialis SN0117A313 103rONd Tau mm M 10916VJ'3NA211 P E= suognlog a;Ig ssalaJlM 4 :I', LSIN OVOa Al180H1f V 3213301 itPUA—"all ♦ g @"@ $ 3 a • g k >. x t a j tq I SNOIIVA313 103ro8d Tuu i33HS Z09Z6 VO ' 3NLA81 OVN MaHinv 3811 1 suoploS 911S ssej;�� VA30 SJ&tAOL e; q MM"W'"MM ATTACHMENT F �- . I -will. Ic � 72 v2. -will. Ic ct w LD w "a ci CJ ca tj ILI U W = el gi 03 L4C a G u cc ca co is 0. 40 04 'Q w 13 A Ij 0 0.�= in tn tj 03 Zj Q lu C C3. 3 .4n cdw w4- s 14 6 40 vi 4u C4 W 2 —. :RZO 4n 3m ; ' 4 4: 10 m A w 41.1 6 m 'S r.. es d. 'or m S C3 Id. L C 03 "; — '= a 16, — CC C9 03 09 09 ATTACHMENT G UPDATED 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; ONE (1) FLAGPOLE WITH A HEIGHT OF FORTY-THREE (43) FEET; AND, UNDERGROUND EQUIPMENT 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; one (1) 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. 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, before the City Council, and continued to the October 18, 2011 City Council meeting. 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 et al. 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: 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 -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). 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; one (1) 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 18th day of October, 2011. JERRY AMANTE MAYOR ATTEST: 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 18th day of October, 2011 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK • • � • 1 • • � "� 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 October 18, 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 e-mail address of a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments shall be provided to the City's designated representative upon activation of the facility. (1) 1.11 The applicant shall ensure that a lessee or other users shall comply with the terms and conditions of Design review 09-033 and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of the applicant to comply. (1) 1.12 Radio frequency emissions shall not exceed the radio frequency emission guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as such guidelines may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department a pre and post -installation test showing compliance with the guidelines established by the FCC. Exhibit A 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 a back-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 a good -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. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER JULY 199 2011 Swiontek, Ryan From: Cathy Bardenstein [cjbardy@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 12:57 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-033 - Cedar Grove Park Ryan, Can you update me as to the results of this meeting? I am sorry I was unable to attend. I do, however, want to reiterate my strong support for a robust wireless network in Tustin. As I am a current customer of T -mobile. (and ATT, for my Wad), I particularly wanted this site, as I have virtually useless coverage in my home and the immediate vicinity. Given the problems with T -mobile's network in this area of Tustin, I will have no choice but to move to a more expensive plan at Verizon. The City's failure to promptly approve this site is truly anti- competitive, and was just what the Federal Government was trying to prevent when it passed the Telecommunications Act. Instead of looking out for the broader interests of their constituents, the City Council seems to be pandering to the irrational fear of cell towers by a certain vocal group of people that focuses on health concerns which this City is precluded from considering, and the exaggerated visual impact of a 65' flag pole. Absolutely ridiculous! The delayed response of first responders is of more concern to the community. Thank you for your time. Cathy Bardenstein & Jeffrey Scherzer 10908 Dishman Place Sent from my Wad On Jul 15, 2011, at 2:26 PM, "Swiontek, Ryan" <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> wrote: Thank you for your continued interest in the application for Design Review 09-033 to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility within the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road. For your information, the staff report for the July 19, 2011, meeting before the City Council may be accessed on the City's website at: http://www.tustinca.orQ cit council/granicus.html Please click on the Agenda link next to the July 19, 2011, City Council meeting. Design Review 09-033 is the first public hearing item and you will find a link to the Agenda Report and Public Comments pertaining to the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.org or Justina Willkom at 714- 573-3115, jwillkom@tustinca.org Ryan Swiontek ATTACHMENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 1% 2011 Agenda Item 1 AGENDA. REPORT RCi'eMana e ty g r 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 SUMMARY: APPLICANT: T -Mobile West Corporation 2008 McGaw Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 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). rigure 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. July 19, 2011 r Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 5 Figure 3 (Project Site Looking South) Figure 4 (Project Siva Looking East) Figure 5 (Project Site Looking North) 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). r July 19, 2011 Appeal of DR 09-033 Page 6 otsTM 2V TALL FM "M— ----- ---� -- ---- #mT-nm&9 Q%" miA nwuw Doi w � .. PAW EMFIp7G ON A mt NO FM w (iffiTlMR= rWTN1 A lf �•- -" �-_ _ _ --- �� r M1 T-IC"s M ma am" mm 0) WWAOt"2MRM l�rT�l A RA9w v w ARlfp RAt#CtCAAt" WSM FAISRD GRAN UM AT AJ6 s pis — -M M m+ea RM O)CTYRA n) t am N eALRpm nA6 TA M T 11=9 e'_jAiL ------ --------- r TA tai T—l! HtlRA tm "M Gpl!i¢) or Mm T--P*OLf PikB ANl€dmUA_� _ r - \ mAD tffimf! ImmmY+'t4@Ji PA7�, MDV t-HGmitt PAI®. AxfHiIAB i0f11 [� iWh �AfX krT#UI A IAW) 40 PM UMW4 p� 1�1 T-Itib1! llMm. FW At M AMM — ►ot r+reps p) �a ww new= otsTM 2V TALL FM "M— ----- ---� Doi w � .. PAW EMFIp7G �•- -" �-_ _ _ --- �� — T�epM1m 4" go RA~U ImaSA� (m) m tmmN nm mB.•- WSM FAISRD GRAN UM AT AJ6 s pis - PFAAPPM MAINU Tql mm GBIII0 0 team -- msma mf M mGs�mmldtil1 ULT Figure i Flag Poles p O �U 6 NvG J�� v • :,. Y, Underground Vault � x s as • Figure 8 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 Proposed View from the North to the South t M__ i► aVO �~ '�. ���W°-� i�: r ' 7 O • Y�1 A }'"` �'� - 1'°4 •fib f. 4` A Y d , .p ti •��g. •� i d a Tie?' � 'TiV -: dx'1 � 'y^ 72��'. wx t M__ i► aVO �~ '�. ���W°-� i�: r ' 7 O • 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 megawatts/cm2 FM Radio Transmitter 100 megawatts/cm2 Cordless Phone 15 megawatts/cm2 Baby Monitor 1 megawatts/cm2 WiFi Router 0.13 megawatts/cm2 Cell Site 0.1 megawatts/cm2 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 — AII accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault so as not to be visible. Any utilities such as meter pedestals would be screened with landscaping. 7) Physical relationship of proposed structure to existing structures — The proposed flagpoles would replace existing flagpoles at the site to minimize any potential 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 - 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. 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) Under+grrounding — 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 applicantloperator 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, 4989, identifies restrictions to the property (Attachment E). One of which was to f. r 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 • Intemational Agency for Research on Cancer — Press Release No. 208 OC League of Califomia 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 =N L-�Wmurn m j 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 DUSTING 2D' (+I-( LIGHT STANDARD I I r rmm Prop. Site PROPOSED EXISTING (2) 6` FLAGPOLES Ifo Be Replaced) i PROPOSED (3) FLAGPOLE LOCATION mow- 3842E JPROPOSED AULT LOUO Cedar Grove Flagpoles 11385 Pioneer Road Rntln, CA 97782 APPUCAW „ ■ W^ tAfftte Cr7PWACT tvamwe.aftme q yyt ue 4farr t y f V o4i.141 oars 7 Oro_ 4 ,.mg Lit r n.. i wAL-_ ev �""� ; ., 4Asa. •�- � ,"y, '� r fat'" � .}��: - r,��"� •l � n; c r s°"'Q7OpyiMr �nHRi r^P - �- PUI c !.' 131 FL )LE AGPLE 1.5- s e • i d f.� a+ m.7M s Vii. & L :,►. �. : iter%.jJ •' .�. .. .� ' ��.. - �' -- • , _. +terse lt y r g - ! • 0 LA33842E -;Mail Cedar Grov Ri oleo �' 9W srW4Mcarywrallm s•�..l��lsr�rww. .. .r.,rIF rxrATTla DESIGN 11385 PW6Mr Road ammkowlbwin- tkoft UbmWa aFearat e�gu, n Tust m cA 9i7M, om aeAl"14 rwomm ano Blue VAter 4_ P 949.241-017SS P 71�.4i3;9f X017 ° S � a R \, s `\ \ \ z:: ` a 1 �7a r �o S gill Bilg� a �I �OeP�1 <� 11011111111111Ei��I �EEEEEi961 101kR1lr69 Melt rs>•. mass�.Mm 0 S.,* ;6 Lit b 6 s[J stie�eK6.Ilan®tl6�eeeeeeeu=tlrm5,5$aaaei�aRrpR Ifi OD E ■ =a oil La .AdPtIL ''finn" V N , a11' �aita��aa���aaai� W•>��.O��Ywi.�.p{} ® I ill all, 111111/11 3131+1�aior �l91�lC��11��k1�R'RR� \ �l16.5s5Yotea3�ater6p3Rcs ``� yitr�eh9Bd�a®®YR�eaeccada `. a "•RC1 � � 1/ fn N U C3 N-1 a "•RC1 � � 1/ fn N U C3 SA C5 0 - ■ It i s LU y N N J crx s N LO N N ~ \F4 LK r0 1 OJ iiilll I � � Y J IL bil r LO N �pR Bb V N Y� ._CLtr __ CL 11111 N r 0 J O CL N o N N J crx s N LO N N ~ \F4 LK r0 1 OJ iiilll I � � Y J IL bil r LO N �pR Bb V N Y� ._CLtr __ CL 11111 oil! 01 k g � e I I' lit I'll i 1 9-11 -11 it 1911111111111.11 AN III— III I- pt I 0 0 0 0 0000000®000 0 0 0®®o®® r ftp J r.. is t S y ■ �� o a� O N ;l l C, oIL all[�a 4 1 it 851 18,14 ILI, �e j'° o E A Rib Rik HI A 6 R :ail p° �.� � e � � i 9 -1 $$ -1 1 Ill I lip, I e e e 0 s O' O 9N 0 Us co N Qyr Ifis ® dJ' 1 � I TTT� lit 1111 1 A 1 3 ik Re' I I a I�� 1 I � ee99pl a xFI 1 e i I 1 i� 1 e � I a� i a� � Ili MLJ, Ip Ilia Ise I lot a e - I /- �e dpi `R I E � ... \||| J■■ | V■■t■ R .& .� |/§ § .§ N 0 C O k \ § ■ to ■ \ 7 }|§|I\ « !} ■ tt IL 'LU § E-1 | B� |§ |■ d � § o § v || || || B B B 0 0 0 - - � p � .�k � . .. \ ^ � � a § § B o ■ r -• ..� .S Sig S 04 Ic a ¢ C F19 Tr Y O 0 Q live U �w■ 1101111 M, OG0 09 gee 000® �.Q na 9 kill .�Rt y Hill I� � Ni �� :����N 0o aoo 0 890oo J a EIA Pdvete Rd ■ E""4 w a V 0 CL Q a. > 0 M c m 0 (A 16. as a. 0 o 0 _j •x (D 4- 0 c Z No sa -W 16. m CL 9 .0. #f- 046, j W am" Laow, &A' Cf z 1, 4V 1. rL4 t, Mb k Nx- Ll u E 6 E E .003 a, Mobile, Current Coverage flap 0 rr a Current Drive Test Map LA02317A r j r`�•-. ! F Drive Test Legend " Upto-76dBm (IndoorCovem9e) -84 to -76 d8m On Whlale C overage) -91 to -84 d8m (On Street Coverage) * Below -91 Mtn , T , ,Mo t� b p, Current Prediction and Current Drive Test Maps Overlap LAOU.I. Or .2992A LA02317/ V. = i * �l �f 02952A 8' dp 92 . w f DrNe Test Legend Upto-76dBm (IndoorCoverage) -84 to -76 dBm pn Vehide C overage) -91 to -84 dBm (On Street Coverage) • Below -91 dBm rn it i 'mole I Solo Coverage Map 1f? LL rrr���1 Nobiles Solo Drive Test Map Drive Test Legend Upto-76dBm pndoorCoverege) -84 to -76 dBm On Vehicle C overage) -91 to -84 dBm (On StreetCoverege) • Below -91 dBm �j ,, , e v eMobile, Solo Prediction and Solo Drive Test Maps Overlap LA02317A A02962A t, Ik. Cedar Grove Park 41 Drive.Test Legend Upto-76dBm (IndoorCoverage) -84 to -76 d8m an Vehicle C overage) -91 to -04 d8m (On Street Coverage) Below -91 dBrn 4 i ' ' ' ' ' 'MQbl e' Proposed Coverage Map TECHNOLOGY CHOICE The choice of which technology to use isdriven byavariety of technical requirements, including: • Reliability of service. ° Coverage objective. °Present capacity and future expansion capabilities uomeet customer demands. " Ability to meet federal and state requirements for emergency services. = Ease of service and maintenance inthe event o/omearthquake, fire.flood, w other catastrophic event. ° Ease ofinstalling system and service upgrades, 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 choic There are two primary options—a standard wireless telecommunicatio facility and a Distributed Antenna System (DAS)—each of which is i Different,environments require different technology solutions Carriers design new sites todeliver optimal service improvements while complying with all pertinent, federal, state, and local laws. Choosing the right technology does not conform hoa 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 Astandard wireless telecommunications facility inthe optimal choice inmost cases, because it provides the largest geographic area of coverage and may be easily upgraded with antennas orcables tomeet growing customer demand. Astandard cell site consists of antennas and eaaooicded radio equipment located on the ground or within ootruoture. Coverage and capacity: Provides coverage toalarger geographic area and/or increased Design flexibility: Offers optimal design flexibility byallowing for co -location ofother 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 iadesigned 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., !nless likely tobecompromised hlacatastrophic failure—vital for maintaining access boE9-14centers and other essential public services inthe event o/an 'ATIONS�'`/� The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is reaponaibiafor implementing the Telecommunications Act d1996,Under these rules,' licensed wireless carriers are entitled ocmake technological and operational decisions free from state and local governmental interference, FCC regulation also requires that these governments act |na competitively neutral and non-discriminatory manner towards all telecommunications providers, The result inthat while state and local governments can make determinations regarding the placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities, the choice o|teuhnnlogyin left meach cardmmdeterm/no.in accordance with applicable FCC rules. Please visit for access madditional information about wireless communications. Kyou have questions onthe information provided in this fact sheet, please contact Fec�ervmOMITanici 101Fu�m�. Adm/0,96 -' eeSeMOy iw Distributed Antenna System (PAS) technology is effective solution in custom environments ADiskbuted Antenna System (DAS) isatechnology originally developed for in-bmifdinA areas—to contain the signal to on interior area that |n typically difficult 10 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 onsurrounding physical characteristics—same oawith astandard wireless facility, But because DAS nodes are typically the height of asecond-story window, coverage iaextremely limited, and the technology requires more antennas and above -ground infrastructure. What's more, major roadwork and sidewalk construction may beneeded to locate afiber network underground. Capacity: Does not effectively scale for increased capacity. Because there is limited power in the system and each user uneDAS system must share this power, the coverage area ino 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 Cannot beexpanded ` aueasily emstandard 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 new system will be required, which means many more antenna facilities. And network performance may beaffected. Network reliability: May becompromised orexperience catastrophic failure in the event of 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�88��y Standard base station DAS typically requires more antenna facilities tomatch, mcome close to, the coverage ofe single standard wireless site T -MOBILE USA 12920 SE 38th Street EXPERT OPINiON0NSAFETY ` OF WIRELESS FACILITIES ^~7borebnnconvincing scientific evidence that base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects." -'NorldMnoKhOrganization "7heeisnoreason wbelieve that kmll/towers could constitute a potential health hazard to nearby residents mstudents. ^ -RedmalCommunicaGonoCmnmisaion ,1hechance ofhealth problems occurring among people living and working below base stations is negligible.^ - The Hea8 Couroofthe wmberlargs3 ~"Cell phone antennas mtowers are unlikely to cause cancer " 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 Awimless network operates onagrid that's divided into geographic areas m"cells.^Within each geographic cell is a wireless facility or cell site that contains antennas, cables, and low -powered radio equipment required Losend and receive calls from wireless devices. /nthe process of sending and receiving signals, wireless networks emit low levels ofRF energy. Some o(this energy isemitted bythe wireless device, and some bythe cell site. This document addresses current scientific findings on the amount of RF signals that people are - AmmncanCannerGociey FCC regulates RF emissions to ensure public safety To ensure that routine exposure bocell sites is safe, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates the level ofradio frequency that o 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 RFexposure guidelines are based onrecommendations from two expert organizations—the National Council onRadiation Protection and Measummenb(NCFP) 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 awide margin ofsafety, Vorld Health Orgamizmion:'Recmomagnefic teWs wm pL"�com�mnBasememmasiv "oefesswnhnmxge`' Fact sheet 3w`May axmuFaoet=cmnmwi,cmmn Cmftssion Office of Engineering are Technaiogy �,Mjp6F'^mm ar, C-'a^g-�l Romwty wwamx and cell sites use radio heqwoncy (RF1energy to send and receive voice, text images, and more Calls are delivered inthe form u|radio waves, also called `oigmalo^m"radio hequancieu_^This isth� the that has been used for radio broadcasts since the late 18OOa,HFsignals also transmit television broadcasts and enable common devices in your home to work, such aowireless routers, cordless telephones, and baby monitors. Please�Nsft hxadditionai information about wireless communications and links to the American Cancer Society, CTIA, FCC, and others, If you have questions on the information provided in this fact sheet, please contact Typically, actual RF emissions are well under safety limits |npractice, the ground -level exposure 8owireless cell a/lemmtypically well /under the FCC's exposure limits. For example: When standing 300 feet away ^from atypical cell site, the RFemission isyvery small percentage, less than 1percent —`'ofwhat the FCC allows. At this distance, itwould take more than 4OO cell sites at a location to even come close to reaching the limits allowed bythe FCC. ° Even when someone is standing approximately 100 feet away, the RF emission is only 1.08 percent of the allowable limits, and it would take more than 90 sites to reach these limits. Atacell site, signals are directed from the antenna toward the horizon, and HFenergy 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 inofraction of the FCC's limits for safe exposure. What experts say The RIF level that cell sites use to transmit phone calls is very low. It's much lower than the levels emitted byradio and television broadcasts and common wireless devices like ' k*so 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. 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 ka noevidence that the level of exposure the public receives from cell site RFemissions ia play near a cell site. T -MOBILE USA 12920 SE 38th Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 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: 1. Antennas Antennas let your mobile phone send and receive calls. The number of antennas varies per site—typically 9 to 12. Antennas range in size and may be mounted on top of a structure, on its side, or even within ft. Alk 2. Cabies 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. 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 -• customer needs, local laws and ordinance, and the nearby landscape. T -Mobile works diligently to find the best solution • each circumstance and to provide people with the best possible service and value. 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 • well, but have special _• and limitations In areas where there is no infrastructure, a flagpole can be a good solution if it complements the surrounding area. In windy conditions, flags create noise disturbances; however, there are workable solutions. Placing a community flag on a flagpole instead of a U.S. flag eliminates the need for special lighting. And using a flagpole without a flag on it eliminates the noise problems. CHOOSING THE RIGHT DESIGN Artificial trees can hide wireless facilities IS A BALANCING ACT while blending in with the landscape 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 locate. 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, IV , .102M Please visit wwwt-moble-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. 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. i Cell sites can also be concealed in Ir r 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 noisiderations 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 ,,MWT-Mnbft USA 9M am ft"V4rr&r0&M a AG REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS Growing demand for wireless service creates the need to add wireless SHOW PRESENCE OF NEARBY communications facilities in residential neighborhoods. While there has CELL SITES DOES NOT been public concern about the impact these sites may have on property ADVERSELY AFFECT values, to date there is no convincing evidence that there is any adverse PROPERTY VALUES' effect. T-Mobile recognizes that maintaining property values in the vicinity • "Cellular phone towers do not have a of a new site is of critical concern to homeowners. We carefully consider measurable or identifiable impact on residential properly values." the needs of local communities when selecting new cell site locations as Trie Vaivation Group, inc. in 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-Fi or wireless antenna." 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 2008 landlines and rely solely on mobile phones.' `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 2006 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 Mobilee 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 ',piopedy value studies corKWed across 'he U S 'or reduce the visual impact of a cell site on the local community through design elements like by indepencwt appfaisers vAlb no vested gjtep,est jr. th., resitg. rnp hrefs*en Com paw Tv-.r,,Iy camouflage and landscaping. In addition, T-Mobile is committed to minimizing the need Mftr, jf, TcArrllme Vaisat',01cs are wref-�ns-onky, new freestanding structures, and roughly two-thirds of our wireless facilities are built on f,Girfor existing structures, such as local government buildings, rooftops, and utility poles. AwrBerri +sig Pfr,' 4 .,,ne Mmo_ els How wireless availability can enhance neighborhoods Real estate professionals continually tell us that reliable wireless coverage is of significant value tohomeowners. Many buyers test the wireless signal ofeprospective 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 ad.ic|eobah*a, Theadvantugeaafordadbybe!euummuniosdionhmi|idaymoveoftenthannc± outweigh any negative effects." The conclusion is that wireless communication service "enhances local communication, education, productivity, work efficiency efforts, and public safety services and oouurity."' _ncreased wireless usage drives need for expanded wireless networP 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. Please visit for additional information about wireless F*�� If you have questions onthe information provided in this fact sheet, please contact T-IMOBILEUSA 12920SE8mhStreet omnm�mm�ma�w�°�oamu��'nm ��eme.VW�hingum980On ����=���"��°��������*=����mw��^^ mmmn��wamm��d M�s�^'�� � w�0pu�m�A m=�mm�°"�=*=w�� CL o « y d w % d ^ «§ X S 42 A 'iQ m P R- a `' m a c o c c c 0 v; V w ti y m C 10 Cr, ti 2 ry i wNm� aoi � c�� y o a� Z5 -i5 -cam 3 V c ca,_r c yrs Y a s m m 2 r a c E@ gE 2 5 n o v zcas Y m 2> `6 a S L E :q'aq . N m m e a 'a m r m c o `J, m a o g set w � ... a'x - � �-' A s: � m � a '� o ' � � � � dddiii a m 'o o :c w a s a m m t�, c a v fl E rn a co c s a o E c 49 m u u .c o 0 C p - O -OC a �- -o v = o_ -o � o c� o v Q 5 a — o o -C n�i a v E :Ep x '4 a -1 7jS E E �5- ol Z5 o 21 g 41 Eo o .8 rn :4 -oE G cL 'Fa s. :E5 �o 2 E ? .m 10 _3 o - - 5 s o. f; "oill c j c o = w 'o `c= t° = 'tai .Y ° ID 1=11 Gs > Wt m w y L) Y o m v m -cx w ar o a a¢ w> v w o T@' Q era E� RE o `� o �' E o ay s o .c ° a °' m aca �'u o CC m' a s C ° » tL o nz7r. o a .m d� 'S "- Q N G V 45 a E 3 H sU=i. G1 'O .G eV! .L} w Z' o �. N Q 5 O N C tc tC G `C o o N o o Q1 w a m w cr c21 :n o a, Cl m c r _ a o@ o o a c� a a` r o?= _ w 4 i •.- o m a v e C: t m m a� m o o v m E -23 0. 20 2 E -on 0 pg "o c S. CZ 0 cc 0 c -0 0 1 Z E CLx o'0 0 CD 0 ID CM Ei 0 -0 0 CL 0 CL on 0 C 2 O �Q -5 .Qa NO� YU} G O C 6 yL' N m E � � m ozi C —, is 'G` C Ty 'J b N Sol o a� H 0 "+s � M .Q o o t � ® � n t C o o pa- w c o 6 i4 -5 zs n m oO S Q E ` o-. � tis . o. E o s zs .c m U U 2 O G1 C r O y (a75 � c O Ga' C P = ,N o ou ca " cc> v C E v m m rn E® m N .h > G' m c ✓ 8 .E o rn i, H w r o. o g .� o G O C 6 yL' N m E � � m o m a� H 0 "+s � M .Q o o t � ® � n t C E 5: 0 p, E r�- 2 c2 0 Ro Q 0 s'ai�E a Z 2 5 4) C 0 41 -oo a zo Z, KM 'a ol .moi r (5 E 21 21 o cr a to: cL E 'Al 'ry MY M�T STU TH9 EFFECTS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAE ON RESMENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES an of September 28, 2000 LE carina D. RaHjus, Appraisers 160 Lower Via Casitas #10 Greeabrac, CA, 94904 1-01TINAD. ROLLf-Ns, I Q LOWER- VIA CAarrAS #1,0 GREENDRAE, CL -94.9&j Phone! (415) 461-0325 F81- (415) 461-7,979 (10nber 11, 200j) Robbins, Pater Allig, LLp Attorneys at Law Attn: Carrie L. Takeyasu 1901 Htirrls6n Street, Suite 1550 02k3and, California 94h12-3501 R61 Miti-kot study Or'TL-lecomraiiaicationskxbnng. Dear AIS. Takeyasu.- Pursuant to your request we have Conducted Market Study of two location,; in M.arin County, OU6 bl Sam Rafael and one in Novato. These are referred to In tho attached report as the 1925 Lincoln Avenue Study Area and the 155 San Marin DrIvc Study Artunt, The purpose of this Market Study WAY to determine H the presence Of Cellular Phone {Telecommunication) Antennae In these two areas has impacted the mat ket value, 29 46flued heref a, of retideittiol prbpeMes in close proximity to the antennae, used on the data PrAseated in the attached study, we could find no impact from the presence of the antenna - e on market values 01residentiRl properties In either location. If YOU have any questions after roviewing this report, please foci Your convenience free to contact us at You— or;fta D. Rollins, AfR CA Residential Certlfcatia'a A.R002 Wilda S. Vaughn, SRA CA Rest . dential Certification# AA005022 U 'blAutaiWoft d a -mark 't Study Stu ot hai conducitv. re-faidijj,tivd propmty values in tuto locations iaMxm— Coitnt�j� CA. Both Of these loc4ons have t slecoirarricanieativns* anten= on Wilclip.,cgs in olost, proximity t,.,) residential properties. 114r3se tvio buildings are commonly $U10 TI. av, 'J $25 LiAcOln AY$)Uur1 Sall P-Arucl, CA and 155 San Marin J)rjvo,'Nbvs1a. CA. The purpose of this study is to dotMnillO thO ifftPact, If any, of tho telecommunications antennae on the market value of the residential properties that 4= iu olose proximity to the telecommunications antennae. 1,110 clioat is Robbi4s Palmer & Allen, LLP, Attorneys at Law, 1901 Harrison Street, Suite 1550, Oakland, CA 94612-3501. ,qcope of the Market Stadl 71W scope of this Market Study has been to identify sales of residential properties from 1992 to the present that arc within less than a half mile radius of the buildings that have taletommunioRtions antertuaLe. For each sale, whenever possible, boat agents (the buyer's and the seller's, aka the listing j agent), were contUted or, If no agents were ' involved, the 'buyer and 3011cr were oontactcd. All parties coatacted were interviewed to determine the neighborhood influences that may have affected each sale, including, -but not limite4 to, the proximity of the telecomnaUnications antennae. T -n conducting each interview, a sones of questious won asked based on influun;;es identified by these appraisers as being present in to immediate vicinity of each of The buildings, Data from the interviews was then correlated in order to determine the influences identified as being of concera by each of the interviewvep- This was a quslitative, not a quantitative study. A qualitative study anal)ws all of the data in the identified population, whereas a quantitative study requires a random samplingg, of the data_ Sales within The study areas were of a number that could be R Jmnutty ;iQd wu�o Frovidt! =Y V'Alid X:alicluBions. ':he raw data t)n c3f-'h Of thO sales was also correlgttd as tee mea.,j and medl v yearly basis in order to view value c4�:�jan 41 on r, over timo , wiatin the VQWty of BIZf 6" AM changing values were thet compared on " .percentages bas's to 'be changes in market values for the cities within which "'-ft of tho . study arc -48 ur4: located to see iftheir rel4tiowhip to the greater markeVace changed a -act the installation of the t0iccommunications antennae, LUHYV rollbwihg d9finiU6118 are used in this report,. MAAd_M1hw, the most probable price which a PrOPDAY should Mug in a competitive and open -market under all conditions requisite to a ft sale, the buyer -and nolle; each acting 'prudently, knowledgtably and assuming the price is not affected by tmdLc stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the Passing of title from sellor to buyer under conditions whereby; 1) the buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2) both parties are Wall informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; 3) a reasonable time is allowed for expome in the open market; 4) payment is made in tarns of cash in US. dollars or in terms Of financial arrangements comparable therew., and 5) the normal consideration for the property s014 unaffected by pace represents tbo sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the salespeohd or ereqtivc fin-&ucing or .- available by real estate b ;" Vm stawhere listings for real tst4to are made brokers (listing agents) to other agents who may have buyers 1001ting for real property. By using an MLS service, eXPOSM'of.roal props rty to a brokers are 610 to increase the greater number ofpotential hj?yors. By placings listing on NLS, the 11stiug broker agrees to pay a commlMon to any agent who b, acceptable offer upon completion of the; ccotroat brings an referred to as the buyer's agent. INa second agent is commonly "e' the average Of a set of numbers derived by adding all of an identified or Population 94DIUmbcre together and 41VI&g by the total number of individ series of' 'T1 the set. The MM is synonomous with the jyrxgZj ual numbers M§A=' the middle figure in & set of numbers determined by counting the individual numbers ffi a set and finding the middle point where thorn is an equal zurnber of numbers both higher and lower than that middlo figure, -T9kLQZMAMW_Aft=; any transmission, emission. or reception of signs, Signals writin iMR909, sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical P electromagnetic systems, or other 2 �j Jmnutty ;iQd wu�o Frovidt! =Y V'Alid X:alicluBions. ':he raw data t)n c3f-'h Of thO sales was also correlgttd as tee mea.,j and medl v yearly basis in order to view value c4�:�jan 41 on r, over timo , wiatin the VQWty of BIZf 6" AM changing values were thet compared on " .percentages bas's to 'be changes in market values for the cities within which "'-ft of tho . study arc -48 ur4: located to see iftheir rel4tiowhip to the greater markeVace changed a -act the installation of the t0iccommunications antennae, LUHYV rollbwihg d9finiU6118 are used in this report,. MAAd_M1hw, the most probable price which a PrOPDAY should Mug in a competitive and open -market under all conditions requisite to a ft sale, the buyer -and nolle; each acting 'prudently, knowledgtably and assuming the price is not affected by tmdLc stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the Passing of title from sellor to buyer under conditions whereby; 1) the buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2) both parties are Wall informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; 3) a reasonable time is allowed for expome in the open market; 4) payment is made in tarns of cash in US. dollars or in terms Of financial arrangements comparable therew., and 5) the normal consideration for the property s014 unaffected by pace represents tbo sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the salespeohd or ereqtivc fin-&ucing or .- available by real estate b ;" Vm stawhere listings for real tst4to are made brokers (listing agents) to other agents who may have buyers 1001ting for real property. By using an MLS service, eXPOSM'of.roal props rty to a brokers are 610 to increase the greater number ofpotential hj?yors. By placings listing on NLS, the 11stiug broker agrees to pay a commlMon to any agent who b, acceptable offer upon completion of the; ccotroat brings an referred to as the buyer's agent. INa second agent is commonly "e' the average Of a set of numbers derived by adding all of an identified or Population 94DIUmbcre together and 41VI&g by the total number of individ series of' 'T1 the set. The MM is synonomous with the jyrxgZj ual numbers M§A=' the middle figure in & set of numbers determined by counting the individual numbers ffi a set and finding the middle point where thorn is an equal zurnber of numbers both higher and lower than that middlo figure, -T9kLQZMAMW_Aft=; any transmission, emission. or reception of signs, Signals writin iMR909, sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, radio, optical P electromagnetic systems, or other 2 -microwave nr radir) M—eki VW1101V fh1430 wires vaccption. AUUWjL(M,, a device fat transmitting, receiving or tranmitting and receiving Aignids of any broadcast tudng inierowave, or radio ftequencics without tho use of 3 cabba cotmcction for reccpdow Radio jglObon!;-SygtQW! a high capaelty land mobile, t6l*ona system wherein cb=nela assigned to the system are divided among several Scogmylaical "cells" covoring a defined service mcA cellular system is capable of re- using the earno channels in different calls within the service area. The use of many await -;oltq in an area, with low U=n4tter powers, permits the intensive re -ase of channels, thereby incrmsihg the system capacity. Tilecommimindong Antenna tel an antenna(c) utilized in a cellular system to receive anti traernit it erwation. within a dofined "cell" and to "hand off' cellular phone users to succeeding ""Ila" once the user has passed Ilrough the call's geographic, area. Also rafemd to as a "Cellular Phone Antanna(c)" anol Antajm&(gk an antenna that is approximately ailc to ten inchea wide and five to six feet tall used for cellular phone communications. Idtniffication of the 811gs The two properties with the tal000mmunications aute=* are. - 1) 1825 Lincoln Avenue, San Rafael, CA, This is a multi -residential zoned parcel of 1.41 acres with an apartment style building consisting of 64 residential units based an First American Real Estate Services WinWata 2000 information =vicv and ou County A,sgessor'a Records provided by (jD Data Systems, The Legal Description of the Site in its entirety is provided in the addenda to this -roport, The Assessor's Parcel N=bar is 011.041-29. 2) 155 San Marin Drive, Novato, CA. This is the "Apple Market" building that is located near the center of a shopping center which is a single parcel of commercially zoned land commouly known as 199 San Maria Drive, Xovato, CA. The entire parcel consists of 7 acres utM=d wholly as a abopping center and its attendant parking lot based an First American Real Estate Semices Win2Data 2000 information service and on County Asscrsoea Records provided by CD Data Systcms, The Legal Description of the Site in its entirety Is -provided in the addenda to this report, N Nv&hpriz; 124.202-28. 1325-Li=1U_AY9DA%_S&JbfdrJ is located at the northern end of Lincoln Avenue in central San ftfael. 1t is less than 1 mile s0u1h13OuthPveU Of the US -FlighwaY10 I/Lirtcoln Avenue interchange. To the north of it by less than 400 linear feet is the entrance to a tunnel that raw under VS 101 and permits accest to the northbound lanes via a aaevjay Interchange or to &road that paraffels US 101 along the east side of the freeway. 7Ma lot Slopes upwards to the west from the road frontage which is 147.3 feet wide at the street. Facing the street, there is 4 driveway to the loft and the front portion of the apartment building is to the light , open purldng is aviiijable to the left of the driveway whe'rO it lOych Off Abovo Street grade in a Imle piaking and rurnaround area, From Lincoln Avenue there are visible installations on the roof. From Prospect Drive, which is above and behind the 1825 Lincoln Avenue property, a further rooftop installation is visible. The telecommunication antennae on this building fact., towards Lincoln Avenue and are approximately five to six feet high and are six to ton incher, wide, being panel antennae. There are four panel antennae and all are vWble from Lincoln Avenue. To tho north side of the apartment building are transmission poles, which appear to be directly adjacent to the building, The proliminary title, report issued for this property dated September 7, 2000 by Cal Land Title of Marin tr references under item 4(b) unrecorded casenitnt rarjoint u�lity polar and guy anchors along the northwesterly line of herein deaccibcd Propo*". This may be a reference to the transmission poles noted, Tho influonocs noted by these appraisers timet affect this site include the proxindty of US 101 and attendant traffic noise, the transmission polos adjacent to the building and FAW fields associated with high power tension wires, the telecommunications antennae on the roof of the building, commercial properties close to the property, and the busy traffic of Lincoln Avenue and the US 101 freeway Interchange. Finally, also of concern is the possibility of US 101 being widened and/or a light rail vehicle being added that would run adjacent to US 101 Oil the old Pacific Railroad Right of Way. This could result in eminent domain proceedings and condemnation for properties that are directly along the US 101 corridor, This would, indirectly, .affect the 1825 Lincoln Avenue property, The impact would be the result of the rail line in close proximity or, If the rail line is not added, the freeway itself being in closer ProxiTnity because of Widening the road. Jr, located runs from the corner of San Marin Drive and San Andreas Drive to the cast to the corner of San Ramon Way to the west This i's approximately 1')200 linear rcat of street frontage along San Marin Drive, 4 a Now '11i't P=ot Is enoAtt'v bwal' z-'Iiserl just -4Bzftt1Y 6,00VO ttle, Sul 1'V'4AX-J7JJ Y)JIVO g;Vdfj' 11. it. s ea; loped as anoiAbcrrlhood shopping center with an anchor tentmt lc no%va as "AppUn. ly1mrkaf'. "Apple Markite' it, the 155 Sari Mann Dtive ad&=o and is the huildLug ori which 14- tole-cornmunWatigns antennae are Jocated. Apple Market Is n8a tiro -111iddle, of the raw of stores- that is the :main area of the shopping center. 'ne stares are located along the north pvttiort of the parcel with a service area behind the shop% The service area is along the northommost portion of the parcel and appears 'to ' be used for loading and unloading, refuse collection, etc.. ,k fence runs along the northerly perimeter of the entire parcel separating the service arca from a subdivision of Tesideatizill homes that is adjacent to the entire subject parcel alopg its north perimeter. On the roof of Apple'Msrket, not visible from the front (street) but visible from the side and rear are various roof installations.Visiblo from the street mid from the sides and rear in a *=cd in xtructure, Thara was nothing imanodJately visible that appeared to be telecommunications antennae, 71tosc appraisers have been inforrned that there are eight panel antannae, approximately ten inches wide and five to six feet (all that are hidden by the fhuned structure. Across San Ramon Way, to the west of the shopping cantor, are, Kaiser Permiincntc NIBdIdAl offices. On the roof of the building facing the comer of San MW16 Drive and Son Manion Way are various installations including What appears to be a radia typo transmitter The iriflacaces an residential properties in the vicinity of The 155 San Marin Drive locAtion itwlude the tr.-ifflo along San Maria Drivc, the proximity of the shq.0pirig center (corarnercW use properties), noise from traffic, garbage pickup, and delivery sarvium, Che telecommuoications antennae on the Apple Building, the Installations on and the proximity of the Kaiser Permanente Buildings, and the presence of a tannin and Ep&iin club that is to the immediate north of the subdivision behind the shopping center. The tennis and swath. club effects this subdivision because there arc flood lights installed above. the tennis coutts for night time use rosWtIng in Some noise from the club both is the days and evenings, and considerable light intrusion in the eiranings. This influencz was mentioned by some of the agents, buyers, and sellers spoken with during the comae of our market study but was not inoluded in our original questionnaire. tit Daft 2LIbC Market Sfa_dy The effective date of this Market Study is September 28, 2000 which is the date th6 appraisers did a complete exterior inspection of the two properties that are the subject of this report and inspected the exterior of all the comparable sales studied in this report. However, the effccifve date of the entire Market Study, the period that was surveyed, is 1992 to the present. 5 'I'lla MWI-01 Study in"Ived id--MifYigg all Mos Olaf had oc-.--itTred betweam mid-1992 tc-, .j tine Phe PfeAmt that were witb4n a maxnnurn of 15 miles of the two locations with e tl-'IecOmmunitadons antennae. Excluded were partial tranarors, la*ansfers between funily members, fo=10.qurts Wh"O a lending Institution took title, and any transactions W11cro, there was insufficient: data to confirm the sale ptico from two independtmt sources. Also excluded were homes to the cast of Us 101 in San Rafael ass these homes am c)a the opposite side of the free%;%y from the I525 Lincoln Avenue property, and the noighborhood influences On that 8140 of the fivoway are considerably differ&nt from ,the west of the freeway influences. gpecifioally, there is less tMfficy the rQ04 that front's the fta6wiy being narrower than Lincoln Avenue and without commercial, use properties. -Homes On the streets to tho south of, and radiating off, San Marin Drive were also excluded as they are less influenced by traffic and the mix of pmperty types is limited to One and two story single family residential, detached homes. Having idontified,properties that fit these parameters, agents and/or buyers and sellers were contacted in, order to determine the impact of the varying influences identified as present in the immediate locations Of the telecommunications antannae on these sold Properties. Although this Study it specifically to idewify any impact oil value attributable to the presence of the telecommunication antennae, In order to identify the impact it is necessary to rule out other inflitencea that may also affect value. Therefore, tha market study conducted for this report involved a questionnaire that addressed all of the iufluonces identified as affecting each of tht- properties in the study, Specifically then&, were*, 1) Proximity of heavily trafflokod streota 2) Traffic noise 3) MA Power tension wires (ENO lields) 4) Cellular phone antennae 5)' Emissions from cars due to traffic 6) Radio trInsynitter on the User Building 7) Proximity of commercial use properties AH questions were conducted as p' . hone interviews. Questions asked in rogoids to those soYcn items included: At the tirne of sale, did the ScIlers/buYers express concerns or indicate that they were aware of any of (each of the g6Ven items were ffim read to them in jlnm)? 2) Did the seller disclose the proxirnity of any of thess iterns at the time of sale in the Seller's Disclosure Statement? 0 Did M'- agmt(q) dis(11011:s riny C'0` 1h sah-, ;re dic. AworW6 41) Did the buyurs indicate particularly serious co4eems about any of tbwa items �j did it appear to influence their decision to pwchass? 5) What Was, the genorat condition of the property at the time of sale? A total of 34 single .family residences were identified that gold betA;een 1992 and the present Incatod in -the inunedinto vicinity of the Linouln.Mmttepropetty and a total of IS units in a common interest development. A total of 28 single family residenceg were identified that bad sold between 1992 and the present located An.thq irarnmiate, :vicinity of the.San Marin Dziye prop" ' as.voll an one commort interest development `Wait. is eu a because as i Th� 5'�4FI the sale elate it prior to thedate of itstallation of the telecommunication antero, M, It Was nftef a period of rapid_ appreciation in the marketplace in Marin County and of rered a more stable market. The date of the Final Inspection for the antennae installation at the Lincoln Avenue property was Yanuvy> 1996. Therefore, Wea befbreja;juwy 1996 were prior to the aotivgfinn,pf the talecommijuiantion; antetw4a while sules thareaft6r. . would have been after it was in full operation. The date of the activation of the telecommunications antennae at the San Marin L)rjvc.- property was November 7. 1995. Therefore, sales before November 7, 1995 would have been prior to the activation of the antennae mid Was thereafter would have been after it was irx full operation, As.previously rmted, this was conducte4 as a qualitative study, not a quantitative, study. All identified properties were included; this was not a random sampling. properties were excluded only if there was insufficient data to confim they were mlrkot sales as described by the definition of Market Value cited herein. Agents and/or buyers and sellers on both sides of each. transaction (selling, aka ligtil1g, and buying) were': intemewod, whenever possiblo. Of the 49 residential properties itoluded in the Lincoln Avenue study tvca, responses were obtained from 36 listijig agents and 25 selling agents, as well as I private iudividual. (buyer). Of the 49 properties included, 9 had tto responses; mamug neitbei liking nor selling agehtsi sellar not buyer,* responded to the survey. Therefore, those 9, although included statistically as to mean and median pricej in the Surv6y Area, are ixeluded from the tally of responses to the survey questions. A total of 62 responses were included, 7 51W Did M'- agmt(q) dis(11011:s riny C'0` 1h sah-, ;re dic. AworW6 41) Did the buyurs indicate particularly serious co4eems about any of tbwa items �j did it appear to influence their decision to pwchass? 5) What Was, the genorat condition of the property at the time of sale? A total of 34 single .family residences were identified that gold betA;een 1992 and the present Incatod in -the inunedinto vicinity of the Linouln.Mmttepropetty and a total of IS units in a common interest development. A total of 28 single family residenceg were identified that bad sold between 1992 and the present located An.thq irarnmiate, :vicinity of the.San Marin Dziye prop" ' as.voll an one commort interest development `Wait. is eu a because as i Th� 5'�4FI the sale elate it prior to thedate of itstallation of the telecommunication antero, M, It Was nftef a period of rapid_ appreciation in the marketplace in Marin County and of rered a more stable market. The date of the Final Inspection for the antennae installation at the Lincoln Avenue property was Yanuvy> 1996. Therefore, Wea befbreja;juwy 1996 were prior to the aotivgfinn,pf the talecommijuiantion; antetw4a while sules thareaft6r. . would have been after it was in full operation. The date of the activation of the telecommunications antennae at the San Marin L)rjvc.- property was November 7. 1995. Therefore, sales before November 7, 1995 would have been prior to the activation of the antennae mid Was thereafter would have been after it was irx full operation, As.previously rmted, this was conducte4 as a qualitative study, not a quantitative, study. All identified properties were included; this was not a random sampling. properties were excluded only if there was insufficient data to confim they were mlrkot sales as described by the definition of Market Value cited herein. Agents and/or buyers and sellers on both sides of each. transaction (selling, aka ligtil1g, and buying) were': intemewod, whenever possiblo. Of the 49 residential properties itoluded in the Lincoln Avenue study tvca, responses were obtained from 36 listijig agents and 25 selling agents, as well as I private iudividual. (buyer). Of the 49 properties included, 9 had tto responses; mamug neitbei liking nor selling agehtsi sellar not buyer,* responded to the survey. Therefore, those 9, although included statistically as to mean and median pricej in the Surv6y Area, are ixeluded from the tally of responses to the survey questions. A total of 62 responses were included, 7 `at file '�Si pPe)P'_rhQS hIC1440d ifl file. 80A Muj;a L)rivz tftUJy ;g pa, r-.5 ww-"r,- t-ItIt2ited, *DVII2 listiNg lagentawd 1.1 Belli ng agents. No private pard" tssp6tided. Of the 29 Pkpoitim hucluded, 4 had Bit re-HPGns0s- TbCDCfbrP, ftse, 4, Wilioq;,4 inetuite tiatically as to meats and median prices in the Survey Area, are excluded from the tally of ra.sponses to the survey quvstiona, A. total of 35 res?onses were iacluded. The results of dic Market Survey were then correlated and the mean and mediATL rale prices in each yore for, ofigh location were eullculutcd. T11090 fISUT03 WCM then compared to the mean and median prices in the broader San Rafael and Novato marketplaces to determine the relationship of Oes within 'the market study area to the grr.,ator marketplace over time, 'a addition, c6i"oPlailIg the Percdntage�Af 4hanso yoor by year in the mm and median sale Prices in the great" market area and the two locations in this study provided further insight into bow the locations competed with the greater marketplace in which they were located Finally, the results of the surveys are reconciled and summarized to indicate Wfiethar or not the presence of tolecommunications antoiwae were a concern to buyers and/or sonars and if they influenced the sale prices of homes in the study aroas. W0—n#I-TI-T2#TTr-8L=' IT, t =. rt M, 4-0 IMII Specific comments On the individual neighborhoods are included herein, 'as they arc important to an Understanding of the greater market area within which these two t610110ron'Unication sites are located. As to the region as 3 Whole, Maria County has a population of just over 225,000 Derr ow, with u high number of Professionals, 2io/a Of the Population having advanced 4egrees. Median income in the county is over $50,000 per year, one of the highest in the USA. Because of this, the use of cell phones, and the need forielecommilnication towers to SuPPOrt that Use, is increasing. The S&ft Rafael neighborhood in which the 1823 Lincoln Avenue propertyislocated is bounded by US Highway lol to the euL Mission Avenue to the south, a ridge running along Robert Dollar Scenic D;ive and Chula Vista to the west, and the jutenection of US 101 with Los Rmehitos and Lincoln Avenue to the north. Within these neighborhood houndaries, 1825 Lincoln Avenuc is at the northern perimeter near the crest of a hill known as thaTuerto Suollo Hill". Neighborhood terrain is level along Lincoln, Avenue and the US lol corridor but liars steeply to the west. Homes in the level areas are subject to considerable traffic and -noise as Lincoln Avenue is one or only two alternative routes to TJS 101 between central Saa 8 I Llorth Additiolla4y, oloat atrets 41U the neighborhood art aonosao:i via Liaoatri Avenue. floraw In the Wllq ari mjbjeat is lass traffitt but, bacatrw (liev m;, iabvyle .Uxicoln A.venijs wd XIS 101, they ae gubjcd h) rzonaidorabte trafflo noise rrnv, both LinIn Avenue and flic near by freeway, Commercial properties are intorsperse(I with residential use ptoperties,bothainglo family and multi -family dwellin,",Tong the length of Lincoln Monut. Because of these influences, prices of homes in the neighborhood tend to be below the average and median prices of homes in the greater Sgin R4&rl area, Offsetting Is the ability to purchase a somewhat larger home for a price that is lower than 4 comp4rably sized home would cost in a less mixed neighborhood., Appeal of the neighborhood Is influenced by the pTwcimate location of US 101 positively as well as negatively. 1"he negative, an noted, Is the traffic noise while the positive is the prwdroity of the freeway. US 101 is Marin County's only teeway, turning toTthwardg from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Sonoma County border where it continues northward to the Oregon border. Aa=ss to US 101 is excellent from Na neighborhood and buses run regularly along the freeway corridor da wall as along Lincoln Avenue; providing good pitblio trmiuportaflou- Schools and shopping, although outside the identified neighborhood boundarici, are still within a five minute drive from all locations within thenoighborhod& Overall then, this neighborhood is musidored to be somewhat less desirable, because of the negative influences noted, Than competing San Rafael neighborhoods with fewer negative external influences. in Sou 'Rafael so a wbole, between the end of 1992 and the present the mean (average) price of a home 1 ag V=i[e4 as follows, according to IvMS Statistics (note that NILS Statistics do riot 'separate out individual neighborhoods, nor condominiums and PUD developments, and are inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated San Rafael locations); 0 an (aygtjjjzr,) 8 y Price Q ClgAed Sill s . 0—YiLChang2 2000 as of September 25, 2000 $556,009 based on 552 closed sales +220/. 1999 as of December 91, 1999 $456,957 based on 819 closed sales +12% 1998 as of December *,At, 199 8 $409,178 based an 823 closed axles +11% 1997 as of December 31, 1997 * 5369,903 based on 854 closed sales +7% 1996 as of December 31, 1996 5344,708 based an 642 closed sales +3% 1995 as of December 31, 1.995 $335,215 based on 529 closed sales - 29,65 1994 as a f December 31, 1994 $342,848 based on 746 closed sales +3% 0 V: 1992 basod fin 6 4' ;,,!osodia4i:s (% S33Q-64 fardel art 6f�j 7 closed sales 'h"c figums r-aw also bo oxpresoed asa. percantage of average =10 Pric-0 Of hornos as ,owparad to preceding yearn, Thus the c=`ent average Sale price of howea ja San 114tazi in late Septaunber 2000, is 22% higher th= Lite Vdrsgo sale price in San Rai Of 1999, fn the grid, ffie x%, Change"colu= is this percentages.f401 at the end The avcrage salep&-t: of A 11(51 -do ja San,Rafael at 60 end of 1999, v the end of 1998. as 12% higher than at Ties average Bald price of a hare in San Rafael at the ind of 1998 was tho and of 1997, and so forth. I I% higher than at 'Finally, the avoragr sale prior than at the end of iggi 0-r U h'oMe'h "anF'dael at the end of 1992 verse 4% (the average We price at the end of 1991 was $343,781), lower MLS St4t's"cs also Publish the 7Vfc&an. Sale Nee of homes but these figures are onl complied at the end Of each year and only data back, to 1,904, In Satz Rafael ey , thwworeasy follows. Sile Bri 1999 as of December 31, 1999 WOOD +12% 1999 as of December 3 1. 1999 $359,000 +9% 1997 as of December 31, 1997 $329,250 +5% 1996 alisof Dcccmber 31, 1996 $315,000 0% 1995 as Of December 31, 1995 $315,000 +1% 1994 as of December 31,1994 $312,000 Unknown As with the meas, the median gala price for each Year is divided by the median SfLle price for, the P"Oeftg Year to dwive a perceptago of =chang. e over the i tj 0 P6filage change Is shown in the chartas ,y Change,.den fWd pvriod. 'rhit The changing values 'indicated by both the mesa and median val' periods must be considered in this Market Study as this is the ues over th000 time underlyingmarketplace within which Properties were sold: and Purchased. This is the "background noise", so to BI'Dak which does not relate to any single item but to the much larger markeLplzc& only by identifying these market wide trends can trends within the cdiatc locations be adequately differentiated. imm The 84A Marin neighborhood in Novato, in which the IS 10CM-4, is bowided by Simmons L18M.- to the east, Novato SCre�cnkMarin Drive property i to the south to where is crosses Novato Boulevard, City limitc, to to west and the Mount Burdell preserve to the 10 ;a A IPI -i Drivt `I,OW�4041 LAM& tltc- matil. Wif!"Lill M=m jiorthwvm� Perimeter appfoximutt4y A milli i from iho junirlion. ()z8an Maria DI -i Y:- 'siriO Neighborboad terrain is ;entlY T611ing hills that rise more steeply to tho north of Sari Marin Drive to the neighborhood boundary at the Mount Burde,11 Preserve. In the more level areas, wW--b are generally south of San Marin Drive, the predominant housing Is single family tzi4.built tom". DevelopmeaL dates back to the early 1960's and has continued to the present on inffil lots. RovFavar there is limited land left for developinent and the neighborbood. is almost c'ornplctely built up- ' Densew reai4ential housing is located on San Marixf Drive with condominiums, planned unit dovolopments, and dunattes (side by side units with,one common waU). TIwre arc a few small apartment complexes. Ac condominiums and planned unit'dovelopmenu extend to both the north and south of San Marin Drive but axe lirnitvd in numbers (essentially 3 complexas in the entire area). Commercial properties are abiost entirely limited to San Marin Drive. Them are several office complexes, the KaiserBuildings, and the Shopping Center in which 155 Son Marin Drive is located. San Marin Drive in a four -lane road with a landscaped median strip. It is one of the wider wid murt: h-.uvily traveled aLrects in this nartbem section of Novato. At the far western end of the neighborhood, at the northeast comer of the intersection of San Marin Drive and Novato Boulevard, still within the neighborhood boundaries, is San marin High School. -it is less than A miles from 155 San Marin Drive as is the local grade school, which is also located within the neighborhood boundaries on San P,=on Way just 1.5 blinks down from Son Marin Drive. Finally, the local Fire Station is locale4 at the southwest comer of Sen Ramen Way and San Marin Drive, a block north of the grade school that was previously mentioned. Homesthat are on San Marin Drive are affected by traffic and traffic noise. Buses run along San MA:ria Drive,rpgWjKly and also along several of the side streets, partieularly at 'commute hours. Home prices on San Marin Drive tend to be slightly lower, tha4.in.tbe m=ounding :tracts, that am the, gmtar-pc�dio'n of the San Writ neighborhood, largely because of the traffic jWjFnFe'However.- 4ho-proximity of the Shopping Ccator and 1School, bdth increase automobile traffic and foot traffic. Thb pbfitiVe UpedU of this location are the age Of Wows to US 101 which is tWo miles to the cast 'down San.Mazin Drive, the proximity Of OPeu space far hiking and horse back Tiding in the Mount Burdell Prpscrva, aad the proximity of local stopping. Further � ' S.• .. i�7i _V t' .L _ .. gh;.i4r I} sziz 3 �i �7 within wa:aju� dist�rrj�: ��.t"�t��ir schools, au�j r,, CIvaLalt phis neighborhood is c.,iderzd to E30 good whorl -viewed in its erltircty, howevor the homes directly, ort Sau Marin Drive would l=ava tess;3r appal than the snrraisrs� hose urs l -s ixafcked side streets, In Novato as a whole, between the and of 1992 {avarage) p and tha n� the meant rice 4f a home has varied as follows, apreae ccording to MLS St4tistios (note that h21,S not scParata out individual neighborhoods nor condoeilul ul, and PUD developmentsStatistics do are inclusive of bout incorporated sad unincorporated Novato laeslious);and 2000 as Of September 2.5, 201?b—__.----.-�, ased an s 19 closed sales 1.999 as of Decmbdr 31, 1999 $$363,664. based on 875 closed sales + 51� 1998 as of Deecmbar 31, 1998 S34S,679 basad on 806 closed sales +14% 1947 as of December 31, 1997 5303,576 1996 as of December 31, 1based orz 738 closed sales +4% 996 '$292,3,30 based on 591 closed sales 3� 19.95 as of December 31, 1995 $283,799 based on 521 closed sales _� 6% 1994 as of Decc=ber 31, 1994 S257,690 based on 612 closed sales . g 1993 as ofI)COOnrbar 31, 1993 $293,604 based ors 629 closed sales -F 5%, 1992 as of.Decembor31, 1992 3277,486 basad on 572 closed sales - 4% These 6 � . des can also be expressed as a porcargage ofthe compared to preceding yaars. average sate price of homer. 0 Thus, the current average sale price o f late September, 2000 is 23% higher than the average shc,nses lrz whTot�asta in ale Brice ixt'%(ovate at the end of Rafael. 1999- la the grid, the 4'0/,hassgc" cellonas is this percMstage, as it was in the grid for son NMS Statistics also publish the Median Sale price of homes but these fl=es are only compiled at the end of each year And only data hack to 1994, ,as a o Iyfarkgt TrPn�tq in �iRr, R `- -t cairzmmcrz#s. h'3' Helsel in iho In Novato, they were as follows: 1999 1998 as OfDecembor 31, 1999 $328,000 as of December 31, 1.098 $299,000 +10 f 1997 as of Decomber 31, 1997 $276,900 + 8% 1996 as of December 31, 1996 $268,000 +3% 1995 as of December 31, 1995 3262,500 + 24% 1994 as of December 3l, 1994 S252,000 +2% Unknown 'ln A As w4b. thr; 2a cars the mudim 8;,,Iiv Lirire for mb year is eivick-,O by thartwdiau aaki prior:: ror the precMing year to d(urivo a penacrltaxre of'chaWa ovgx The ideAfflied pi:dod, 71r;zL pdri;e.angpt c4migt 4, sh6'44rni in thea cit.ut as % Changfel- Tho ahancras over time shown in those to charts provided the "background noise;" which 91 does not relate to may single item but to the much larger Novato marketplace. a=MAM a -'reed .T9ata far- n Mful ud &vato In San Raftol, a decline in tb* average sale price ocwffed in berth 1995 wheat compared to 1994 and in 1992 when comparad to 1991. In Novato the doolixtes occurred in 1994 when conparcd to 1993 and in 1992 when compared to 1991. These are close enough to each other to suggest a market wide trend for both cities in the early to Mid -1990"g, Theroaftor, prices incrcas*4 steadily with the greatest increases ocmuTing in the last three years (1998 to thvOreseut). Now -that the market trends in both San Rafael and Novato u. a whole have been identified, the results of the study conducted by these} appraisers can be viewed in their broad prospective. rendsMarkef in the Awn The Table'of Property Addresses, Table #1, lists the sales, alphabetionfly, included in. the San Rafael Study Area, In the table "SFR" means Single Family Residential and' "CID': means Common Interest Development (a condominium or planned unit development). The datt(s) of sale are provided, then the diat4ndc and direction from the tolecarrenunioations anteanae located on the 1825 Lincoln Avenue building- "fhe distances given are "as the crow MW', that being a direot Una, between locations, and not via surface streets as the influence of the antennae would not be gauged by the street address, and would be instead perceived, by the markat, as a linear effect, .The mule price f6k each property Is then listed under the appropriates year of sale. The antennas were instaUcd, as noted, in January, 1,996 so that the pricag for 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, reprtiont the "before' value trends while the, prices from 1996 onwards represent the "aftor" value trends. Finally, after all properties are listed Pad identified as to price Stud year 6f talo, the average sale price per year for the study area is calculated with the average sale price per MLS for 41 of San Rafael given immediately below. This is followed by the calculated median sale price for tyre Study area ona. yearly basis, followed by the median sale priao,per NMS for all of San Rafkal'on a yearly basis. . i kit 's;UX Ruf'w vv�;rx-wwp MCI, mciliarl &).v� t: rorC pr=;S havr, GLkt,414nr proyidcdjj sae -,arht�r �a tjxi hut; on Fatale A 1, they ars, orwiltrated'�Ath the wacaga �ucj M�-4ja the silt -Vey dat.-l- , . cozj fron,, �j A ratio can be ostablishid botweoa fjjc Etvt,4P and Mcdbul Salo pvicos ta the soidy a7faa as follows: In 1.992, the averAge sale price in the study area represented a sale price: ftt, was 60% Of the avorAgo sale price in all of San Rafiel for that year. In 1993. the, averages sale price in the study area was c6% a f- the San Rafsel average, In 1994, the average sate price in the study area was J6% of the Son lea average. In 1995, the average sale price in the study area was 91% orthe San Rafael average. 110 telecommunications Antennae were installed in January of 1996. Thus, on average, the average sale price of a home in the study area was 6601. of -the average sale price in San Rafael as a whale for the four years Preceffing the installation of the telecommunications antennae. In 1996, the average sale price of a home in the study Ores represented, a sale price that was 66% of the average Salo price in all of San Rafael for that year. In 1997, the average solo price in the study area was 57% of the San Rafael average. In 1998, the average sale price in the study area was 76% of the Salt Rafael average. In 1999, the average sale price in the study area was 6$% afthe San Rafael average, in 2000, year to date, the average sale price in the study area is 63% at the Sart Rafa,01 Therefore, for the five years after the installation of the telecommunications antennae, the average sale price in The study area is 65% Of the average sale price of a home in San Rafael as a whole, a differenco that is, statistically, identical to the figure for the four years preceding the installation of the antennae. "M median figures ZISO 911PPOrt this satno pattern with virtually no change in the 1'elutiunsbiP Of hOM6 Pficoa in the study area to Son Rafael as a whole when comparing ratios before and after the installation of the telecommunfeaffong antamac. In 1994, the median sale price of a home in the study Area. was *66% of the roedian, for San Rafael as a whole. In 1995 it rose to 96%. 71= median of these two is 76%. Thus, the median price in the study area was 76% for the two years preceding the installation of the telecommunications antennae, In 1996, the median in the study area was 73% of the median in San Rafael as a whole, 14 E 61 119,97, 1", Wass 69Jili3. In 19-98, 1'. wia 92j";, L-1 I% 19� w83 %, rh� medwi i£lj! tb--'4 Yaax-5 ullortliciustaflo4on was, therefore, 77,5%, again, statistic ally, v'zfYC1vS5tx5 cite nN1.) !vvqrs preo.--ding the iwsiaUati(j-n of th'a V Those ratios lndicnie UO&ixnatic market changes in the yt.Ti-s imm,,-diatoly b2foro or afto.r thea tOlOcOmmunicatiOAS antennae weir installed. ;k filafiless tea, aresJ The Table of Property Addresses. Table #2, lJqs the sales, alphabetically. . included in the -9an Maria Study Area. In the tablO, -SFX'MCAM Si4lc Family Residential and 44CII)TY Means Common Interest Development (a condominium or planned unit 4cycloptnant). The date(s) of sale are provided, than the distance and 4irection fkarn the tuler-OluAlunicatiOns antennae located on the 155San Marin Drive building, nje distances given arc "a8 the crow Hire, that being a direct line between locations, and not via surface streets :n the influence of the axiterwav would not be . gauged by the street address, and would be perceived, by the market as a linear effect. The sale price for each Property is then listed under the appropriate year of sale, The antennae were issued their final permit in November, 1995 so that the prices for 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, represent the "before" value trends While the prices from 1996 onwards represent the "aftee'v4luo trends. Finally, after all properties are listed aid identified as to price and year of sale, the average sale price por year for the study area is calculated with the avenge sale price per hffiS for all ofNavato given immediately below. This is followed by the calculated mudiaa sala ptice for the study area on a yearly basis, followed by the median sale price per MLS for &H of Ntivato on EL yearly basis. The Novato average and median We prices have already been provided earlier in this report but, on Table #2, tbzy are contrasted with the average and median sale prices from the survey data. A ratio can be established between the average and median sale prices in the study area as follows; In 1992, the avOrAfesale Price in the study area represents a sale pxica that was 115% of the average sale price in Novato for that year, In 1993, the average sale price in the study area was 98% of the Novato average. fn 1994, the average sale price la the study on, was 116% of file Novato sycrase, In 1995, the average sale price in the study area was 100% of ft Noygo I average. 15 rill TIUWV-R�To, Vin, pl,;Tlod ftini J99 Ujai pe lovexam, 1-9915 , 4 oaivnds rqpreggsfIts qte instal I at! oil" Parted; Th116, .art average, the average rale; Pri" Of A h in the Brady area was I D'/,O/o of tj(e avmge said Pric- in Wtwato as a whale for f1lu fOLL" no the YOM PreQcding the ip-stalbWo f tclecatmnunications antennae. fa 1996' rho average sale price Of a hO= in the study 8=4 ZTT=cnted a sale price that wo 106 % of'the avefagt! sale PrIft I dif OfNovato for that year. In 1997, the average sale price in'the study area was 108% of the Novato average. In 1999, the avar4ge, sale price in the study area was 123% of the Novato avamge, In 1999, the average sale price in the study area was 99% of the Novato average. In 2000, year to data, the avenge sale price in the study area was 101 % of the Novato 1 'heref ofe- for the five years after the installation of the tolecommunioatiOns antennae, the average sale Price in the study area. was 107'5% of the IIv*R9V 6810 -price or a homL. in NOvatO as a whole, a difference that is, statistically, identical to the figure for the fear Years preceding the installation of the antennae. The inedian fignt% produce a somewhat different picture. In 1934- the median.median.sale price of a homein the study area was 112% of the median pole price for Novato as a wholc. In 1995, it dropped to 976/c. The median of these two is 105%" This means that the median Price in the study area was 105% of the Novato or the two years preceding median sate price f Va - antennae, the installation, of the telezornmuniclations .In 1996, the MCI= sale price in the study area rose to 121 % of the median in Novato as a whole. In 1997, it was 113%. In 1998, it was 125%. In 1999, it ' median for the years after the installa0an was, therefore, 117%. This is tnuch higher than was 107%. -The in the two years prececung the installation. This mum that the median prices In the irnmediato study area have actually risen in relationship to the median prices a whole since the installation of the telecommunications antennae. in NOVOO as ken t 110 market values in the San Rafael Study Am did not altar SiVlificentlY after the: installation of the telecommunications Ratc=0 an the 1825 Lincoln Avenue building either 013 an average prim or median price basis. This suggests that there has been, to date, no identifiable impact of the telecommunications antennae on reside:atial rest estate prices across the broader market. "R ®R TIUWV-R�To, Vin, pl,;Tlod ftini J99 Ujai pe lovexam, 1-9915 , 4 oaivnds rqpreggsfIts qte instal I at! oil" Parted; Th116, .art average, the average rale; Pri" Of A h in the Brady area was I D'/,O/o of tj(e avmge said Pric- in Wtwato as a whale for f1lu fOLL" no the YOM PreQcding the ip-stalbWo f tclecatmnunications antennae. fa 1996' rho average sale price Of a hO= in the study 8=4 ZTT=cnted a sale price that wo 106 % of'the avefagt! sale PrIft I dif OfNovato for that year. In 1997, the average sale price in'the study area was 108% of the Novato average. In 1999, the avar4ge, sale price in the study area was 123% of the Novato avamge, In 1999, the average sale price in the study area was 99% of the Novato average. In 2000, year to data, the avenge sale price in the study area was 101 % of the Novato 1 'heref ofe- for the five years after the installation of the tolecommunioatiOns antennae, the average sale Price in the study area. was 107'5% of the IIv*R9V 6810 -price or a homL. in NOvatO as a whole, a difference that is, statistically, identical to the figure for the fear Years preceding the installation of the antennae. The inedian fignt% produce a somewhat different picture. In 1934- the median.median.sale price of a homein the study area was 112% of the median pole price for Novato as a wholc. In 1995, it dropped to 976/c. The median of these two is 105%" This means that the median Price in the study area was 105% of the Novato or the two years preceding median sate price f Va - antennae, the installation, of the telezornmuniclations .In 1996, the MCI= sale price in the study area rose to 121 % of the median in Novato as a whole. In 1997, it was 113%. In 1998, it was 125%. In 1999, it ' median for the years after the installa0an was, therefore, 117%. This is tnuch higher than was 107%. -The in the two years prececung the installation. This mum that the median prices In the irnmediato study area have actually risen in relationship to the median prices a whole since the installation of the telecommunications antennae. in NOVOO as ken t 110 market values in the San Rafael Study Am did not altar SiVlificentlY after the: installation of the telecommunications Ratc=0 an the 1825 Lincoln Avenue building either 013 an average prim or median price basis. This suggests that there has been, to date, no identifiable impact of the telecommunications antennae on reside:atial rest estate prices across the broader market. 11;I- markot values in fbe $ Mario stwjy Aran &d not alter significan'ta- aftm $,,- cashz 11atiou of the tole-conmaWc-ations anreni.-io on the 155 Sim Mart u Drive Vlu4ding (3,r, ,uj average price, bads but did altar ort a median price b-mis, Ta fad, the .malign price roalL disproportiouately above do median price in Novato as a whole ufter tbLt telecommunication antennae were installed. it Ig unlikely this incroac was related to the Wtallation itself as Novato has soon an increasing acceptance in themarkatplace as home prices have risen prohibitivzly fit most Southern Mariu CaLmty locations. Table #3 and the `"Tally of Respondzuts: fbr Bach'Pioporty in the Son Rafael StU4y Area" 3uromarize the various responses to the questions asked in the Market Study and the number of responses rcovivvd. Only those jwponcling are: included in the study ratios resulting from the comlation of theresponses and respondents. Thur., there were a total of 62 respondwU (individuals) excepting where the listing and selling agent evert the same, in which case the respondent is counted twice. It the "Notes" on the Tally Sheet, these appraisers have indicated if the listing agent (LA) and selling agent ($A) wore the same. This occurs when the Bamm agent represented both sides of the transaction and responded as both the listing and selling agent(s). For some properties, there were two, or even three, sales during the years included in the study period. in those cased, two listing and two selling agents (or three listinf, agents and throe selling agents) were contacted. Respondents are as sbown. For instance, for 7 Glenwood Drive, there; wore three sales but only one listing agent responded. Therefore, for the tally, only one response is iuoludcd despite the three separate listingE. There were a possible 118 individual responses. In fact, we were able to contact and interview only 62 of these possible respondents. This is &response ratio of 53%. There were another nine roVoDscs (actually one agent with nine transactions in the condominium complex at 1579 Lincoln Avenue) but his assistant didn7t; romorriber the propoilles or simply inilivated "rc'to everything without allowing the interviewer to go through all the questions. Therefore, those nine aro not included in the 62 respondents identiAe-d- In it survey, a response rate of over 25% is considered acceptable, so that, fax a study that ratios on a survey, a 5310 response ratio Is considered very high and well witin, the ymuieters required for stathtleal acturficy. In the San Rafael Study Area, the influence: that caused greatest concern was traffic noise with, 32% of the respondents indicating this did concom the seller and/or buyer. The influence that was second most in concent was the proximity of heavily trafficked streets which garnered 2?% of the respondents Indicating this concomed the seller and/or buyer. 17 % Ulc 110.X" TWO iterng wi! Of COMUCMW LIFfI 'Ktjperjjj�5 other LufluA!uce�" lb -6,t iftxo not covemd in o1jr survey qI)e8tions, in dW SdD Rafael Studyvera These P Ible uddi6on of a light mil vehiple the Possible widening US 101 a, -Id -'!;Sl L 4azent. to t"P ZMWUY corridor. Finally, with a 3% POS16YO response, was emissions from CM buydue Of tho respondents idontifictl this as a concern in S811cr- and/or ersto traffic, moaning j o/. This totals 74% Of the respondents, thus 26% of the respondents said that -non= o items in the survey Comerned the seller and/or buyers, f tae None of the resp, Ondents identified the Cellular PboDa Antennae as a and none Concern identified ENE Fields, bOtb items that have bad considerable CXPOfflue the press and in which, therefore, would be CxpecW to be a relevant iternfor seller"IM4 buyers a4e, -`47.1±tT-17, Table *4 and the -rally of Respondents for Each proporty. TI the 8 n study Armes,511mmari= the Various responses to an Mari the questions liked in the Market Study and the number of responses received. Only those responding are included in the study ratios resulting kom the correlation of the responses and respondents. Thus, there were a total of 35 respondents (individuals} excepting Where the 1, selling agent• were the same, '11 which case the respondent is counted twice listing and "NOteR" On the, Tally Shoot, these appraisers have Mrated if the . In the the selling agent (SA) were the same. This occurs when 0 s listing agent (LA) and th same agent r res t both and selling age t(s). sides of the transaction and responded as both the listing ep en ed For some properties, there were toxo sales during the Years, included in the study period, In those cases, two ffsting and two selling agents were contacted, krsponare as shown. For Instance, for 37 Andreas Chole, there were two sales but only Ondantee hs6ng agent responded. 11crefom, far the tally, only ono response Is included despite the two separate sale dates. There *were a total Of 64 Possible individual responses. In fact'. We were able t and interview Only 35 of these possible tespondents. This is o contact , a r"Ponse ratio of 55%. In a survey, a tesPOASO rate Of Over 25% is consi4med acccptabja, so tb relies on a swvay, s55V. rospoz4a ratio is IA for 4 study that parameters required for statistic4 Itcollmey. s considered Very high and well within the LIthe San Marin Study Area, the influence that caused the greatest concern was the Proximity of 'the heavily trafficked streets with 31% this did concern the seller and/or bWer, of the rcsPOnd'ents indicating that proximity Of CoInmercial use properties ,WjjhThc sewIld most cited influen,-. Was the a response ratio of 23%, meaning 23% of is _MWzVCV' Ut k:aSt "fat; 0-4,2�fjt indicated that t1lis actlfaflyvqasaposjt� -to fbbllyez, not a negative. Tbo mixt most ciMA zcsporac was Uzfalo noise with 20% Of tb!t rZ-3130ZIdexits ifldiCRtint IbAt this Ivas a concern to, the seller and/or buyer. Th-- category of "other" In the San. Marin Study Area was the proximity of the tannic courts and the floodlights that rose, above them, directly behind a number of homes. A total of 6% of the respondents identified this as a concern to sellers and/" buyers. Pinally, of those items causing concern, the least concern was emisslons from cars duo to traffic at 3% ofrospondents None of the x4pondefits identified the Cellular Phone Antennae or EMF Fjolds as a concerti, both being items that have had considerable expos a in the press and, tbor f; ur 00r0 would be expected to be a relevant item for sellori and, particularly, for buyars. summna 0 As stated, the Purpose of this Study was to determine the impact, if any, of the telocornznunicationsantennae an the market value of residential properties in close proximity to the antennae. In both Study Areaa, Son Whal and San Mariz, -no impact could be identified. In both areas, the inherent locational factors - busy street, commercial propertitm and traffic noise were the main :influences on property values- Cellular phone antennae were not reported as an influence by any of the agents and/or buyers and sellers contacta The Market itself supports this with the ratio of sale prices in each of the Study Areas, on average, rmaining the saline for � the yam both before and after the installation of the antennae, Further evidence is provided by the ratio of median prices in each of the study Areas that indicate no change In the San Rafael Study Area, both before and after the installation of the antennae. For the San Marin Study Area, the ratio of the raedian price of homes increased suggesting that not Only was there nQ negative impact but that the market, in fact, improved. It is the OPWOZI Of these aPpr-Aigers that in these two study areas, the presence of the cellular phone antennae had no impact on the market value of residential properties in close proximity to the cellular phone antennae. 19 Nit. to tlj?-- b*SL x Ow knowicd.e and tache'; th6) stateraMIS of fact oontailxd in this report am true a, the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions and correa axe limited. only by the reported assumptions and limitiRg conditions, and 2ro oar Personal, unblase4 Professiollal a041YON. Opiniots, and conclusions. we have no present or prospecove, interest in the PrOPerticg that are the subject of 'W's Tcli"t, and we JIM T16 p6roonal iaterr-st with revoct to the pailies involved. we have no bia with respect f0 any prope"'Ity that is the Subject of twa repctt or to the patties -involved with this assignxnent, our cofemat'on is nut contilIgOw On On Ac'Non or ownt resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use ot this report our analyries, OPiuioni, and conolusions wOrIO &Voloped. and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the UnlyarM &alld 'ard _4ppralsal Practice. r of Professional We ha:'vc made a personal, exterior, impr subject of this report. ,Otio'n of the properties that are the no one ProvidedsignificaxLt professional assistance to the persons signing thia report except for Michelo Gee who acted as reso=h assistant for this nwkct study- Her participation included contacting agents, buyers, and sellers, designing and entering responses -into spread sheets, and Producing the graphical illustrations in this report. VAMW MAN CA Residential CertificatiQn #ARO()2182 Wilda S. Vaugbj4 SRA CA Residential CertficatioU # 46ROO5022 911 �d �MSy r'f 1 1 jY'y'Y(�Yy�` �(�`qMY t f"!. .y �yi 'tl`�'4 kFh int. immunmannainwo �Moo��W�lu� The methodology employed indicated that the presence of communication towers resulted 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 a single-family dwelling in the Richmond MSA. Introduction 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 fact, negatively influence the market value of improved residential dwellings by reason of proximity or view, In turn, the client intends to use the findings and conclusions of 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 of the cities of Richmond, Petersburg, Colonial Heights, and Hopewell; and the counties of Chesterfield, Henrico, Hanover, Goochland, Powhatan, New Kent, Charles City, Dinwiddie, and Prince George in central Virginia. The following map 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 search for adequate market data 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 elimination, the study parameters were reduced to the counties of Chesterfield and Henrico. The counties of Goochland, Hanover, New Kent, and city of Richmond 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 die research available, six test sites were located. These tower sites were selected based on their proximity to or visibility from residential properties that were deemed to have the possibility of potential negative impact upon property values. location of Test Sues The county of Chesterfield, located in the south and southwest quadrants of the MSA had one test site Ibcated just cast of a townhouse project. This county was traditionally a bedroom community of the city of Richmond until the 1970s during a period when a building boom occurred. It has during a heavily populated suburban county with a full complement of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The county of Henrico, located in the western, northern, and eastern quadrants of the MSA had the remaining COMMUNICATION TOWERS I SIM Area Location Mao Doubletree Subdivision I rive test sites used in this study. The county was the original bedroom community of the city of Richmond. Because of proximity to major linkages with the city of Richmond, its establish - merit as a significant suburban entity preceded that of Chesterfield County, Towerliesearch 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. Only six existing tower sites were deemed applicable to this study out of the 77 sites inspected. The struc- ture of the towers varied from steel lattice type to steel 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 $70,000 to $150,000. This price range is typical of most first time homebuyers in the areas investigated. Of the three remaining tower sites, one was located near a multi -family residential apart- ment complex and the 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 three Section 2 (1995) 2 99 Se R. Subdivision ction 1 994) residential subdivisions studied will be discussed, EXIIIIIIIIIII1011101fleseefeftmemadolo1v Research was conducted at each of the respective localities previously mentioned in order to locate existing communication tower sites. This 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 of the Richmond MSA. Based on the data obtained from re- search, the 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 the tower sites investigated. Those properties deemed to be located in sparsely de- veloped areas, industrial neighbor- hoods, or commercial 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 permitting process, specific public data on the residential sites deemed to be 12 MARCIVAPRIL 1999 - RIGHT OF WAY IM In ithin the potential impact area of the ,,)wer, and sales/physical data on similarly improved properties in the general vicinity but not considered impacted by the Lower. If possible, inter- views were conducted with property owners and real estate agents who had current listings of properties included in the analysis. After assimilating the gathered data, a surnmary of each test site neighborhood was prepared by means of quantitative and qualitative adjustment techniques for a comparative analysis. Oriel Over flew elAnalysis According to the Eleventh Edition of The Appraisal of Real Estate, published by the Appraisal Institute (Chicago: 1996, page 414). "A comparative analyst 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 foot of dwelling area after adjusting each property to a common denominator (quantitative). The potential impact of the respective tower sites was rated for each property based upon observation. The impact rating was then compared to the adjusted prices paid per square foot as an Indication of any definitive correlation (qualitative). Analvals 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 E }WE ARE PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL TO CALTRANS AND MAYOR OFYH9 CITY OF DEL MAR HAS JOINED MH&A RICHARD WILL PROVIDE COUN%L IR ■ ENINEW DOMAIN M ■ INVOLA CONDMNATtOf4 • NEPAKEQA LITIGATION FOR PUKX AGENCIES McDoNOUCH HOLLANO RICHARD AYPINSKI CAN 41 REACHED ArOUR OAKLAND OFFICE. & ALLEN AtW#wys dt Low SACRAME14TO OAKLAND YUM CITY (ON) 444 -IM (310) 171.8M 1510) 614.1161 www."Ilikw.com MARCIVAPRIL IM - RIGHT OF WAY 13 in a developing area in Henrico County on the east line of Francistown Road between Hungary and Springfield Roads (See Exhibit 1, page 11). Section I was approved in 1994 and Section 2 in 1995. Construction of the dwellings began in 1995. The majority of the lots sold over a two-year period, a rate considered average for this price range. The average lot size is .204 acre (8,903 square feet) with a minimum width of 63 feet. Improved properties sold mostly in the $135,000 to $145,000 price range. All of the dwellings are two story and most have front -loading garages. There are two 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. It is a 168 -foot high steel lattice structure, which was built in 1964. It Is visible from all of the front yards of the lots fronting on Wilcltree 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 die subject subdivision, its visual impact is less dra- matic; however, it Is within noticeable sight of the lots in Section I backing to Francistown Road. Out of 67 lots, 25 improved properties were studied within the subdivision. In 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 25 properties was broken down to a unit price per square foot for the purposes of comparison. The unit prices, before adjustments, range from $64.54 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 dwelling 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, 21/2 baths, no fireplace, attached one car garage, no frontage on Francistown Road, and sold in 1997. All of the 25 improved 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 in the model. In an effort to achieve total sellout, the lots abutting Francistown Road were given a $4,000 discount, according to the developeribuilder. 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 adjustments 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 comparative analysis model. Primary attention was focused upon seven improved lots that were deemed to have major impact potential, due to their proximity to the tower located on the west side of Francistown Road directly across from the entrance of the subdivision via Wildtree Drive. Two out of the eight lots are situated at the northeast entrance of Doubletree Subdivision fronting the intersection of Wildtree and Khriberwick 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 Francistown Road and the 168 -foot high tower. A total of seven improved lots were classified as having significant impact potential due to their exposure to the two towers. Five 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 die 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 sufficient proximity away from the two 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 YAkitree Court fell under these two classifications. Svmmafv of Analysis The adjustment process used was an attempt to equalize the properties. Overall, the range in unit prices paid per square foot was narrower after adjust- ments were made in the comparative analysis model. After making adjust- trients 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 for these items, a significant range in unit price per square foot remained evident. However, the fluctuation in these 14 MARCHIAPRIL 1999 • RIGHT OF WAY adjusted unit prices per square foot can be attributed to a variety of 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 amenities or custom work were made, the range of adjusted unit prices per square foot is deemed to be supportive of showing the effect, if any, of the two towers on property values within the subdivision From on site observations, each property was rated relative to the impact of the tower due to proximity or view in one of four categories: major, significant, minor, or none. Those properties in which the tower was deemed to have a "major" impact were mostly 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" bad little or no view of the 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 substantiate the findings of the comparative model,.personal inter- views were held with -'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 Fraticistown Road did state that the seller discounted tine lots for exposure to that road. Im THE RICHT Of WAY EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS 1999 ROADRUNNER CLASSIC Friends of the Right of Way International Education l'bu ndadou and Canadian Right of Way Education Fotn Hatton are lioslhig a gotftountanreut onlune 23u1 fit Albuquerque. New Mexico III coujuncttou with the t 999 Artitual hitentationial Educalloti SendilaG Tire tountannent proceeds will benefit (lie foundations for use to developing educational materials and promoting professional development fol (Ile dgittofway profession We are seeking companies. agencies, antl lndividuals (hat would like to lielp make this tournament it big success by signing up for one ofthe seven levels ofspousorship or donating prize (terns, Sponsor names will be displayed at the touniaiuent as well as tite Seminar site so we xray recognize and show our appreciation to those wino contributed. We are expecting 144 golfers. Sponsorship is a great way to get naive recognition in file dght of way field and benefit a very worthwhile organization at the Baine trine. Special recognition will be given to tite Diamond, Gold and Silver coutrlbtuors at tine SenninarSkte and at tine Gol(Course .................................................................................... 1999 ROADRUNNER CLASSIC ROADRUNNER Company Name and Addrew Level of Sponsorship Thank you Inadvance for yourgeaerousaupport ifyou have any 4nreitiorit d Diamond $1.500 o corn $1,000to$1,499 Q Silver $500to$949 a scoreboardsponxX $750 U Hors d'oeuvre party 5ponZT $600 0 Hole in onesponsot $500 D Holesponsor $300 SUri MMM of $tufty Thank you Inadvance for yourgeaerousaupport ifyou have any 4nreitiorit The chart on page 16 is a summary please call DenntsWedmeliteratbIZ-887.1735. categorizing the results of the investiga- tion the PleM,ttkechecks cate Your responsebyWednesday,lure9,1999. para/rletoRW F,anddetachandrrnimfhiifotni of six existing communications towers in each of the localities included RWiEf c% DennisWerkmeiiter Enton Corp, 'n this study: 1600 Weit 82th Street: #210, Mltrteapolis, MN 55431 MARCHIAFRIL 1999 • RIGHT OF WAY 15 * Allocation of the percentage of properties considered as being impacted in a major or significant category; range in comparison units based on adjusted sale price per square foot of finished 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. In each of 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 die number of properties impact- ed in the Significant or Major categories in the lower and upper quartiles and Summary of Study Results for Major and Significant Impact Categories 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 3 4 5 6 a Lower Queffile a lower Hall A Higher Hall I V Higher Quardle lower and upper halves divided by the total number of properties impacted as such. For.example, in the Doubletree subdivision, 25 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 of the total number of properties in those categories) were in the lower quartile (bottom 25 percent) of the range in adjusted unit prices paid. Fight properties (47.1 percent) were in the lower half of the range. However, nine (52,9 percent) were in the upper half and four (23.5 percent) in the upper quartile of 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 from personal interviews with the property 16 MARCIVAPRIL 1999 - RIGHT OF WAY No./forcontago `' WFtaparfies Considered as tower Higher Higher Being impacted LowerQuardle Hall "off Quardle No. of in FlIfter a Major MAIN a Witter Major or m8loter ?("areas orsIgalficanit Significant SfgpJloant significant sIgnmeant tocithit subdwoo Studied C21894111 impact* Impact" Impact* Impact* fill Roiling Hills 23 10144% 20.0% 50.0% 50.4% 24.0% Chesterfield dBulord (21 8011AW88 25 1 7/68N 29.4% 47.111 $2.09 ffiffice (31 fogies Ridge 11 9150% 22.2% 66.1% 33.3% Henrico (4) idellbufv 21 11152% 21.3% 59,11% 40.9% 18.2% Rearko (5) The limbers 22 10/46% 110.0% 44.0% 60.0% 3010% Nearket [61 wlimsen 31 14145% 141.3% 643% 35.1% 7.1% Henrico Extol * Allocation of the percentage of properties considered as being impacted in a major or significant category; range in comparison units based on adjusted sale price per square foot of finished 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. In each of 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 die number of properties impact- ed in the Significant or Major categories in the lower and upper quartiles and Summary of Study Results for Major and Significant Impact Categories 100.0% 50.0% 0.0% 3 4 5 6 a Lower Queffile a lower Hall A Higher Hall I V Higher Quardle lower and upper halves divided by the total number of properties impacted as such. For.example, in the Doubletree subdivision, 25 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 of the total number of properties in those categories) were in the lower quartile (bottom 25 percent) of the range in adjusted unit prices paid. Fight properties (47.1 percent) were in the lower half of the range. However, nine (52,9 percent) were in the upper half and four (23.5 percent) in the upper quartile of 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 from personal interviews with the property 16 MARCIVAPRIL 1999 - RIGHT OF WAY owners who stated 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 the identification of patterns of 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 dee 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 purchase decisions. on site man- agers were interviewed in regards the potential tower impact upon individual units for both the apartment complex and town house development in an effort to establish a basis for any potential rent loss. Not one negative impact response could be attributed to the towers. Overall, there were 52 interviews t 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 i premium for their homes in order to be o within close proximity to the towers. When asked the reasoning behind this h decision, the most common reply was b that the tower was perceived as being a H potential asset because it served as a S buffer against further development. The only adversities noted throughout the entire interviewing process were towards busy thoroughfares running adjacent the residential developments and cl, Proximity to shopping/retail centers. conclusion Based upon the comparative analy methodology used in this study, its w as interviews with purchasers of props ties located adjacent to and/or in ft view of communication tower structun it was concluded that there was r consistent market evidence suggestir any negative impact upon improve residential properties exposed to suc facilities in the areas included in distudy. The model used in this study coup be applied to any type of perceive adverse influence such as a water towei overhead transmission line or sani ary landfill. The validity of the study is enhanced where the comparative analy, sis includes similar type properties tha, require minimal and well supported adjustments as well as interviews with market participants potentially affected by the respective adverse influence. The statistical measure of central' tendency not only validates a typical variate but also die lack thereof: • Allem Dorin, jr. is President of Knight, Dorin & Rountrey Real Estate Services, Richrnotrdt Virginia. He earned a bachelor} degree in Cornrnerce from the University nt of Virginia and a astert in Real Estate and Urban Land Econornics front Virginia Cotnnranwealth University. His appraisal practice has most recently focused on I acquisition for public and semi-public rights of way. Joseph Smith is an MAI candidate in he Appraisal Institute's Graduate Valuation Program at Virginia Cotnrnonwealth University located in Richmond, Virginia. He is currently wor�k- rtg as intern for the appraisal first f Knight, Dorin & Rountrey gaining experience credit hours to apply toward is MAI designatiotr. Mr. Smith earned his achelor's degree in history from arnpden-Sydney College, Harnpden- ydney, Virginia. MARCIVAPRII 1999 • RIGHT OF WAY 17 ATTACHMENT D INFORMATION PERTAINING TO WIRELESS FACILITES All ffurnan Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular ♦ PCS Sites P�'CiT11TlUCtIr ;(TORSage I of 2 a53 I Update I E-Filin I PiLim—ti—ye_� I �joqnsume I Find People Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: FCC Guidelines For Cellular & PCS Sites I Consumer Facts ♦ Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service, including cellular and Personal Communications Service (PCS), are usually located outdoors on towers, water tanks, and other elevated structures like rooftops and sides of buildings. The combination of antenna towers and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a "cellular or PCS Coll site" or "base station." Cellular or PCS cell site towers are typically 50-200 feet high. Antennas am 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 wafts 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 FCC adopted updated guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF fields from fixed transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular and PCS cell sites. The FCC's guidelines are identical to those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a non-profit corporation chartered by Congress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation protection. The FCCs guidelines also resemble the 1992 guidelines recommended by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a non-profft technical and professional engineering society, and endorsed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a non-profit, privately -funded, membership organization that coordinates development of voluntary national standards in the United States. In the case of cellular and PCS cell site transmitters, the FCC's RF exposure guidelines recommend a maximum permissible exposure level to the general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square httv://www.fec.aov/cgb/`0onsumerfacts/rfexposure,htnil 12/08/2010 ry Human Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines For Cellular & PCS Sites 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'Vorst-casea situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that, in order to be exposed to RF levels near the - FCC's guidelines, an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam and within a few feet of the antenna for several minutes or longer. Thus, the possibility that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote. When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on rooftops, RF emissions could exceed higher than desirable guideline levels on the rooftop itself, even though rooftop antennas usually operate at lower power levels than free-standing power antennas. Such levels might become an issue for maintenance or other personnel working on the rooftop. Exposures exceeding the guidelines levels, however, are only likely to be encountered very close to, and directly in front of, the antennas. In such cases, precautions such as time limits can avoid exposure in excess of the guidelines. Individuals living or working within the building are not at risk, For More Information For more information on this issue, visit the FCC's RF Safety Web site at www.fcc.gov/oetirfsifgty. For further information about any other telecommunications -related Issues, visit the FCC's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Web site at www.fcc.aov/cob. or contact the FCC's Consumer Center bye -mailing fccinfoOkc.gov; calling 1 -888 -CALL -FCC (1-889-225-5322) voice or 1 -888 -TELL -FCC (1-888- 835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-886-418-0232; or writing to: 1 VOW7 Federal Communications Commission Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Consumer Information and Complaints Division 445 12 St. SW Washington, DC 20554, For this or any other consumer publkaftn in an accessible format (electronic ASCII text, Braille, IaMo print, or audio) please wrft or call us at the address or phone number below, or send an a -mei; to FCC5040fcc. To receive information an this and other FCC consumer looks through the Commission's electrww subscriber service, click on hMZA_v_ww. ft- ooWbabtmta U&I This document Is for consumer education purposes only and Is not intended to affect any proceeding or cases InvoMng this subject matter or related Issues. Fedwal CommrAcoons Comminion - Comffw & GowmmoaW Afth Sturm - 445 120t 9. S.W. - VAAW91w. OC 2NU 1 -888 -CALL -FCC 4I -89R -225 -OM - TTY, I-OWTEU-FOC (i4W44W-5322) - Fix: 1-86544-M! - wyAyJccAcW=jj last rev*veftpdated on I 1109M7 FCC Home I Search I RSS I Updates I E-FIIIng I Initiative I Consumers I fin-d-ftog"I Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, OC 20554 More FCC Contact information... Phone. 1 -888 -CALL -FCC (1-888-225-5322) TTY: 1 -888 -TELL -FCC (1-888-835-5322) Fax: 14M418.0232 E-mail: ftc1nfbN_ccaoy http://www.fcc,gov/cgb/Consumcrfacts/rfe.xposure.htmi 12/08/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health Page 1 of World Health aJ Organization Fact shcwt N° (4 `.lay 21106 Electromagnetic tields and public health Base stations and wireless technologies Mobile telephony is now commonplace around the world. This wireless technology relies upas an extensive network of fixed antennas, or base stations, relaying information with radiofrequency (RF) signals. Over 1.4 million base stations Mist worldwide and the number is increasing significantly with the introduction of third generation technology. Other wireless networks that allow high-speed inte net access and services, such as wireless local area networks (WLANs), are also increasingly common in horses, otflces, and many public area (airports, schools, residential and urban areas). As the number of base stations and local wireless networks increases, so does the RF exposure of the population. Recent surveys have shown that the RF exposures from base stations range frum 0.002% to 2% of the levels of international exposure guidelines, ung ext a variety of factors such as the proximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment This is lower or comparable to RF exposures from radio or television broadcast transmitters. There has been concern about possible health consequences tfom exposure to the RF Melds produced by wireless technologies. This fact shat reviews the scientific evidence on the health eireets terms continuous low-level human exposure to blase stations and other local wireless unetwoks Health concerns A common concern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates to the possible long-term health affects that whole. body exposure to the RF signals may have. To data, the only health ctfwt from RF fields identified in scientific reviews has been related to an increase in body temperature (> 1 °C) from exposure at very high field intensity found only in certain industrial facilities, such as RF hatters. The levels of RF exposure from babe stations and wireless networks are so low that the temperature incceoses are insignificant and do not atfsd human health. The strength of RF fields is greatest at its sou,%A and diminishes quickly with distance. Access new base station antennas is restricted where RF signals may exceed international exposure limits. Recant surveys have indicated that RF exposures front base stations and wireless technologies in publicly accessible areas (including schools and hospitals) ate normally thousands of times below international iandardL In facet. due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times mora of the signal from FM radio and television than from but stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those enptoyed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a paean's height makes the body an efficient receiving anterms. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 of more Yeats without any adverse health consequence being established. While most radio technologies have used analog signals, modem wireless telecommunications are using digital "ansmissions. Detailed ruvicws conducted so far have not revealed any hazard specific to diffirent RF modulations. Cancer: Media or anecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern. it should be noted that geographically, cancers are unevenly distributed among any population. Giver the widespread presence of base stations in the environment, it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur new base stations merely by chance. Moreover, the reported cancers in these clusters are often a collection of cliffbrent types of cancer with no common c#naracteristicx and hence unlikely have a common cause. Scientific evidence on the distribution of cancer in the population can be obtained through carefully planned and executed ,.pidemiological studies. Over the past 15 years, studies examining a potential relationship between RF transmittan and cancer have beat published. These studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transtnittes increases the risk of cancer. Likewise, long-term animal studies have not established an increased tisk of cancer firers exposure to RF fleids, even at levels that are much higher than produced by base station and wireless networks. Other effects: Few studies have investigated general health efids•ts In individuals exposed to RF Melds from base stations. This is because of the difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very tow signals emitted by base stations from other higher strength RF signals in the environment. Most studies have focused on the RF exposures of mobile phone users. human and animal audios examining brain wave patterns, cognition and behaviour after exposure to RF fields, such as those generated by mobile phones, have not identified adverse effects. RF exposures used in these studies were about 1000 times higher than those associated with general public exposure from base stations or wireless networks. No consistent evidence of altered steep or cardiovascular function has been rf-Im"cd. littp://www. who. int/mediacentre/factshects/fs3O4/en/print.htmi 10/29/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and public health Page 2 of 3 Scone individuals have reported that they experience non-specific symptoms upon exposure to RF fields emitted from base stations and other EMF devices. As recognized in a recent WHO fact sheet "Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity". EMF has not been shown to cause such symptoms. Ntmedtelestt, it is important to recognize the plight of people suffering from these symptoms. from all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short or long-term health et%xts have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them. Protection standards International exposure guidelines have been developed to provide protection against established effects from RF fields by the International Commission on Non -Ionizing Radiation Pmtectixn (ICNIRF, 1998) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE. 20051 National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels of RF fields. They should restrict access to areas where exposure limits may be exceeded. Public perception of risk Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe Several al reasons for public fbar include media antwuncements of naw and unconfirmed scientific studies, leading to a feeriing of uncertainty and a pwcgxWe that there may be unknown or undiscovered hazards. Other factors are aesthetic contents and a feeling of a lads of cotarol or input to the process of dctetmining the location of new base stations. Experience shows that education programmes as well ad effective communications and involvement of the public and cdw stakeholder at appropriate stages of the decision process before installing RF sources can enhance public confidence and acceptability. Conclusions Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to dale, there is no convincing scientifle evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health offects. WHO Initiatives WHO, through the International EMF "am has established a programme to monitor the EMF scientific literature. to evaluate the health effects from exposure to EMF in the range tram 0 to 300 GHz, to provide advice about possible EMF hazards and to identify wit l le mitigation measures. Following extensive international reviews, the international EMF Project has promoted research to fill gaps. In knowledge In response national governments and research institutes have funded over 5250 million on EMF research over the past 10 yews. , white no health et%cts etre "peeled from exposure to RF fields from beta stations and wireless networks, research is still being i promoted by WHO to determine whether there are any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones. The international Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to conduct a review of cancer risk from RF fields in 2008-2007 and the Internadonal EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 2007-2008. Further Reading ICNIRh 119981 www.idmitp.tgy/dxx,,mcntctt�t]ron txiY IEEE (2004) IEEE 095.1-2005 "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz" Related Unks 52 For more Information contact: WHO Molia centre Telephone: +4122 791 2222 E-mail: rm iai uiricat who.int http://www.who.int/mediacentre/ractsheeLv&304/en/print.htnil 10/29/2010 11/2/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic fields and publ... vV World Health Organization Fact sheet V°193 May 2010 Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones Key facts • Mobile phone use is ubiquitous with an estimated 4.6 billion subscriptions globally. • To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use. • Studies are ongoing to assess potential long -tam effects of mobile phone use. • There is an increased risk of road traffic injuries when drivers use mobile phones (either handheld or "hands- free") while driving. Mobile or cellular phones are now an integral part of modern telecommunications. In many countries, over half the population use mobile phones and the market is growing rapidly. At the end of 2009, there were an estimated 4.6 billion subscriptions globally. In some parts of the works, mobile phones are the most reliable or the only phones available. Cliven the largo number of mobile phone users, it is important to investigate, understand and monitor any potential public health impact. Mobile phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a network of fisted antennas called baso stations, Ra"frequetncy waves are electromagnetic fields, and unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays, cannot break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body. Exposure levels Mobile phones are low -powered ra&frequency transmitters, operating at frequency between 450 and 2700 MHz with peak powers in the range of 0. t to 2 watts. The handset only transmits power when it is turned on. The power (and hence the radiofrequency exposure to a user) falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30-40 cm away from their body - for example when text messaging, accessing the Internet, or using a "hands tYee" device— will therefore have a much lower exposure to radiofrequency fiekla than someone holding the handset against thea hea& In addition to using "hands-free" devices, which keep mobile phones away from the head and body during phone calla, exposure is also reduced by limiting the number and length of calls. Using the Mone in areas of good reception also decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power. The use of commercial devices for reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not been shown to be effective. Mobile phones are often prohibited len hospitals and on airplanes, as the radiofrequency signals may interfere with certain electro -medical devices and navigation systems. Are there any health effects? A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To data, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone nue. Short-term effect tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brains or any other organs of the body. who.int/mecdiacentre/.../printhtml 1/3 11/2/2010 WHO I Electromagnetic Melds and Publ... A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, ~keep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at Levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and .elf-reportod symptoms, or "electromagnetic hypersensitivity % In contrast, research has clearly shown an increased risk of road traffic injuries when drivers use mobile phones (either handheld or "hands-free'l while driving. In several countries, motorists are prohibited or strongly discouraged from using mobile phones while driving. Gong team effects Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use However, because many cancers aro not detectable until many years atter the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 19900, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time period. However, results of animal studios consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency t lull. Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing, including ease6eontrot studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. To date, results of epidemiological studies provide no consistent evidence of a causal relationship between radiofrequmoy exposure and any adverse health effect. Yet, these studies have too many limitations to completely rule out an associatkun.. A retrospective case -control study on adults, INTERPHONE, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults. The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of gdioma or meningioma with mobil phone use of move than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. Researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the ,arength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation. retation.. While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established from INTERPHONE data, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 yesi s warrant further research of mobilo phones use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, W`HO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway: Exposure fink gal Unnes Radiofrequency exposure limits for moble phone users are given In terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) — the rate of radiofrequency energy absorption per unit mass of the body. Currently, two international bodies 12 have developed exposure guidelines for workers and for the general public, except patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment. These guidelines are based on a detailed assessment of the available scientific evidence WHO'S response In response to public and governmental concern, WHO established the International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible adverse health effects frotm electromagnetic fields. WHO w'U conduct a formal health risk assessment of radiofrequency fields exposure by 2012. Meanwh* the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a WHO specialized agency, is expected to review the carcinogenic potential of mobile phones in 2011. WHO also identifies and promotes research priorities for radiofrequency fields and health to FM gaps in knowledge through its Research Agendas. WHO develops public information materials and promotes dialogue among scientists. governments, industry and the public to raise the levet of understanding about potential adverse health risks of mobile phones. who.int/mediacentre/.../printhtml 2/3 11/2/2010 WHO ► Electromagnetic fields and publ... 1 International Commission on Non -ionizing Radiation Protection—1CNIRP. Statement on the "Guidelines for limiting exposure to time -varying electric, magnetic and electromagetic fiends (up to 300 GFia)", 2009, 2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE Std C95.1 — 2005. IEEE standardfor safety levels with aspect to human exposwe to ru&o frequency eleciranwgnettc f tela& 3 kHz to 3110 GHz. For more Information contact: WHO Media centre Telephone: +4122 741 2222 E-mail: medWriouiries(Cawho.inr Contacts I E-mail scams I Employment I S I FcWback I P it xul I RSS t'ma 2 WHO 2010 who.int(mediacentre/.../prInt.html 3/3 International ;agency for Research on Cancer Heafth 1), World Organization PRESS RELEASE No 208 31 May 2011 Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 -- The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans CGroup 2B) based on an increased risk forlig oma, a malignant type of brain cancer', 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 meeting at IARC in Lyon. 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 IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY HUMANSPOSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO Results The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited' among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate 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 213 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 Oncology in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online. ' '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. 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. 4 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: A Case -Case and Case -Specular Analysis' (American Journal of Epidemiology, May 24, 2011. [Epub ahead of print]. IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France - Tel: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 - Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75 0 IARC 2011 - All Rights Reserved. Page 3 1ARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS For more information, please contact Or Kurt Straif'IARC donographs Section, at+33473738511.or straifccoiarc.fr- Dr Robert Bagn, IARC Monographs Section at+33473738659,or or Nicolas Gaudin AAlC Communications Group at (+3347J730478) Link tothe audio file posted shortly after the briefing: httt)://terrance.who.int/mediacentre/audio/```press briefings/ About IARC The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Ol8Anb�. 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 and disseminates scientific information through . If you wish your name to be removed from our press release e -mailing list, please write to Nicolas Gaudin, Ph.D. Head, 1ARC Communications International Agency for Research on Cancer World Health Organization 150,coursAlbert-Thomas 69008 Lyon France Email IARC, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France - Tel: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 - Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75 0 IARC 2011 - All Rights Reserved. 1ARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC a What are the IARC Mono rauhs? 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 l: 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. 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 213 (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 agent 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, 89372 Lyon CEDEX 08, France - Tel: +33 (0)1 72 73 84 85 - Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75 0 IARC 2011 - All Rights Reserved. 1ARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS Page 5 POSSIBLY + TO HUMANS Grogp The went is possibly 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 went is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity 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 went is grobably 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 CEDEX 08, France - Tel: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 - Fax: +33 (0)t 72 73 85 75 0 IARC 2011 - All Riahts Reserved. IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY IELDS , CARCINOGENICS Page 6 POSSIBLY , 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 08, France - Tel: +33 (0)t 72 73 84 85 - Fax: +33 (0)4 72 73 85 75 ® IARC 2011 - All Rlahts Reserved. I I -- Cori 1= 0 d 0 0 75 4S El 37 V)ow 00 0 it N U 0% r - H � -- Cori 1= 0 d 0 0 75 4S El 00 0 it N U 0% r - L = — a T '•' at Gr q -- Ci n W m a L ,� U � •� E o V as v, y a �rx« Gq O a, cr a � ` O 'w 9 U G �+ y a ae F u ao0 > H O a v y 7i et w .3 (�d�i o a ci y c a o G7 d O y d T b � ,Q � G ''� � v �+ b � 'a, •O 'ti d q L O C.CL w0 wN n 71 IE ATTACHMENT E IE j 1t= RE$TED 8� FW AWACAN 1111E �ateD tw or�OMi RMRDIS'0 UVSSTID 91, ACID WIN RBCOl M NAIL TO: s911 AN 0 20*9 Ciao of Tustin j :100 Centsasiel Malt Q w1"s Tustin, CA 92610 Attar Director of The Undersigned doolares that this Community Development document is record" at tho request of and for the benefit of the City of Swoon and therefore to axampt from the payment of the recording too Pursuant to Government Code 14103 and C+9 from the payment of the Documentary ' Transfer Tax pursuant to Revenue mad Taxation Cods 111922. +� (Above Space for Recorder's tna TK2 IRVIRI CMWAIRY. a Michigan oorpsrstion Mcsator•) hereby ;rents ..r to the City of Tustin, s municipal corporation ('Crane!!% for public oocmoaity, park purposes, doe following coal property i* the City of Tustim. Coup of Orange, California: to.: 21 of Tract Ie. 13627, as recorded on „�_,__. 1919, in Dock 641, paps 1 through 2O , italrsiv*, of Nieoallaneoue Na" is the Office of the County Recorder of said County (the •lro+porrty-) . This conveyanos is made pursuant 1664771 to the provisions of California Government Code RMC9FTIMD AND RISRIV1Mg unto CRAWOR, Its sucdetesors add aoaig", together with the right te great and traaatat all or a portion of Cho seem, thm following: A. Avy and all oil, oil rights, aiaerals, mineral rights, natural gas rights and other hydrocarbons by whataeovor nam known. geothermal steam and all products derived from say of the ferogmimg, that nay be within or under the Pre"al. toptbr with the perpetual right of drilling, mining, exploring and operating tb*refor and storing in and removing the nae from the Property ar any other land, including tho right to whipstock or directieaally drill and mins frac lands otter than the Property. all or ps voila, tuamela and shafts into, or across the subsurface of the Property and to bottom sudor obipsaw door diroationally drilled wells, tu=*Is 400 shafts under mad beneath or beyond the exterior limits thereof. and to redriii, ratxmaml, equip. msintsia. repair. deepens anal operate say suo wells or mimes; but without, however, tho right to drill, sins. stere, explore or operate through the surface or dw upper 300 foot of the subsurface of the property. D. Any and all water, water rights or interests therein appurtenant or relating to that Property or owned or used by Granter in commotion with or with roaiaet to tine Property (no matter bon acquired by Granter), whether such water rights shall be riparian, overlying, apprepriativo, littoral. Percolating. prescriptive, 841 isated, statutory or contractual, together with the right and power to -*lore. drill, redriil and remove the sans from or in the Property, to store the saes beneath the surface of the Property and to divert or otherwise utilise such water, right& at interests on asy otter property Sonat or lossed by greater; but withost. however. any right to sneer upon or was the surface of the Property Is the exercise of such rights. C. 1001 -exclusive 0"0"nts in gross on. over. under or mor*" the Property within 10 twat tram all property lines bordering an and parallel to my public street for the construction, installation, asplatawnt, operation and maintenance of electric and/or water facilities, without unreasonably interfering with Cruces's seaso0abls use ad $Ooymmt of the Property; and (ii) a mate-axelssI" *&"Post oat. ever. under and sets" the westerly portion at the ProWty rot the oaatrwstien, installation. operation and maintenance of storm drain faciliti*a valet" to the P0t*rs Camyan Retarding Dosis. widmut unreasonably iutart*ring with grantee's reasonable use and dejoymp>t of the h. rutin - co.mnity Part maa,.setean JI: to: 1916 GRAM AND RUMFATIM 1iUUNAWM described shall be subject 1. General and special real property taxes and supplememtal aanaisast•, It they, for the overeat fiscal year. provided. bswever. that Greater skull pay ter (a) amy rush tames and assssmments applicable to tan property prior to the data of reaordatiaa of this deed, and (b) any ssaeso mans. aposial taxes or other payasats ariaimg fun bonds. aontraats or lions treated by, through or as a result of the otferts or astivitiss of Graneer; 2. All eoVemmats, 000sitions. restrictisne, reoortatims. right$, rights of way. essesanq and other matters of reowd or apparont other thea monetary Ilona. and 3. Us requirement that except as protide! herein. Crsmtee accepts the Property 'Ag ISO in the aoaditiom that the property exists as of the data Of Grmetes's ecsepimsao thatset. Grantor represents sed warrants tbot, to the beat of Grantor's iaxwladgta as of the date of Grantee's Acceptance of the Property, the property is is sompliame with all State sad poderal basardeua waste lana. Grantor sgraes that it shall exply with all at Grantee's Coaditioes of Approval ter haat 13627 as tbay relate to the property, includigp porfendag mg remediation required to cause the property to amply with Chess conditions. fteept so provided abets, Greater makes no ropresontatiome or warranties conceraing the condition of the preporty. ♦. no rsquitaa,►t that. prior to the installation of the initial impretemsnu for the $edea patio (tine "initial Park Improvemeucse) upon the property. Grant** shall provide Grantor with copies of plan of tin proposed initial Poria rNprovssants. Grantor say, within thirty (30) do" attar its reooipt of such pleas, give Creator comments an the plains, to which comments Gratu:se $gross to ghee reasonable consideration. Grmt** shell not comments construction of the Initial Park tprovessnts prior to the emptratism of the thirty (30) day review pried. This requirement atoll apply to the Initial park Improvements only sad net to anter subsequent improvements, reconstruction, repairs. roplasommats. addttions or *banger. IS VITWS VMM, Creator has exeonted this Grant (food as of the 911" . day of &LA fA,s' . 19". This grant Dead "I not be effective for say psrpoa ualeas and until the Acceptance below 1s dale executed by Gnat". Tin UTM a Nicbigaa on Sy: _ y ��►- _'fir Grantee, by its axsentiom of this Grant Deed. hsaeby accepts tient dedication of the Property upon and subject to the terms and provisions stated above. CITY C/ LWXIM • Cslitoraie� s adcipal eerpe tin Its: ' /fY- NtAViffh&, 4: Its: MLAWe+iN SUM of CALIFOIWIA A"fA Oa1419, before ,the sdar d, a Hoerr public ise, personally oppsarod.__personally tnnwn to as (or proved to as on th.sw ) to be p Boas to sd t witbins j� re"O atlwlY, ea belt o corporation there nosed and aeled to i that the corporation executed it. Yni1T s 4 bead and official oeal. notary Palle am'r said State i Uia is to certify that the interest in rest property cou"rA by the within Grant Dead fros The Irvine Conpaw, to the City of Matin, to harshy so"Pted by the undsraiSOOd officer or ASOM on behalf of the City of Tustin on and Craetoe cossouts to roserdation thereof by its duly etherised officer. Dated: m,: ATM't: SUT2 Or CAUYQK IIA , Cam Or , on this _filth dol of Auoust _, 1989, before se, the nedersiSned A SlotarY lublid In and for said state, personall appeared —...Orilp.bla-dow end — N?,I1an Hustat to ne to be the -xpm of the City of Tustin, the City that executed the within isstrtossa:_ end bussu to as to be the persons who ,wanted the within iassrwsest So behalf of the City dWreia Used, sad aCiMwlO*d to sr that such city executed the within instrownt parsuent to a resolution of its City Connail YrINESS 4 Lead and official anal. + ' O"ICtAL SEAL du.s, YALM WH ff A AN ./ IgaaY NIRtt • CAU%OaMA MotwY public is and for said State loom WOMAO M/N ATTACHMENT F CITY ATTORNEY COMMENT WOODRUFF, SPRADCIN&SMART ".1- a , . C e a . . . . . a . 555 ANros BOL: LFV.\RD, SUITE 1200 COSTa M LSA. CA 9:626-1670 17111558-1000 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Planning Commissioners City of Tustin FROM: City Attorney's Office DATE: April 19, 2011 RE: DR 09-033: Cedar Grove Park Deed Restriction The documentation provided to the Planning Commission as part of Design Review Application 09-033 includes a -mails between City Staff and Ms. Jennifer Wierks regarding a "deed restriction" affecting the property consisting of Cedar Grove Park (the "Park"). The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning Commission with this office's interpretation of the referenced "deed restriction" and its effect on the pending application. It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the 1989 Grant Deed pursuant to which the Irvine Company deeded the property that is now Cedar Grove Park to the City of Tustin does not restrict the City from authorizing the project and improvements described in the pending application before the Planning Commission. A. Brief DescriDdOn of Project and Improvements It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of the replacement of existing flagpoles located in a landscaped area within a parking lot with three new flagpoles containing wireless panel antennas, and that all associated equipment required to operate the wireless facilities located on the flag poles would be located underground. It is also our understanding that, once installed, the proposed improvements will not affect the public's current access to or use of the Park. B. 1989 Grant Deed and "Deed Restriction" The 1989 Grant Deed from the Irvine Company conveyed the property that is now Cedar Grove Park to the City of 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 a non-exclusive easement along the property lines for installation of electric and water utility facilities. A copy of the Grant Deed is attached for your reference. 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 primM pumose of the dedication.3 In the context of property deeded to cities for "public park," courts have upheld the use of portions of the property for purposes that are incidental to its use as a public park.; 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 flagpoles that double as wireless telecommunication facilities. The erection of flag poles is clearly consistent with, and incidental to, the use of the property for park purposes. Further, since all appurtenant facilities will be located underground and the new flagpoles will be located in a landscaped area of a parking lot and in the same location as the existing flagpoles, it does not appear that any park land will be diverted to a different use or that there will be much, if any, interference with the general public's use and enjoyment of the Park. Further, the restriction in the 1989 Irvine Company deed is a relatively narrow one, in that, while it specifies that the grant is "for community park purposes," it does not say it is for park purposes "only" or "solely" and does not contain any additional more specific, restrictive language relating to particular uses. Therefore, it should not be construed too broadly. In addition, since the Irvine Company also reserved the mineral and water rights, as well as a non- exclusive casement along the property lines for installation of electric and water utility facilities, ' See Cal. Gov't Code §3 73 54 (1A city] may hold and dispose of the property ... for such uses as are prescribed in the terms of the gift, bequest, or devise.") '' City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 295, 299-300. ' See e.g, Abbot Kinney Company v. City of Los Angeles (1964) 223 Cal.App.2d 668. ' See .4bbot Kinney Company v. City of Los Angeles; Vale v. San Bernardino (1930) 109 Cal. App. 102. ' See e.g., Slavich v. Hamilton (1927) 201 Cal. 299, 309; Simons v. City of Los Angeles (1976) 63 Cal. App. 3rd 455 (holding that use of park by police recruits did not constitute a diversion from park purposes, was consistent with the recreational character of the park, and constituted no interference with the enjoyment of the park facilities by the public). '62956.1 City ofTustin 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 Descriation of Cases Cited in February 9, 2010 E -Mail Ms. Wierks's February 9, 2011 e-mail references numerous California cases (as well as a case from Florida) in support of the contention that a wireless facility in a park is inconsistent with a grant of property "for park purposes." None of these cases address the installation of flag poles or wireless telecommunication facilities, however, or are factually analogous to the instant situation. A brief description of each the cases referenced in the February 9`t' email is included below. I . Roberts v. City of Palo Verdes (1949) 93 Cal App 2d 545. In this case, the court held that a building constructed in a park to house maintenance equipment that the City used to maintain not only this particular park, but all parks in the City, violated the terms of a deed conveying the property for public park purposes and which explicitly stated that, "... no buildings, structures or concessions shall be erected maintained or permitted upon the said realty, except such as (in the opinion of the Park Department of Palo Verdes Homes Association) are properly incidental to the convenient and/or proper use of said realty for park purposes." The Court found that the buildings constructed on the park property must directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the particular park property subject to the deed and that is was improper to use the buildings to house maintenance equipment used by the City to maintain other City property. Unlike the instant situation, this case involved a detailed and specific deed restriction limiting the construction of structures on the park property. The Grant Deed from the Irvine Company to the City of 'Custin does not contain similar detailed and restrictive language and, in fact, contemplates that structures of various kinds will be constructed on the property. 2. Griffith v. Department of Public Works (1956) 141 Cal App 2d 376. This case concerns the construction of a reeivr on property dedicated for public park purposes. 3. Spinks v. Citv of Los An-eeles (1934) 220 Cal. 366 and City and County of San Francisco v. Linares (1940) 16 Ca1.2d 441. Both of these cases address a city's right to divert park v it has also been asserted that the City is required to obtain the Irvine Company's written consent in order to authorized the erection of wireless telecommunication facilities within the Park. This is not the case, however. Fhe 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 California law. While the deed did require the City to obtain the Irvine Company's approval prior to construction of the "Initial Park Improvements," it explicitly states that this requirement does not apply -to any subsequent improvements ... or changes." Further, California law does not independently require a grantee to obtain written approval of the grantor to construct improvements on property subject to a deed restriction, and, in the absence of an express provision in the deed requiring such approval, the subsequent statement of the prior grantor is irrelevant. (See tale v. San Bernardino (1930) 109 Cal. App. 102). 762956.1 City of Tustin April 19, 2011 Page d property not subject to a Gleed restriction to another use, and are thus inapplicable to the instant situation. 4. Big Sur Properties v. Mott 0 976) 62 Cal App 3d 99. This case addressed whether a State statute authorized the State to grant a private right-of-way across a public park in the face of a deed restriction expressly prohibiting construction on the property of private roads for vehicular traffic. The court held that the express language of the deed restriction prevailed over the State statute. 5. City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court (1964) 231 Cal App 2d 295. In this case, the court was addressing the city's building of a road across property which had been dedicated "for public pleasure purposes" only and which was subject to a deed restriction 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. 1. White v, Metropolitan Dade County (Fla App 1990) 563 So -2d 117. This is a Florida case in which the court held that the use of a permanent tennis facility in a public park for a nd, Lgte 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 Attomey'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. aVWJX )'I <4,14 �4j J ES 11. EGGART ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Attachment: 1989 Grant Deed 762956.1 +� Rmo== xin. m: -990 020'89 City of t1Olm B Tustin,ran Attst pirmsew of The VrAme4p" daslatfo that this ca..niq Otvelynwe decumm" is reaft" at t" re0wt at sod tar do bootie a! two City at NOUN amd therefore is aomp* from ata► to of m Code 16 tom OU a owosawnt aw K311 ma the Treader pseamm a is iw.o mut isa&tior Cote 111!7*. (Abe" spacer tar gaaedee'• Lime a the City 'sti.tta. • made a Mid4m ooeperasiw ('0rwmw) beefy torts .r Ml oorponaties ('tiseatees), toe pablia enarsity Pad purposes. die toUori*f teal is the City of tustia. ammy at 0=0 ,©eliteem * Lo.: 27 of *loot dy. 1 7r, n raeerd" as taps is tae Ott ofiw Assit�p —` • insioHoo, of Mimalm" aomwymaoe !& uredo psroo tt edea of Ni! camy (do 'rteperty'). !his rr. prwiaiow of CaUhnia Ooroco omt Cott �YnN w surto GAMM. its aweaso4ra ad minders, fopusV do rift to &east are ttammtar 811 at a poetics of do s w. dee A. aq art all all. all rigid, miasrals, siseral rights, ennead gw rigpa sat Otbae AptrwrMr by �itt&w~ _ Maws. jaotlostot arse a d all pNSdrsa desiwt left aty at the tMOVLO& that may be wielder at slat the tr*Mrty tartlet with the potpaeral rW of dealing. mLais& sspl«'irs sat *"resits thesslar ani sarriad to ori meets" de erase tsar chs Ptepeety a asq Otb- task tare � the riot to obipetoek oc dieoetism ny drill ad sire teas or &&saw die et the ae P walla. temwls ad shaft Lata, dN*aw heverty art to booms smak 044"dwt or diraetiam&1ly drilled wells. twrmola art skater safe ad bo o'cw or S. n the o:serist linins *berms*. ad to redsill, tatfmmel, e*4, ""t"a. repair. dopes ad operate at(y 000 walla a relase: but wiebaas, berfrer, the rLik to drill, at". &CONS, agieor k operate thna* dme awsfaeo ee du offer So toot of the admart&ee of the lreperty. A. L9► and all wits, was rishce err Latosoets Charmer appetr -o t Or tSlatiss to the Prapeety Of owm d at aed by 0aeea is ae mMCioa with ar with respect to the hopatty (no matter bar aeNtirtd y oraesor) . edeeAar .wok water si&mr .ball be riparia. owelyias, approprlatiwe, literal. lar. proaosipeiw. "jaiisst", aaeuarlr Or eeexreatusl, taptietr with the risbs sad passe to ..mum. drill. soft it d revere de sass tree w is the lrepany a saes do New Us th the aarteee of tie Property sad es divan er odeeatoo utilise woh wtoe, &tabu w I- i - to sur aq oder prwpwty woad or leas" by Ora ftei but withers. however. ompr right to MAW Was or Ws the oartaee of the Prep m in the MMLao of rusk rigbas. C. fes-sod-1ve saoeaeses is gees am. oras. Dotes of sans the Peepesny within 10 tow *sae 411 pr&perq lite& beakrias our sad perailol a any public street tae tLe eameRarostlem. Uo"Ilatias. wglassoot. *Wotlaa cad -dat a.M at alectris ardor voter tasilit"s, wiciam awea a.6ty Latseh'ims with Oramae s meso mblo use sad "jaymsas at the Property; est (LL) s "O-Oulmsivm e&Oeeemt a. "W. aider and aetos& tie watwly pectisa at de Feww" " roe thO wastraeusm. watallatioa. sparatias and adato" m at alb, draia taailitiss related to the Peters a"" istardim twin. wiliest aOraarsbly Lnteelarlas rites ataeao's esa&aebia tae mat eejeI of the ?rpaty. *Umbo - Oammmity tori* art,otwr 3 3A TM CUM An S2Up1 ON MUNUOM dam sed ebb to arbiest a: I. General and .petal real property caner WA avppiewstal asrsassosb. if OW, let the surreal fiaeal yowl provided. Mmsvor. dirt Crewe abll pay far (a) Map sari teas d ueessawaa applicable to the property prior to the deft of towerbties of We dead, and (h) new arossamsb, *postal taus of etlrr paysmmeo otwt Cm Sada. Mentues ss Bess Created by. tfnnP%* ew as M rewit of tho affects at activities at Ofnereor; 2. All eew/emtlntw, easutiems, sesfsistieas, r*swratisas. ri joss. ri pAb of way. easements and acrd matters d romord se adpasrnt ocher than am tarp lismog ad 3. The sapdrsmsnt that esmapt as provided herein. Crease asempts the posportV .d IV is dM "an"" two do TfepoftY emeses so se the bate of Garan' a aesptasrm thaamf. Granter rmprscoase and rscraots dist, to the beat of Grsoters Wo da/4* an st tie deft of Guess's moeeptera of the 2r9pory. the proptaq is is ampliaar with an State Mat Moral hoasdses waste lea. Cramer agues tW it doll eseW with all of Gfemae's Conditions of Approval for Treat 17627 an dwry selaee to the 2'rspwy, inobdiwg podadng mW remadLotias rngatr d to sans she property to comply wish bene Msditicms. built as provided slaws, Gutsy oris as raw safadissm dw oa:7mrtles commmcsisg the comdttics of tore ftepert7• A. !b mWitwmat dirk, prime to tb installation of do initial iwpfovowrwta for rim entire psrh trek "tattial rwdt ispreelmsaW) upon tba teeprsy. gabs shall provide Grantor with cop/mm at plow of the psepmao I Zattial Hatt Impso mwmwtm. Grome r may. withis thireyr (30) daps attar its rsssipt of wmi plans. Ziw Gesoteo *assets as dr plans. to whish eeammb Craatme agreN to Sew tommosable aswiderstum. Gcomme shell me s mmnw temmtn*tias d rho initial Palk tIOCOVmwafa prix to do mgis+atio e9 the tbirhi (3G) day 9 view parted. *U requirement Miall apt7 as the Initial pari Impoewmsaft -17 d amt is oI M &OOWMMt LAW, svemerrcw, reassrtresuse, repairs, replaa mots. adtitiome at ebops. I/ a&TSLfS WUNUM, GuHw has assented thio Great Owed an at the 0coy► of hijtla . UW. 'lits Stress Be" *boll net be •ttntive for map pmepeu Indoor d 0"1 the Aesepfaow below is dmlyr a moated by Gfawteo. . 0" assemoe, by its anotias o! this Orsett Dead, belay Msapfr do dedication of tie pteparry vp o ad abject to the teras d prof Is" sured abmvm. CM or MIX Its, . �.. ry/y W-90, yr Its: MIS or CAUM" W— )a. Cs ilt1, bsfmte,sem r� Isr M=AnM117 gM+�nt� • A►=�s7 11�111� 3a INA Personally Duna is as Car asset to at as the at +nr ) to be the Wish" 48 'eweesivaly. sshalt of asc}.taelar tim"Im Deed ad to i fimt tir ssepeeatlsa awontet It. num ,r beet ant atitdal "&I. OPRIC;tAL i:AI. eow�t�wl�Iliss�tt�ela�wsteiee CM mea �M�e IIS I4 atf 3etaq anti eait itaq lois I$ to wrathy that the lat"We is net pity Cyd by the aid da Cteet Dead fne Toe Irrlae Company, to the CIq at !both, is dmf smomK+t by too -im"WM 41914011 W SoMM as sown at the City d b.tia as by Its and Ctaetas caeaaets a reomnirelaw coons! duly wtiorised otfiat. Datsti� _ ti= )M. CdrlY 171' ORAWS ) an this lm 49 9 Arrest 19t! wens r *0 wdarsipd a ■o" Iu►11s Is set tat sold teats, posasall ,,C Asa.. 6ti :l f �1 lNettat a 4vear" M tweet it st air Cltf Of TWMIJK. ter Clip doe sammated do Adds Instrument, mat Deena is as as Do toe psssees NW "assess the .ithia lre:a.soe as Dish of too elq thetaia aseed. Dai selmesu4pd to as tome Meeh ally seaated the vitod fares+arst psasmes is a esosletise st Its "anow" Vnpm q bead ad otfloial $44. fLM W F A Nobly' h6l is la sat for Nil Stats 4,4 MAGMAS ATTACHMENT G Municode Pagel of 2 Tustin, California, Code of Ordinances >> ARTICLE 7 - PUBLIC FACILITIES >> CHAPTER 2. STREETS AND HIGHWAYS » PART 6 - DESIGN REVIEW OF ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FACILITIES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN 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/ABANDONMENT 7260 - PURPOSE AND FINDINGS The purpose of this Part 6 is to maintain a safe and aesthetically pleasing environment in the public right-of-way and on City -owned properties by regulating the location, color, screening, and other aspects of aboveground utility facilities. Aboveground utility facilities come in a variety of forms that include, but are not limited to, cables, wires, conduits, ducts, pedestals, and antennae to transmit, receive, distribute, provide, or offer utility services. Their accessory equipment typically is contained in enclosures, cabinets, artificial rocks, or boxes to house a variety of uses such as controls for signals, electronics, and wiring for cable television and telecommunications, or power sources. Often these facilities are located aboveground on existing structures such as utility or light poles and have the tendency to proliferate to ensure user coverage. Such proliferation can result in visual clutter, blocking visibility to signs and other structures, preventing access for the disabled, distracting motorists travelling along the right-of-way, and creating noise. Reasonable regulations for locating the aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment are necessary to promote the health and aesthetic welfare of the people of Tustin. Reasonable compensation for permitting private use of public property and the public right-of-way is also necessary to offset the right-of-way maintenance costs. (Ord. No. 1232. Sec. 2, 12-3-01) 7261 - LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRED No person shall place, construct, install, own, control, operate, manage, maintain, or use any aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment in, above, beneath, or across any public property, exclusive of the public right-of-way, without first obtaining a Lease Agreement or License in accordance with the Design Guidelines. Franchises and Right -of -Way Agreements for telecommunication facilities in the public right-of-way are governed by State and Federal regulations and pertinent provisions of Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec. 2. 12-3-011) 7262 - DESIGN REVIEW REQUIRED No person shall place, construct, install, own, control, operate, manage, maintain, or use any aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment without compliance with the Design Review requirements in Tustin City Code Section 9272 and with this Part 6. This requirement applies to existing and future franchisees and any other person who wishes to locate replacement or new aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment on public property and in the public right-of-way. Aboveground utility facilities located within Redevelopment Project areas shall be consistent with the respective redevelopment plans. No Design Review approvals or any permits can be issued unless the Redevelopment Agency can make a finding of conformity. Existing aboveground utility facilities and accessory equipment installed prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall not be subject to this requirement. (Ord. No. 1232. Sec. 2. 12-3-01) 7263 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientlD=11307&HTMRequest=http%3 a%2F%2flibrary.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 shalt also be provided as to the dimensions, proposed colors, screening materials, noise levels, and whether there will be interference with the public radio system anticipated. The applicant shall pay a fee to cover the anticipated staff time to review and process the application as established by the City Council for a Design Review application. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec. 2, f2-3-01) 7264 - DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS Upon the application being found complete by the Director, or designee, the Director or designee shall review the plan (the "Plan") using the criteria set forth in the Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public Right-of-way adopted by resolution of the City Council. If the utility facilities are to be located within redevelopment areas, then a finding of conformity by the Redevelopment Agency would need to be made prior to the Director's consideration of the Design Review. The Director may conditionally approve or deny the application. Amendments to the Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director concurrent with or prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit, Lease Agreement or License, as provided for in the Design Guidelines, or Right -of -Way Agreement as defined in Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code. The aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment must be installed pursuant to the approved Plan. The noise generated from the aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, shall comply with the City's noise regulations. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec, 2, 12-3-01) 7265 -APPEALS Any person may appeal any decision of the Director in accordance with Section 9294 of this Code. (Ord. No. 1232, Sec. 2, 12-3-01: Ord, No, 1366, Sec. 16, 11-17-09) 7266 - TERM/ABANDONMENT (a) An aboveground utility facility is considered abandoned if it no longer provides service. If the use of the facility is discontinued for any reason, the operator shall notify the City of Tustin in writing no later than thirty (30) days after the discontinuation of use. If no notification is provided to the City, the facility shall be deemed discontinued. (b) Aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, that are no longer being used shall be removed promptly no later than ninety (90) days after the discontinuation of use. Such removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements. All affected areas shall be restored to their original condition at the operator's expense. (c) The Design Review approval shall remain valid for the term of the Lease Agreement, License, Right -of -Way Agreement, or as long as the Encroachment Permit is valid. If the Lease Agreement, License, Right -of -Way Agreement, or Encroachment Permit is terminated, notice and evidence thereof shall be provided to the Director. Upon termination or expiration of the Lease Agreement, License, Right -of -Way Agreement, or Encroachment Permit, the aboveground utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, shall be removed from the public property or the public right-of-way. (Ord. No. 1232. Sec. 2. 12-3-01) http://library.municode.com/print.aspx?clientlD=11307&HTMRequest=http%3a%2f%2flibrary.munico... 06/30/2011 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: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That telephone, Internet, cable, and personal wireless telephone (cellular) servicing the City are expanding and upgrading their services and will require installation of additional equipment such as aboveground accessory equipment, antennas attached to utility poles, street light poles, or other structures on public properties or in the public right-of-way. B. On December 6, 1999, the City Council adopted the Aboveground Cabinets Design Guidelines. These guidelines regulate aboveground cabinets for power supply equipment within the public right-of-way. These guidelines do not regulate utility facilities located aboveground such as antennas attached to utility poles, street light poles, utility towers, or other structures within the public right-of-way. C. Currently, there are no guidelines in place for aboveground utility facilities on public properties such as parks, community facilities, or otheisCity-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. I. 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. A g, �" �0�� Tracy WilKWorley Mayor Exhibit A of Resolution No. 41-95 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 -WRY 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, stfeet-ligttt-peiee; 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 TNs-includes facilities fer such as personal wireless services as defined in the Telecommunication Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). "City" means the City of Tustin. "Council" means the City Council of the City of Tustin. "Co -location" means the locating of more than one aboveground utility facility provider on a single structure -mounted, roof -mounted, or ground -mounted utility facility. "Director" means the Community Development Director of the City of Tustin. "Grantee" means a person who has been granted a Lease Agreement or License pursuant to this policy and guidelines. "Interference" means any instances of interference with public safety radio equipment preventing clear radio reception which includes, but is not limited to, static, unwanted signal, and distortion of sounds or reception. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 2 "Lease Agreement or License" means a contract agreement between the City and a person pursuant to this policy and guidelines. The contract may be in the form of a lease if the City owns a fee interest in the property or in the form of a license if the City has a leasehold interest in the property. "Modification" means an alteration of an existing utility facility that changes its size, location, shape, or color. This is not intended to include replacement of a facility with an identical facility or the repair of the facility. "Person" means and includes, but is not limited to, corporations, companies or associations, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies, and individuals and includes their lessors, trustees, receivers, and successors in interest. "Public property" means any property in which the City of Tustin and/or the City's Redevelopment Agency holds a legal interest, except the public right-of-way. "Public right-of-way" means and includes all public streets, sidewalks, and utility easements now or hereafter owned in fee or easement by the City. "Public Works Director" means the Director of Public Works of the City. "Right-of-way Agreement" means a contract granted to a person pursuant to Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code as follows: (1) a license in the case of a telecommunications provider that will not serve areas or persons within the City, or (2) a franchise in the case of a telecommunications provider that will serve areas or persons within the City, as it may be amended. "Stealth Facility" means any aboveground utility facility which is disguised to appear as another natural or artificial man-made objects such as trees, clock towers, score boards, etc. that are prevalent in the surrounding environment or which are architecturally integrated into buildings or other concealing structures. "Utility Provider" means and includes any person that proposes to or does own, control, operate, or manage plant, equipment, or any other facility on public property or in the public right-of-way for the provision of an utility service. "Utility Service" means and includes any electrical, gas, heat, water, telephone, pipeline, sewer, or telegraph services or commodity, where the service is performed for, or the commodity delivered to, the public or any portion thereof. SECTION 3: APPLICABILITY These guidelines regulate the installation of new and replacement aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment on public properties or in the public right-of- way. Exhibit 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 - location is infeasible, and the reasons for such infeasibility. Comprehensive Manual for Aboveground Utility Facilities. A comprehensive manual may be submitted in lieu of a Design Review application for new or replacement aboveground utility facilities that meet each of the requirements of Section 5 of the Design Guidelines. The manual shall contain sufficient information to verify compliance with Section 5. When a project is located within a redevelopment project area, the comprehensive manual submitted to the Community Development Department shall be Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 5 routed to the Redevelopment Agency for a finding of conformity to the respective redevelopment plan. Upon approval of the comprehensive manual, the applicant shall comply with Section 4.1 with respect to obtaining applicable permits. 2. Installation of subsequent aboveground utility facilities in accordance with an approved comprehensive manual shall not be subject to a new Design Review process. SECTION 5: DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Aboveground utility facilities on public property and in the public right-of-way shall be placed in accordance with criteria listed below. Aboveground accessory equipment located inside cabinets, enclosures, artificial rocks, boxes, or other structures shall be subject to criteria listed in Section 7 of these guidelines. The following criteria shall apply: a. Location: Aboveground utility facilities on public property and in the public right-of- way shall be placed in locations where there is little or no interference with public use of the properties and the rights or reasonable convenience of property owners who adjoin the properties. b. Stealth Facility. Except for street light poles being used solely for providing illumination, all other aboveground utility facilities shall be designed as stealth facilities with concealed antennas to be placed within, on, or attached to existing structures such as buildings, utility poles, light poles, utility towers, freestanding signs, score boards, towers, or fencing and shall blend into the surrounding environment or be architecturally integrated. C. Co -location. Aboveground utility facilities shall be co -located with existing aboveground utility facilities where possible. Whenever any existing utility facilities are located underground within the public right-of-way, the utility providers with permission to occupy the same public right-of-way shall co -locate their utility facilities underground. d. Colors. Any part of aboveground utility facilities visible to public view shall have subdued colors and non -reflective materials which blend with surrounding materials and colors and shall be covered with an anti -graffiti material, when appropriate. e. Screening. For building- or structure -mounted facilities, screening shall be compatible with the existing architecture, color, texture, and/or materials of the building or structure. f. Landscaping. When landscape screening is proposed or required, the landscaping shall be compatible with the surrounding landscape area and shall be a type and variety capable of screening the aboveground utility facilities. All landscaping areas shall be adequately maintained which includes, but is not limited to: trimming, Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 6 mowing, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, regular watering, and replacement of diseased or dead plants. g. Signs. Any signs attached to aboveground utility facilities shall comply with the City of Tustin Sign Code. h. Accessory Equipment. Accessory equipment associated with the operation of the utility facilities shall be designed, located and be made part of the structures (i.e. as part of the base or support structure) or be located within buildings, enclosures, or cabinets in accordance with Section 7 of these guidelines. Required Removal. The City, in accordance with the Lease Agreement or License, Right -of -Way Agreement, or Encroachment Permit, as applicable, reserves the right to require the removal or relocation of any aboveground utility facility when determined to be necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare by giving ninety (90) days notice. Undergrounding. The City reserves the right to require that all utility facilities, including their accessory equipment, be placed underground when technologically feasible. SECTION 6: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development standards, including height limits for any aboveground utility facility on public property and in the public right-of-way, shall be determined pursuant to the Design Review process. SECTION 7: ABOVEGROUND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT Aboveground accessory equipment for aboveground utility facilities located inside cabinets, enclosures, artificial rocks, boxes, or other structures shall be subject to the following criteria: 7.1 Process 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: 1. 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)] require a Design Review prior to issuance of Encroachment Permits. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 8 7.2 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. Development Guidelines Location, size, and screening of proposed aboveground accessory equipment will be considered by the Community Development Department in accordance with the following criteria: a. Location 1. Whenever feasible, accessory equipment should be installed underground. If it is not technologically feasible to install accessory equipment underground, the utility provider shall submit a letter of explanation regarding the hardship associated with or infeasibility of underground installation. One letter may be included in the comprehensive manual described in Section 7.1(c) for all proposed accessory equipment within the manual. 2. When underground installation is not feasible, the following order of preference shall be considered for aboveground installation of accessory equipment of any size: a. Aboveground accessory equipment should be designed as stealth facility. b. Aboveground accessory adjacent to non-residential modification to the existing and existing landscaping is equipment. equipment should be located properties in an area where no right-of-way would be required present to screen the accessory 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 11 Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 9 front yards of residential properties where no sight distance from driveways would be obstructed. 3. Consideration shall be given to the number of existing aboveground accessory equipment within a particular area and over. concentration of aboveground accessory equipment shall be avoided. Over -concentration is defined as more than one (1) aboveground accessory equipment installed adjacent to the same side of a property. If a sufficient distance separation is not technologically feasible: a. Aboveground accessory equipment shall be located as far as possible from existing aboveground accessory equipment; and, b. The accessory equipment owner/installer shall submit a letter of explanation regarding the hardship associated with or unfeasibility of installing the aboveground accessory equipment at a sufficient distance from existing aboveground accessory equipment. 4. Aboveground accessory equipment located in parkway areas should be located at the same distance from the curb as other aboveground accessory equipment along the parkway to create a uniform setback distance and appearance. 5. Aboveground accessory equipment shall not: a. Obstruct line of sight requirements at intersections or driveways; b. Obstruct or hinder opening of vehicle doors; C. Obstruct disabled access along public sidewalks to the extent that a minimum of four (4) feet clear sidewalk would not be maintained; d. Interfere with any existing or proposed improvement projects. 7.3 Height a. The height of any replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than existing or new aboveground accessory equipment to be located adjacent to the front, side, or rear yards of residentially zoned properties may not exceed the permitted height of fencing as determined at the property line in residentially zoned areas. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 10 b. The height of any replacement aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than existing or new aboveground accessory equipment located in non-residential areas will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 7.4 Screening a. In residentially zoned areas, aboveground accessory equipment shall be enclosed or screened to match or complement surrounding features such as fencing, buildings, or landscaping. The use of a matching accessory equipment color or applied paint, texturing, or faux finishing, or other techniques shall be applied in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. b. The use of crash posts is discouraged. However, if shown to be necessary, the exterior finish of the crash post should be painted the color of the aboveground accessory equipment. C. Access openings shall face away from street frontages whenever feasible. 7.5 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a. Noise emanating from aboveground accessory equipment shall not exceed the City's adopted Noise Ordinance standards. b. The accessory equipment owner/company shall file the accessory equipment identification number, company name, person responsible for maintenance of the accessory equipment, and the phone number with the Public Works Department. This information may be included in the comprehensive manual described in Section 7.1(c) of these guidelines. C. The aboveground accessory equipment shall not bear any signs of advertising devices (other than certification, warning, or other required seals or signage). d. Aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed or treated with appropriate materials which discourage or repel graffiti and the accessory equipment owner shall be responsible for removing graffiti from accessory equipment within forty-eight (48) hours. Accessory equipment owners shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary enforcement action related to graffiti removal. e. Any removal of landscaping necessary to install the aboveground accessory equipment shall be replaced with landscaping materials similar in number, type, and size as approved by the Directors of Community Development and Public Works. Landscape materials located in a public parkway shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner and landscape materials located on public properties or in the public right-of- way shall be maintained by the City, unless provided for in a Lease or License Agreement and/or Right-of-way Agreement. Exhibit A of Resolution No. 01-95 Page 11 The utility provider or accessory equipment installing entity shall be responsible for reconstruction of in-kind facilities within the public right-of- way that are damaged or modified during installation of aboveground accessory equipment. 9. 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 SS CITY OF TUSTIN RESOLUTION NO. 01-95 1, 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 19th day of November, 2001, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Worley, Thomas, Bone, Doyle, Kawashima COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None 01I 1, 11-11 Ar MWE It rol 77 WOTI i7rel z 1. 0 ATTACHMENT H 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. & 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 0"33 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. 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. 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 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 26th day of April, 2011. Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4163 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of April, 2011. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4163 DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans for the project date stamped 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 CODES (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTIONS Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 2 (1) 1.6 The applicant shall agree, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents, and consultants, from any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the City, its officers, agents, and employees, which seeks to attack, set aside, challenge, void, or annul an approval of the City Council, the Planning Commission, or any other decision-making body, including staff, concerning this project. The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of any such action. The City may, at its sole cost and expense, elect to participate in defense of any such action under this condition. (1) 1.7 The Community Development Department may review Design Review 09- 033 annually or more often to ensure that the project is in compliance with the conditions of approval contained herein. The Community Development Director may initiate proceedings to amend or revoke Design Review 09-033 if the project does not comply with the conditions of approval. (1) 1.8 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary code enforcement action, including attorney fees, subject to the applicable notice, hearing, and appeal process as established by the City Council by ordinance. (1) 1.9 The frequencies used by the wireless facility shall not interfere with the Public Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS). (1) 1.10 The applicant shall provide a 24-hour phone number to which interference problems may be reported. To ensure continuity on all interference issues the name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments shall be provided to the City's designated representative upon activation of the facility. (1) 1.11 The applicant shall ensure that a lessee or other users shall comply with the terms and conditions of Design review 09-033 and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of the applicant to comply. (1) 1.12 Radio frequency emissions shall not exceed the radio frequency emission guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as such guidelines may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department a pre and post -installation test showing compliance with the guidelines established by the FCC. Exhibit A Resolution No. 4163 Page 3 USE RESTRICTIONS (1) 2.1 The facility shall be limited to 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 a back-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 a good -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 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 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 IN RESOLUTION NO. 11-47 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 09-033 AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF 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 LOCATED WITHIN A LANDSCAPED CIRCLE IN THE PARKING LOT OF CEDAR GROVE PARK LOCATED AT 11385 PIONEER ROAD. 1. 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.37 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., 7 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). 11. 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 19"' day of July, 2011 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK 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 e-mail address of a "single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments shall be provided to the City's designated representative upon activation of the facility. (1) 1.11 The applicant shall ensure that a lessee or other users shall comply with the terms and conditions of Design review 09-033 and shall be responsible for the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of the applicant to comply. (1) 1.12 Radio frequency emissions shall not exceed the radio frequency emission guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as such guidelines may be amended from time to time. The applicant shall provide to the Community Development Department a pre and post -installation test showing compliance with the guidelines established by the FCC. Exhibit A 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. (1) 3.1 All construction operations including engine warm up, delivery, and load inglunloading of equipment and materials shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance, as amended, and may take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless the Building Official determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is awarded or during progress of the work. (1) 3.2 Noise emanating from the equipment, if any, shall not exceed the City's Noise Ordinance. Exhibit A City Council Resolution No. 1 -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.