Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-ATTACHMENT J PUBLIC COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT J PUBLIC COMMENTS AM save cedar grove park BAAmmN KEY AND.IENNIFER MIN WIERKS, ESQ. INOMDUALLY AND TOGETHER WITH THE COMMITTEE TO SAVE CEDAR GROVE PARK BrWWW Key ADMINISTRATION 714414" dcpostecooc.net JUN 2 s 2011 10980 Hiskey lane Tustin, CA WM RECEIVED June 20, 2011 City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 7144i064= jawe2ecooc.net 11070 Matthews Drtm Tustin, CA 92782 RE: City Council Consideration of Design Review 09-033 Cedar Grove Park Wireless Telecommunication Facility (T -Mobile, Applicant) Dear City Council: On behalf of the citizens of Tustin Ranch, we hereby request the council deny approval of the application of T -Mobile to install a wireless telecommunication facility in Cedar Grove Park (DESIGN REVIEW 09-033) upon the following bases: • A change of circumstances has occurred since the filing of the initial application in that a viable and preferable alternate site exhibits just 400 yards away at the Orange County Fire Authority that will accommodate up to six carriers (co -locatable) (as opposed to this single carrier, single purpose design); • The City has yet to commission an alternate site analysis and T -Mobile has failed to provide the City with the alternate site analysis it performed at OCFA at the City's request and has not been forthcoming with its drive test results at the alternate site; • The proposed single carrier design (non co -locatable) is contrary to the City's wireless goals and plan of reducing burden and minimizing the number of cell sites; • The proposed placement of this single carrier facility in Cedar Grove Park is contrary to the City's General Plan, which specifically provides for preservation and protection of this area. ?.18C 12 • A deed restriction binds this park to "public community part use" only; this proposed use artre�ciai w leas- fseftiey is t!� parR is a Proms— of ft gar1C; • Placement of a wireless telecommunications facility in this particular park does violence to the spirit, aesthetic and nature of this park; and approval of this limited design will lead to multiple future applications from other carriers claiming additional right of use and space in our park, effectively forcing the hand of the City to sell off our park piece by piece. • Over 500 residents and park users oppose this application; Make no mistake, we all desire cellular service. However, we believe a superior alternative location exists at the OCFA that can serve the needs of all while minimizing the number of cell sites in our community. A significant change of circumstances has occurred since the initial application and its inception which eliminates the need for a wireless telecommunications facility in Cedar Grove Park. This change is that the Orange County Fire Authority opened up its land in its utility yard (out of the public access) 400 yards away from the Cedar Grove site to allow a multicarrier co -locatable facility with two (2) towers that will serve the community's needs for up to six wireless carriers, including applicant T -Mobile. Indeed, three carriers have already signed on (Verizon, AT&T and Sprint). This site has been approved by the OCFA Board of Directors and is in the planning application stage with the City of Leine. T -Mobile originally sought this very space at OCFA prior to initiating the instant application but was told at the time OCFA was not interested Cedar Grove was then pursued as a next best option. Since then, OCFA has had a change of heart and that multicarrier site application process is moving forward in due course with preliminary approvals. Because of this change in circumstance, the single cagier altercate site at Cedar Grove Part is no longer needed, as a more desirable, suitable and preferable location exists a mere 400 yards away. We have reason to believe that City staff was provided incomplete and/or misleading information with respect to the project up to this point. Initially, it is important to note that T -Mobile has and will likely again represent to the City that the OCFA is not a viable location for them because it does not provide them adequate coverage based upon its topography. This, of course, is belied by T -Mobile's initial pursuit of that site and by the coverage traps indicating drive test results from other carriers who have tested the OCFA site, including Verizon, AT&T, and the technologically similar Sprint (See attachments pulled from the City of Irvine documents regarding the OCFA site) . a P.Se 13 The Planning Commisaioners required an alternate site analysis as part of the project review, with aw l€ th& siwcoWk"m s teed otter peels sise. At the DeewAm k4 2010 Planning Commission hearing it was suggested that an independent, third -party analysis be performed of the OCFA site to determine its viability as an alternative. While not performed by an independent party, a drive test was conducted by T -Mobile on or about January 18, 2011 of both the Cedar Grove Site and the OCFA site. Interestingly, though T Mobile disclosed the Cedar Grove results to the City, it has failed to provide anyone with the drive test results from OCFA despite numerous requests for that information from both the City and individual residents. All that was offered by T -Mobile were statements providing that OCFA would not work, statements that simply don't hold up given the facts. We believe the drive tests results conducted at OCFA will reveal that the OCFA is an adequate location far T Mobil& In any event, the Coundi moat demand to we theme teat rmdto and review all the evidence in this matter prior to rendering any decision In this matter. The evidence is overwhelmingly clear that the OCFA site provides the same or better coverage to the exact same area. Additionally, the evidence is unbiased as it comes from independent sources. While there is additional evidence to support the facts, the following two are clear exampks: A. All three carriers submitting to operate at the OCFA facility had to provide the City of Irvine with coverage maps just like the ones T -Mobile submitted for Cedar Park. We obtained a copy of those coverage maps from the City of Irvine to evaluate coverage and T -Mobile's statement. Those maps have been attached for your review. An overlay of those maps clearly shows that the coverage from OCFA is the same area shown by T - Mobile's map of Cedar Park. T -Mobile's unsubstantiated verbal statements about coverage from a site at OCFA are, at best, clearly false. These coverage maps are provided as figures 1 through 3, and may be compared to the drive Lest map of Cedar Grove Panic, figure 4. H. Verizon currmtly has a small, 15 foot tall, site (shown in figure 9) with limited antennas in the right of way in front of the OCFA. We have performed a real life test of this site to determine coverage at various points within the community. We established that this limited and relatively short site provides very good coverage within our community to all the areas shown on T -Mobile's Cedar drove coverage map. The results of this test may be seen in figure 10. (Verizon will remove this site once the OCFA site is completed.) Finally. T -Mobile has and may again further represent that the OCFA site does not allow for coverage to the north towards the communities of La Montana and Vidona (adjacent to Pioneer Park). However. this claim is a bit disingenuous as T Mobile already has a cell site at the Salvation Army bordering Pioneer Park to serve this need. Page 14 Given the fact that the attached coverage maps establish that indeed an alternate site is viable, we woW 3espwdMiyreguest tit L'e app be denied, or is the lsast��aa to a<dats= so the Council can request a full and independent analysis of this issue. Coatran► to City VAnhos Plaa One of the primary goals of the City with respect to wireless facilities deployment is to `reduce the number of cell sites through a coordinated co -location process". (Wireless Master Plan, page 3). In fact, in soliciting a wireless master plan, Director of Parks and Recreation Services Patrick Sanchez reported to City Manager William Huston that "[t]he primary purpose in developing a City wide master plan would be to reduce the number of wireless antenna sites necessary to provide service throughout the City, [and] reduce the blight of wireless antennas through an effective equipment screening process." (September 6, 2006 Agenda Repot Consideration of Soliciting Request for Proposals to Develop a City Wide Wireless Master Plan for Cell Phone Towers and Coverage.) However, the particular flagpole design suggested by applicant does not provide for the co - location that is so important to the City. It is a single use, for a single carrier. T -Mobile admits there is no ability to co -locate with the proposed design. Q arras► to M General Plan The proposed placement of this facility is in direct conflict with the City General Plan and is inconsistent, contrary, and out of character with the nature, beauty, landscape, scenery, charm, and historical nature of the park and surrounding neighborhoods. The City of Tustin published an updated General Plan in 2008 as a "blueprint for future growth and development" in the city.' It addresses issues in relation to land use, circulation, housing, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of open space, the noise environment and the protection of public safety as required under Section 65302 of the Government Code. The preservation of the Cedar Grove is of paramount importance in the General Plan and is alluded to numerous tines both directly and indirectly throughout. To this end, the City's Wireless Master Plan, prepared by financially interested party ATS Communications is also in direct conflict with the General Plan. For example, within the General Plan is the Land Use Element ("LUE"), a guide for allocadon of land use in the City. It provides in pertinent part: "DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER IN EAST TUSTIN • The opportunity exists in East Tustin to ensure hillside development protects the natural terrain, and that significant open space resources (such as the eucalyptus windrows and stand of redwoods) are preserved. • In an area as large as East Tustin, the provision of land uses which support the resident population to minimize travel distances to shopping, recreation and service uses. 1 City of Tuuin General Plan ('TGP"). June 17, 2006, pap 6 • Important viewsheds in East Tustin, including the Peters Gmyen v idgeti tba ad i oodkadw y+ewo, the-teo8, end= major tree sWnds, should be protected from intrudom" 3 The Land Use Element warns at page 7 that " [nlew eve t, if not regubod, can inkdm with publk vistas and views of the surrounding hillddes, publk monuments, and other important vkwsbeds." Many of the Goals contained in the Land Use Element apply in this instance. Policy 3.7 implores the City to "[elncourage the preservation and enhancement of public vistas, particularly those seen from public places.s3 Goal 4 states "[assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. Policy 6.5: Preserve historically significant structures and sites, and encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older buildings, sites and neighborhoods that contribute to the City's historic character."s In the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan ("COSRE"), it is noted that the Cedar grove has been preserved and its continued protection will require biological assessment of any new development to ensure the local ecosystem and the "City's aesthetic environment".6 The interpretation of the General Plan is clear. Cedar Grove Park is a recognized location of natural and historical significance that must be protected and preserved. Moreover, no biological assessments were performed prior to approval of this application. Simply stated, this facility has no place in this park. A deed restriction on the property places the use of the park for this use into legal question. The Irvine Company granted this land to the City of Tustin in 1989 as part of the final aspects of the annexation of the Irvine Company land now known as Tustin Ranch. It states in pertinent part: "The Irvine Company ... hereby grants to the City of Tustin, ... for public eomonmity park ggERglikThe following real property ...." We believe the City's response and conclusion on this issue during the design review process to be inadequate and dismissive of the viable legal challenge. The City's legal review was a cursory analysis that because the California courts have not reviewed an identical situation involving a cell site in park property, it is okay for the City to proceed. We would ask for a more complete review and legal review given the case law and findings of the counts to date. Despite the fact that California courts have yet to review a 2 Land Use Element, p. 9 (Emphasis added). ' LUE, p. 16. `_1 IM p-16. s LUE, p. 19. 6 COSM pp. 3433 Peg: 16 precisely identical factual situation involving a cell tower in a park, there is a body of can law thermtkowdemm me deipnfity my not uaws Pwk eeaaing st 'VUblie4Wk: use" fm purposes other than a park, especially so for a private commercial purpose. The operative term is "for oublk SgUWUWU park purpomee, Courts have strictly construed this type of restriction and have held that a municipality may not stray from this use even to put a maintenance building in the park that contains city equipment not used in the park. A commercial wireless telecommunications facility lease of parkland for revenue does not support a park purpose and extends beyond the land use rights granted to the City. Even what might be perceived to be a minor violation of the deed restriction is still a violation of the deed restriction. One of the more important cases on the issue is Big Sur Properties Y. Mott (1976) 62 CaLApp.3d 99, 103. In sum, California courts have been loathe to cast aside use restrictions on property contained in deeds. "'It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose. (Roberts Y. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith Y. Department o .f Public Works (1956) 141 Ca1.App.2d 376, 380.)'" (Big Sar Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 103; see also Save the Welwood Murray Memorial Library Com. Y. City Council (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1012.) Moreover, "' jwihere a tract of land Is donated to a dtv eft~ a yaaMiwNnn nn im e — && fhr indene_ when It is donated or dediemed to a dtv wltfl term of tine stent.' (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles (1934) 220 Cal. 366,369; City and County of S.F. v. Linares (1940) 16 Cal.2d 441, 446.)" Big Sur Properties, supra, 62 Cal -App -3d at 103; Baldwin Y. City of Los Angeles, supra, 70 Ca1.App.4* 819, 836, 837; we also Stavich Y. Hamilton (1927) 201 Cal. 299, 302 ['land which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes"]. Further, where property is acquired by a public entity through private dedication such as here from the Irvine Company, the deed is strictly deed. (Big Sur Properties, supra 62 Cal.App.3d at p. 104; Griffith Y. Department of Public Works, supra, 141 Cal.App.2d at p. 380.) Other states have held similarly, and in at least Florida and Arizona there are specific cases on point wherein cell towers in public parks were held to violate a "public park use" decd restriction. Regardless of the law, John Irvine would be mortified by this application. This park property was given to the people for one reason. The residents and constituents paid to build it for one reason, to be used as a part and a park only. Knowing that an alternate site is available and that the park doesn't have to be burdened by installation of this facility only compounds the insult. Precedent of Pbcfm s YOM= Tdecoutumnl admi Fadlih► in Cedar Grove Park is a Bad Idea Inviting Future Anolkanb and Um Although the Cedar Grove site had been identified in the City's wireless plan prepared by ATS Communications in conjunction and consultation with the various wireless carriers, that plan is merely a guide and the Jffmi ato determir ation o the placement itself needs to be revie as . 17 part of the design and proposed plan. The ATS plan never took into consideration whether pisoenme t inkparkis$ geed-ide% mopwhedwr4ovhwader ami naumsr€ tlais4padk allaws for such a controversial use. We believe that them are various types of parks. Large parks, small parks, there are wooded parks, and parks for sports with ball fields with lights. and there are more private parks tucked inside residential areas for family or smaller community functions and gatherings. We believe that not all of these parks should be viewed similarly when it comes to their protections from the consideration of compatible uses. We believe that Cedar Grove Park is not the Tustin Sports Park, not because of its proximity to our houses, but because of its function and service to the community. To install a wireless telecommunications facility in this serene park would do violence to its spirit. Even T -Mobile's photos of similar flagpole sites recognize this distinction as they show these types of sites at government buildings. Again, this is not a more "commercial" park. It is an intimate, relatively small, wooded community park used for birthday parties and family gatherings on a daily basis by a vast number of residents. Quite simply, as open as it is to the public, it is a place many use as their private area to get away from the business and commercial pressures of the daily grind and share time with their neighbors. If the City allows this type of use in this type of park and makes no distinction between a park like Cedar Grove and the Tustin Sports Park, the City is stripping away any and all protections of all park space. Knowing that an alternate site is available completely eliminates the argument that this was a necessary infringement. Moreover, as alluded to above, the approval of this application in the manner it was paves the way for future applicants to force their will on our park. It places a burden on our park that should never be had. Approval of this one carrier use design is in fact inviting future wireless telecommunication applicants to submit their own separate facility designs to further burden our park. In effect, approval of this design will, be a tacit invitation to sell off our park piece by piece. As stated above, this is contrary to the City's goal of reducing the burden and blight upon its land and residents through co -location and minimization of number of cell sites. Over 500 Reddents and Park Users Oblect to this Park Use Over 500 residents and park users have already voiced their opinions in writing or in person before the Planning Commission in opposition of this application. At the outset, a petition was circulated which garnered over SW signatures. Dozens of residents have written in individually and/or appeared at the various Planning Commission hearings on the issue. Over 200 residents submitted form letters opposing the placement in the park. In contrast, the OCFA facility has received minimal opposition. We do not want this use in the park and we believe that, if it is allowed, it will set the totally unacceptable precedent that either. (i) similar commercial enterprises can request the same use arguing that they. can now not be denied on the basis or discrimination; or, even worse, (2) that Page is any commercial use can now apply for a use within a park like Cedar Grove as parks clearly ate ono proteedotr: - > - - -- - . -7 z_ - - - - CAnckolm Again, cellular service is a recognized need in our community. However, the proposed plan by T -Mobile is not the best idea available. Balancing the needs of the applicant, City, and community, it is clear the OCFA is a superior location for all. We believe that the deed restriction alone is sufficient to deny the application. However, even if it is ultimately established that the deed does not prohibit the use and the City has the right to allow this use at Cedar Park, there is simply no reason to allow it as there is no need for a communication facility at the park. OCFA is more than a viable alternate and the coverage maps and the fact that three other carriers are locating at that site prove it. Information required of T -Mobile by the City has not been provided to City staff or to the public. Additionally, T Mobile's statements about the alternate site are at best misleading based on the facts. The Council must demand full disclosure from the applicant and require data of its alternate site analysis. The design approval is contrary to our City's General Plan and contrary to the City's Wireless Master Plan goal to collocate these burdensome facilities. It is generally just a bad idea. To approve this application is to set an unnecessary precedent and will upset hundreds of your constituents. However, denial would have no negative impact on the coverage by T -Mobile. Tbey would simply join the other carriers at the OCFA site, but the community would value the decision, the park would be saved from the intrusion of unnecessary commercial uses and the park would retain its character. From our position, this should be a relatively easy decision. Respectfully submitted, Brandon Key Jennifer wierks Page 19 Figtae 1. AT&T coverage map for OCFA site provided to Irvine Planning Department overlaid on satellite image. Legend: Green: But Signal level (dBm) i. -79 Blow Bert Slgnd Level (dBm) >- -87 Yellow: Beat Signal Level (dHm) >m -97 Red: Bat SiVW Level (dBm) x -109 Grey Beat SWW level (dBm) >• -120 Please refer to figure S for original coverage map (not overlaid on satellite iauge). Page 110 Figure 2.. Sprint covcmp map for OCFA site provided to Irvine Planning Department ovalaid on satellite imare. Legend: Grew: In Building Coverer Yellow In Vehicle Coverage Omy weak Coverage Please refer to figure 6 for migirW coverage map (not overlaid on sateilite image). Page X11 Pigure 3. Verizoo coverage map for OCFA tits ptmvided to Irvine Planning Deportment overlaid an satellite image. Legend Oreen: Best Signal Level (dBm) >m -73 Yellow: Best Signal Level (dBm) >= -83 Red: Best SiVW Level (dBm) >= -93 Please refer to figure 7 for original coverage map (not overlaid on satellite image). Page 112 Fgure 4. T -Mobile drive tea tewlq fran January 18, 2011 teat of Cedar (hove Park site overlaid on satelliue image. Legend: (iron: Up to -79 Orn (indoor coverage) Yellow: -84 to -76 dBm (in vehicle coverage) Grey: -91 to -84 dBm (on street coverage) Black: Below -91 dBm Please refer to figure 8 for original coverage map (not overlaid on satellite image). Page 113 Figure S. AT&T covers mop for OCFA site as provided to Irvine Planning Deparanem Page 114 Figure 6. Sprint OCFA coverage stip as provided to Irvine PlanninS Department. �'i • r Ti .Mobile- Solo Predlctlon and Solo Orlve Test Mops Overlap PUA ` =Y YIIA I LmwA • Upb-Tt; Qn/ortow'b �b-7��IO1\MI.b CMr�q 1 -$,1w44 1 IOnMmdcww+p • Us I dII Page 116 • FiVn & T -Mobile Cedar Grove Park drive tat results From January 18, 2011 nest. as provided in April 26 Stats Report to the Phutaing Commission. Page 117 Figure 9. Varizon Right of Way cell instillation oo the owner of Tustin Ranch and Jamboree roads. This site will be removed once the OCFA installation is completed. Page jla A 1 9 � f � d • �` •• t� ZAt 4 Glove Park s!o 77 low V.Asoe,ft. sow n,,, Mi baa Ipft � , l 4C ` + M 4 bas �yI f 4 atm i bars cr Figure 10. Results of drive test conducted by residents of Verizon signal strength, "�V� a^aj-'� It is an established fact that Cell Towers in your neighbor negatively impact Property values. We, in Tustin Ranch, have already lost money on our homes, as has everyone, in these tough economic times. Please consider this when making your decision regarding putting cell towers in our neighborhood and our park. As you can see from the article below, Villa Park Council is sensitive to their residences and they are not allowing cell towers in their neighborhoods, knowing that it would diminish their constituent's property values. We know that T -Mobile has an alternate site available to them, at the Fire Authority, to build their towers. At the very least, you should wait to make your decision until you see if the sale of T -Mobil is completed. This is expected to happen shortly and T -Mobile will be out of business, and this issue will be mute. We feel that you should show us the same concern, regarding property values, as the City of Villa Park showed their residences. ItA� �'� -Pic 9AW4, Q'A1 e A Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joseph.Thompson@T-Mobile.comj Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:19 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John; George Cardenas Subject: RE: Correspondance re T- Mobile Elizabeth, Am I able to reply so that my response is included in the public record along with the letter from the Smith's? I find it odd that almost each time there is opposition to one of our wireless facilities, medical studies from Germany or Sweden or some other country are quoted, yet they never present a study from a reliable American source. Over and above the fact that the Council cannot legally consider health impacts when considering this project, both the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organization have written studies and have opined that wireless facilities are safe. There are literally thousands of cell sites just in Southern California, yet there is no increase in cancer rates or any other type of sickness. The bottom line is that studies, like the attached article in the Smith's letter, are typically commissioned from people who own and use cell phones every day, yet refuse to participate in accommodating the infrastructure that allows there cell phone to operate in the first place. -----Original Message ----- From: Binsack, Elizabeth jmailto:EBinsack(@tustinca.orRI Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 4:54 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John; Thompson, Joe; George Cardenas Subject: Correspondance re T- Mobile Please find attached correspondence that has been received regarding the Design Review for Cedar Grove. This information will be provided in the City Council Design Review Agenda Report Packet when the matter is presented for their consideration. I am sure that we will be getting additional information and will share the information as it is provided. JJ We are writing to ask you to please read the attached articles and realize that this is one'of t4 1 many reasons why we do not want the cell towers in our community park It takes approximately 20 years for scientists to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, causes for cancer, but research is currently ongoing and the preliminary research all show that it is dangerous to live near cell towers. It took over 20 years to prove the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. We are not going to expose ourselves and our children to cell towers in our neighborhood without a fight. We were at the planning commission meeting and they failed to address two major issues that were raised by residences of Tustin Ranch. The first issue was the height of the poles. A representative from T -Mobile stated to the Commissioners that the height of the poles, 43 feet, would only be adequate for a short period of time because the poles will be surrounded by trees and as the trees grow that will interfere with the reception and thus the trees will have to be cut down or removed. Is that what the Tustin wants, since we are known as the City of Trees. Issue number two, the City of Irvine deeded this property to Tustin to be used as a park, not a commercial endeavor. Is the Irvine Company aware that, in essence, Tustin Is leasing part of our park to a private company for profit 7 I think it would be a mistake from a public relations standpoint to have another lawsuit filed against the City, but if we feel we are not being represented, that is exactly what will happen. You will be bringing the wrath of the Tustin Ranch residences upon your heads, if you continue going into business with T -Mobile and turn our neighborhood park into a commercial enterprise. Are you aware that T -Mobile has been bought by AT&T and they have stated that they do not want to have cell towers in our park ? Why would you even consider entering into a long term contract with a company that is in escrow and will not exist much longer ? This fad was raised with the Planning Commission and they ignored the potential for negative ramifications, such as, who would maintained the poles ? The taxpayers ?I We, in Tustin Ranch, already pay extra taxes to support our parks. Please so the right thing and vote against the erection of these cell towers in our neighborhood. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith 10888 Dishman Place Tustin, Ca 92782 (714) 730-6079 awimorage EMF Protbetion Cellphone Radietlon Mobile Phone SAR Electromagnetic Prevention EMF Qftk Prodet EMF Coll Phone Radlabon Search Website ---- - _ --- - - -- —L '-ANEPW - Mows I snows I aaaF Items I ENO I FAQ I MIooUCU I Carseat tb I Vbw cart : SOP UP tsar ear FREE ass 1 : ■owatmew : Invisible Radiation Dangers Of Cell Towers mm NO" • "YourFrsa Tips on How to Protect Yourself From Cal Pe ew lowers hspm throughout �� urwa sose to fd and iPeopb GN Phone Radlatbn" are nd bawad on the irmisbb radalon dangers dad lowers. They are beuesd sob* an the qu elly of cal phone sella that weir receive each day. Cel tu.t. phone tooens emit an dsctranapnedc Asld wet spreads l w4r*el rsdislion • _---. _ . -- . - _ _ _ throughout ndphborI a VNlia these fare inhhisblt b to haired eye, to : Ewes don g caused tan rsdsfion tom times cel towers are nd. • Photr : ElecbOrrNo of left hate hate repoded head conaMne besot t omm called • _ _ —_ _ _ _ _... J • a40aw:C neudre were dboovered goal ig f m iNrids era ear coral. The °i 'a01w --- -- J • Research Center br Wireless Todvx* gy has Poled phycd@M sdsrhlsls, and cos — WON hlsatln Otgantralon and sl d mase prafiseefonab e@y oat cos kWbbb Mw radisUon cantos Of 406110 1 canoe radiation poisonhing on artait khleta wroughad On I Iruled States and ow world • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • : Recent sdWdit bob miab tat Not two hours of eogoetre to hW*o* sn y Wmam% naa Ur !side cen ked b psinimm t damage b DNA. ndsd specilcely in PrOduCti brain and sax cels. Low`irequency r'dnhlny lataon k ebe tom maa, r- m *a devious oat are used h hones everyday. such as cat phoras mterowwm ovens, bkwbolh I - I alts and personal leplop conrpubms. For went ubnri, b reodre an TeefNnoniab rRW bW. May regale a call phone tower b be prsesrht wrhb 1011 fed of Lair horns or o0m. Conrisbnt ehp m" b wit type of bw tegtrwoy rsdalon can cause at types of heath concerns b ocor. AkU* headsets Peopb uwe bkrsbolh hasdemb wMh hwxb4ne msdmdw.e on own b aonpy corn osrfaln taws. These Mmkxiw headsets work prirnersy tom to signal projected tom a cel glens not, or osl boar oat is does, by. Knm*V to heslh (]Ilnlc Pendants a ^c � ony a lowers b be tom jch VO�OO^e° � many a y �s we r e k mm EMF Prosection Chips oat is Pieced on no mm rancid land. Certain surds Mlem shown that the 8 m Who WW-WkftWg*nWm1@d*om1hsm rnobls phone bows hate had e negaliw roped an to brain's bioebctric adh *. AM** Ower resuhb tan Skxfts corrlpklsd in Genn" a Me ftrolopfcal Fbepilal d the lJrniuenly d Frebhrg show oat the hhigh tequernebs enhlbd mann cel phos towers ked to a s*9 Ilcott iecres si In blood pressure b woes oat M around ft neOn a - W cal Piow e bs. Vary bWoOW promisee aro Obftoralso sd Uht by dectomegnaft meads enhwtd ly 40alhriar telephhorhes, and d d& m ars bury mn=plbb b brain canape becauws wdr ca& are ell sort, and Radio Shows not much wil hinder these sipnsk tan pellnp In and ca mkq dotage. SPeakirhB Engagww is The i r*W* nxftdm dangers Of eel lowers are evident by to nu t w of people VW aro deposed each day corn symptoms of km grds rs lemm poiaonn, g The damps ion cols type of poisonirq In shown in beta b be on a caluler boa. &u& mwmorage Our Adverdem Products & Serviess On Earth! LOOK NO FURTHER - THIS IS MUST HAVE INFO! rense.com Proposed Playground Cell Tower Nixed By Effective Public Education Campaign In North Idaho Good News From Amy Worthington The Idaho Observer 6-9-7 When neighbors caught wind of a proposed new cell tower to be erected adjacent to the Lake City High School ball field in Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, they were stunned. Among them was Sue Anderson, who organized a group of concerned neighbors to research the details. "Only about 50 property owners within 300 feet of the proposed tower were notified by the city about an upcoming hearing on the tower proposal. Hundreds of other homeowners were left completely in the dark," says Anderson. The tower proposal, in the works for about a year, was between telecommunications provider Verizon Wireless and School District 271. Verizon negotiated to pay the district $1,000 per month to lease ground for a 115 -foot tall structure with antenna space for three other providers besides Verizon. Eventually, the new tower, adjacent to the football stadium, would be buzzing with dozens of antennas for both cellular and PCS communications. &u& &w&orage Sick neighborhoods Since an elementary and middle school are very close to the high school, Anderson and others set about to update themselves on the latest science regarding health effects of microwave radiation emitted by cell towers. "News and science reports from all over the globe seem to show that a cell tower neighborhood is basically a sick neighborhood. We found many media reports about cancer clusters in residential areas close to microwave towers," Anderson says. A 2004 German government study found that people living within 1,300 feet of cell tower radiation had three times the normal cancer risk. Among other facts uncovered by Anderson's group was a 2004 resolution by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) that opposes commercial cell towers on fire stations after a medical study showed brain and nerve.problems for irradiated personnel. It was also discovered that the Los Angeles Unified School Board passed a resolution opposing cell towers on school property after the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences classified electromagnetic fields as a Class 2B carcinogen. Public outreach campaign Anderson and other volunteers put crucial radiation news and science into a flyer and distributed them throughout the affected neighborhoods. Attached to the flyer was a summary of 220 -peer reviewed and published studies documenting cancer -initiating and cancer -promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology. The summary was completed in 2000 by ECOLOG Institute, a German research group commissioned by telecom giant T -Mobile to collate known health risks of mobile telecommunications. ECOLOG's summary cites everything from DNA damage to infertility and disruptions of the immune and endocrine systems. The Institute concluded that current power density exposure standards should be reduced by at least a factor of 1,000. Critics charge that T -Mobile subsequently "buried" the report in an effort to keep public discussion of the proven health risks associated with cell phone radiation off the agenda when tower sitings are being proposed. Pressing the advantage Once neighbors of Lake City High were armed with the science information and several web sites where more information could be researched, they &U& &w&brage flooded school officials with complaints about the proposed tower. "Our most critical concern was numerous studies showing memory and cognitive function impairment among those living near microwave transmitters," said Anderson. "In the Freiburger Report, thousands of German doctors have linked wireless phones and cell tower radiation to dramatic increases in disorders of learning, concentration and behavior among their patients." Anderson asks, "How can a school district justify exposing kids to continual radiation documented to cause sleep disturbances plus concentration and learning difficulties?" Martha Rayne, who lives only meters from the proposed tower site says, "We were outraged to learn that the FCC has no manpower to monitor emissions from these towers so no one really knows if they are in compliance with exposure standards. And we were surprised to learn about all the different frequencies that blast out of a cell tower -everything from 217 hertz and 1733 hertz with harmonics all the way up to carrier microwaves in the megahertz and gigahertz realm. Where are the long-term safety studies for all of these frequencies?" she asks. Documentation Anderson and others prepared a 46 -page binder for school district officials documenting why microwave exposure is especially hazardous for school children. Included in the information was a 2002 statement by EPA's Radiation Protection Division which states that current federal exposure standards touted by the telecom industry as "adequate" in fact do not protect the public against possible damage from prolonged, low-level microwave exposure. The EPA letter admitted that studies show cancer can occur from long-term irradiation. Also included was a letter from Dr. Henry Lai, a leading radiation and biomedical researcher working at the University of Washington, who stated that numerous medical studies show serious health effects can occur at irradiation levels far below current exposure standards. Anderson points to a December 2006 article in Coeur d' Alene Magazine which disclosed that the Kootenai Medical Center (KMC), serving as a magnet hospital for the five northern Idaho counties, is now inundated with cancer conditions of all types. The article reported that an average of 210 patients are cared for daily at KMC's North Idaho Cancer Center and that more than 100 new cancer patients join the ranks of the "Big C" club very month. From: Michael Mathes Imailto:michaelmathes(ime.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 9:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Cell Phone Towers - Cedar Grove Park Amongst all the opposition to the proposed cell towers for Cedar Grove Park, I wanted to let you know that I support the measure. Tustin Ranch suffers from poor cell service and this will only help to improve the situation. As for concerns about safety, I am an electrical engineer and have heard the complaint many times. Numerous studies have shown that electromagnetism of this kind and intensity poses no risk. In addition, I would guess that most people opposing this use cell phones regularly with no significant safety concern. My feeling is that there are a number of people who live near the site and oppose the measure for their own selfish reasons. They are in all likelihood only concerned about their property values and don't really care about safety. In fact, cell service is being relied upon more and more for emergency communication. I can see a time where poor cell service may drive home values down and increase the risk for the community that doesn't have good service. Sincerely, Mike Mathes 2335 Pieper Lane Tustin, CA Swiontek, Ryan From: Harold Pugh [hpughl@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 4:43 PM To: Harris, Eloise; Ebinsak@tustin.org; Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Nielsen, John; Amante, Jerry; dgavello@tustin.org; ragomez@tustin.org; amurry@tustinca.org Subject: Presidio Community Association/Cell Tower Attachments: Presidio Letter to Planning Commission.pdf To All, Please find attached letter; reference to an e-mail communication found in the T -Mobile Design Review 09-033 package - that is not accurate, and is misleading. Please include this letter with documents pertaining to the Cell Tower. Thank you Harold Pugh President Board of directors Presidio Community Association May 10, 2011 Planning Commission CITY OF TUSTIN 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA Attention: Mr. Steve Kozak, Planning Commissioner Mr. Jeff Thompson, Planning Commissioner Mr. Fred Moore, Planning Commissioner Mr. Charles Puckett, Planning Commissioner Mr. Ken Eckman, Planning Commissioner Ms. Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director Mr. Ryan Swiontek, Project Manager RE: PRESIDIO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION / CELL TOWER I am writing to address an e-mail correspondence from John S. Tkach, dated January 18, 2011 (see attached) regarding the proposed cell tower in Cedar Grove Park, the Presidio Community, and Sharon Komorous, who is a Presidio community resident and HOA Board Member. That e-mail was published for public record and included in the T -Mobile Design Review 09-033 packet to the City of Tustin Planning Commission. It contained statements and comments by Mr. Tkach that are factually incorrect, do not represent those of the Presidio Board of Directors, and authorization was not given for him to speak on behalf of the Board. • A Presidio Homeowners Association resident e-mail address list belonging to the HOA_ does not exist. There could not have been any abuse by Ms. Komorous involving any e- mail list. Any e-mail addresses in Ms. Komorous' possession are not the property of the Presidio HOA. Furthermore. no .such accusations of abuse were addressed at Presidio's January 20, 2011 Board of Directors meeting as Mr. Tkach asserted. • The HOA Board has not been presented with any evidence that Ms. Koanorous utilized her position on the Board to suggest that there would be "repercussions" to residents that are not "united in opposition to this tower" as indicated by Mr. Tkach. Furthermore, the Board works collectively as a group on decision making issues as they pertain to the community and no one member has the power or authority to act alone. • The Presidio Board of Directors has not conducted a poll in the Presidio community on the proposed cell tower in Cedar Grove Park, nor are we aware ofanypoll that has been conducted in the com►nunity. • Mr. Tkach stated "on www.savece(larg_ro%,epark.org there is a closed poll of the community" which implies that the poll was conducted within the Presidio community. No poll has been conducted exclusively within the Presidio Community to the extent that Mr. Tkach's e-mail might be interpreted, and to the contrary is factually incorrect. • The HOA Board of Directors is not aware of any e-mails or communications wherein Ms. Komorous stated or implied that her personal views, opinions and involvement regarding the issue of the cell tower in Cedar Grove Park represent those of the Presidio Board of Directors. In closing, I would like to state that Sharon Komorous is well respected, well liked within the community and Presidio Board of Directors. She has contributed greatly over the years in a positive, effective and professional manner and was recently re-elected to her third 2 -year term. Any factual inaccuracies that would discredit her reputation and imply that she has misused her position as a board member are unjustifiable and cannot go unnoted. Thank you for taking the time to read this information and allowing me the opportunity to correctly set the record straight on this matter. Sincerely, Harold Pugh President Board of Directors Presidio Community Association CC: Jerry Amante, Mayor John Nielsen, Mayor Pro Tem Deborah Gavello, Councilmember Rebecca Gomez, Councilmember Al Murray, Councilmember From: John & Kathy Tkach Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:56:09 •0800 To: <rsrvio_nlvky0tustinca org> Subject: Sorry, to bother you with another email. FW T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to comet i piens, remove my email address f-om public viewing and have Ih s oma l read at your next meeting) Mr dl,.rr S.---Iek. I thought This email would benelit you to know the following informat,on. Puiscno,ly, haven't made a decision in favor or agamst a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park The main reason for my email is to inform you, not ALL Tustin Ranch residents are 'united in opposition to this tower Out of lent of reporcussorl. Aix different residents wthm my Presidio community, have complained to me, (a Presidio H O A Board memburt and .lskud that I send this email. These six households, are In favor of a cell lower In Cedar Grove Park One resident gave me an crampte of her fear. which, I witnessed at the last planning commission meeting A Presidio resident being booed after vo-cu,g net opin on in favor of installing a cell lower in Cedar Grove Park. Another Prasidio resin!, complained that he was being sent repeated spam omails from a Presidio Homeowner Board member (Sharon Komorous) ids. Komorous is using an email list that is the property of the Presidio HOA Board. for her personal use. !in ofIpoca(Ion of a cell tower) without the permieswn of the Preaidlo HOA Board On this issue, she does not represent the Preruio Homeowners Board's opinion, nor do I. This abuse of the Pres0o H O.A email list, will be addressed at our next mocking on January 20, 2011 On the ww_v savetedptOroveua,kora there is a closed poll M " the community 80 tataa votes: 41 votes i5>; against i LCII s.(c :111d19 �, b)5 f,19°'..i in favor of a cell site in the Cedar Grove park. My findings !within the 170 residents of Presidioi are of zunttai . ii;, me aummunity is basically split 50°o in favor and 50% against the installation of a cell lower in Cedar Grove Park. It a cell lower is approved, please make sure the lower is well camouflaged (to blend in with the sounding env.ronment) 1 astly .n my opinion, t he emails below are a miss representation of 'what a cell lower in the park would look like' and spreading unnecessary fear among the Tuslm residents. One email slates . 'we need to show up in force Io tail them we mean business!" This is the voice of a "community organizer and not that of the Tustin community. My thoughts are... Don't allow a couple of "community organizers" to put a stop to whatever you feel is best for the Tustin community. Best regards. John S Tkach Presid,o H O A. Board membor 12 year T,,slin Ranch resident From: Sharon Komorous <skomo@cox net> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 201120:03:29 0800 To: Sharon Komorous <skomo@cox net> Subject: FW. T Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! Drar Friends and Neighbors, I'leatic scc the attached photograph and read (fie message brluw for an update on lhecell tower. Thank you, Sharon Kamoruns From: 9randon Key [n�ll.:5,2v r r rk,i rlialLcan) Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:22 PM To: ,avcc,,r arg ova, ark agmail,cgim Subject: T -Mob le gives us a taste of what's to come' I'OI lho,e !Il _POLI �%ho missed It loch\, ,111hoUl-h I don't kIION hoe% %OU i01.11d ha%e. I Mobile j�c ms a little lade of ��hit a Cell lOHer In the 13:11-k �eould hKtk like i he% ate iunduihn_ tests to klctrrmine the .I_•n.d suength lroni to\\eu h><ated at the• p:u'k and at the OC I ire Authont). II \ou leen 1111; lNpe of Nou,aure is an atximinauum In our park..all or email the ill) lodge .Intl let Ihcnl kn x that this boacr doesn't Won- in the pack' y l them knoee th:u. since enc other aweless r:mTlCrs_ireuliingthcir antennas Deer ar .he (7(' Fie Aulhor,t - _ _ i nr• ��\. ( \luhIIC'houlk-l_1 N1 ('all the Planning fkp:utincnt: (7 14) S7,-.1140 of entail Fh/ahclh Hlnsack. ('hiclol Staff it the Planning ('omml,,tun. chln,aikv' (imin,,t on: \kw I'Linnint; It nnunis,imn Ilcaritig nest Tucsdu) .tun 25th al 7pm. Thi, maN he our last chance to con%ince the coy that we ate milled In opllosition to this io%eci. I'-Mohde nm\ :tuk lir another delay, but ac need to show up in force to tell thein we mean hushes:' ( heel, .cul the e�chwc for additional infra %� a a .sacecedarero%epurk.orlt Ihanks' 4 Swiontek, Ryan From: John & Kathy Tkac, Sent: weanesday. January To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re. Sorry to bother you with another email. FW T -Moble gives us a taste of carat s to come, 1.1r 9 In S"Or lek -Iiis s a REVISED EMAdL - I removed a few sentences from an earker email, that were upon further questioning on my par, found to t e nw difficult Io report as an Accurate statement if you have any questions please reply back fo this email T hanks. JST r'lease remove my email address from public viewing and read this email at your next meeting) Nis Ebzabeth Binsack and City of Tustin Planning Commission, I thought this email would benefit the Tustin Planning Commission to know the following information Personally. I hAven t made a decision in favor or against a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. The main reason for my email is to inform you and our city planning commission, not ALL Tustin Ranch residents are 'united ,n opposition to this tower.' Out of fear of repercussion• six different reswlents within my Presidio community have complained to me. (a ProSid,o H O A Board member) and asked that I send this email. These six households, are in favor of a cell lower in Cedar Grove Park One rosi(few gave me an example of her fear. which. I witnessed at the last planning commission meeting. A Presidio resident tieing booed after voicing hat opinion, in favor of installing a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park On the w'aw SAv�e edamroveAark.ot� lhere is a closed poll of the community BO total votes: 41 votes (51°,j against a cell sae .ird 13 encs ;491x) in favor of a toll site in the Cedar Grove park. My findings (within the 174 residents of Presidio) are of sun lar results. the community is basically split 50°; in favor and SON against the installation of a cell tower in Cedar Grove Perk. It A cell towers approved• please make sure the towers well camouflaged (lo bland in with the sounding environment) Lastly, in my opinion. I he emads below are a miss representation of 'what a tell tower in the park would look like' and spreading unnecessary fear among the Tustin residents One email states.. 'we need to show up in force to leh them we mean business'' This is the voice of a 'community organizer and rot Ina' of the Tustin community. My advice to you and the planning commission... Don't allow a couple of "community organizers" to put a stop to whatever you feel is beat for the Tustin community. Dost f,9,10s. ll,,, S Tkach Pres,il 0 1.1 O A Board member I;? year Tustwn Ranch resident Swiontek, Ryan From: Cathy Bardenstein [cjbardy@mac.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 8:35 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: Re: DR 09-033 Cedar Grove Park wireless project I am very pleased that the application was approved. I have been looking at the "save cedar grove" website, and is apparent, that the opposing neighbors are merely looking at health issues. It does that appear that they have in any way disputed the need for the site, which does not appear to even be necessary because this is a design review only, and hope that the City Council, ignores the hyperbole, adheres to the law, and looks at the factually unopposed public record, As a T -mobile customer, we really need the site. I just wish it was taller, so I could be sure that we could get coverage through the tree coverage. Regards, Cathy Bardenstein Sent from my Wad On May 6, 2011, at 4:35 PM, "Swiontek, Ryan" <RSwiontcki Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks baws2@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:40 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; CITY COUNCIL Cc: fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; Steve. Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; CKASALOEK@DELMTAWYE.com; retiredpucketts@aol.com; jeffcherie@integrity.com Subject: Cedar Grove Cell Tower Design 09-033 Violates Park Deed Restriction and Undermines Goal of Co -location of Facilities Attachments: Big Sur Properties v Mott.pdf; 06JUN06 Cell Tower in Park.pdf; OR_1989 00565752 (3).pdf; Wierks letter 420 09-033.pdf Dear Planning Commission, Staff and City Council: This letter is in response to the revised application of T -Mobile which now requests design approval of two (2) 40' and one (1) 43' flagpole wireless telecommunication facility towers in the front of the park adjacent to the parking lot. I, as well as numerous other residents, still vehemently object to the plan, albeit revised with the new configuration and location. Please include this letter and all of its attachments as part of the packet provided to the Planning Commission on this issue. 1. Deed Restriction that the land be used "for public community park purposes" only — this precludes placement of a wireless telecommunications facility First and foremost, the Planning Staff does not understand the deed restriction that is imposed on the park. The most recent staff report did attempt to address the issue, but got it completely wrong. I cannot stress enough the importance of this issue as a complete bar to this entire pursuit. I quote the staff report, which erroneously identifies the issue, here: "Deed Restriction A concern was raised by a resident in the area Ms Jennifer Wierks that the existing Grant Deed for Cedar Grove Park restricts use of the park for a wireless facility The Grant Deed for Cedar Grove Park which was deeded to the City of Tustin from the Irvine Company on August 8 1989 identifies restrictions to the property Attachment F One of which was to provide plans for review to the Irvine Company of the Initial Park Improvements This was done at the time of the development of Cedar Grove Park The restriction is specific in stating This requirement shall apply to the Initial Park Improvements only and not to any subsequent improvements reconstruction repairs replacements additions or changes The Irvine Company concurs and indicated that no release or approval is necessary from them The City Attorney has provided an opinion on the matter related to a public inquiry which is contained within Attachment G" The initial park improvement section is NOT the deed restriction I am referring to: the deed restriction is contained in the very opening paragraphs of the Grant Deed, which I again attach hereto for your reference. It states in pertinent part: "The Irvine Company ... hereby grants to the City of Tustin, ... for public community park purposes, The following real property ...." The operative term is "for public community park purposes". As I have informed you previously, the courts have strictly construed this type of restriction and have held that a municipality may not stray from this use even to put a maintenance building in the park that contains city equipment not used in the park. I urge you to take this issue very seriously because the City has no authority to authorize this land use that does not serve its intended use as a public park. A commercial wireless telecommunications facility lease of parkland for revenue does not support a park purpose and extends beyond the land use rights granted to the City. Even what might be perceived to be a minor violation of the deed restriction is still a violation of the deed restriction. I have previously provided you case authority as well as a relevant law review article (attached) on the subject which I ask be made part of the packet available to the Planning Commission. One of the more important cases on the issue is Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 103 which I attach hereto for your convenience. In sum, California courts have been loathe to case aside use restrictions on property contained in deeds. "'It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose. (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith v. Department of Public Works (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 376, 380.)"' (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 103; see also Save the Welwood Murray Memorial Library Com. v. City Council (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1012.) Moreover, "'Where a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction on its use — as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated to a city with a restriction upon its use — as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park — the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the arant.' (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles (1934) 220 Cal. 366, 368; City and County of S.F. v. Linares (1940) 16 Cal.2d 441, 446.)" Big Sur Properties, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at 103; Baldwin v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 70 Cal.App.4`h 819, 836, 837; see also Slavich v. Hamilton (1927) 201 Cal. 299, 302 ["land which has been deciated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes"]. Further, where property is acquired by a public entity through private dedication such as here from the Irvine Company, the deed is stricly construed. (Big Sur Properties, supra 62 Cal.App.3d at p. 104; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, supra, 141 Cal.App.2d at p. 380.) Other states have held similarly, and in at least Florida and Arizona there are specific cases on point wherein cell towers in public parks were held to violate a "public park use" deed restriction. 2. Lack of Co -location opportunity defeats cost/benefit analysis and purpose of burdening park As the Staff report confirms, this type of design and configuration eliminates any possibility of co -location of wireless facilities at this location. While this proposal was previously promoted as a unique and desirable opportunity to co -locate multiple carriers in one facility in furtherance of the City's cell tower plan and policy and as recommended by ATS Communications, this prospective advantage has now been completely eliminated. Now the application is asking to burden the public park for a single carrier's profit purpose. As the Planning Commission is well aware, a suitable alternative location exists a mere 400 yards away that can truly accommodate multiple carriers and which is out of the public access at the Orange County Fire Authority maintenance yard. Those plans have been approved by the OCFA Board of Directors and appear to be moving forward in due course. Of course, OCFA is not within the revenue generating city limits — the revenue would be had by the City of Irvine. However, the revenue stream should not be factored into the analysis when determining the best location for something as critical to the public welfare as placement of a wireless telecommunications facility. It just doesn't make sense to burden the park for a single carrier. It is not in the City's best interest or the public's best interest to accommodate this request to marr our preserved open space that is used and enjoyed by Tustin residents as well as residents from all over Southern California. Moreover, Joe Thompson of T -Mobile has admitted to me personally that it is not in the business of tower building and that it is not uncommon for it to build a tower, sell it to a third party, and then rent back from them ata profit. Don't do T -Mobile any favors just to give them a hand with their tower -flipping business at the expense of our beautiful and natural park. Although admittedly this new design is less unattractive as the previous fake tree design, its placement in our park is still offensive, concerning, undesirable, and undermines its sanctity. Don't compare it to the Tustin Sports Complex — it is by no means the same — Cedar Grove is more akin to a nature preserve. Again, I cannot urge enough the importance of considering this matter with upmost caution, with consideration for the nature and beauty of this park, the burden on the nearby residents, as well as future generations and preservation of the little bit of natural space and beauty we have left in this City. I further incorporate by reference all the other points I have made in previous correspondence under the former design. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks, Esq. 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 (714)505-9236 Jaws2@cox.net This e-mail message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended redplent(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended redplentis), you are hereby notified that any climmination, distribution or copying of this e-mail message is strictly prohibited. if you have received this message In error, please Immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message from your computer. Big Sur Properties v. Mott, 62 Cal.App.3d 99 [Civ. No. 38072. Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Four. September 17, 1976.] BIG SUR PROPERTIES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM PENN MOTT, as Director, etc., Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent; HELEN HOOPER BROWN, Cross-defendant and Respondent (Opinion by Caldecott, P. J., with Rattigan and Christian, JJ., concurring.) COUNSEL Horan, Lloyd, Dennis & Farr and Francis P. Lloyd for Plaintiff and Appellant. Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Carl Boronkay, Assistant Attorney General, and E. Robert Wright, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. Hudson, Martin, Ferrante & Street and Webster Street for Cross-defendant and Respondent. OPINION CALDECOTT, P. J. On January 24, 1973, appellant Big Sur Properties, a limited partnership, filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel the State Department of Parks and Recreation (hereinafter Department), through State Resources Agency Director William Penn Mott, to exercise its discretion under Public Resources Code section 5003.5• fn. i The appeal is from the judgment denying the petition. Appellant contended in the trial court that it had filed an application with the Department for a permit for access across Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park (hereinafter the Park) to appellant's private property, and that the Department refused to consider the application because of restrictions contained in the gift deed to the Park from Helen Hooper Brown to the state. fn. z [62 Cal.App.3d 1021 Helen Hooper Brown had donated the real property to the State of California in 1962. The deed was recorded the same year. Paragraph 1 of the deed provides: "Said real property shall be used in perpetuity as a public park and for all lawful uses incidental thereto, except those uses, whether or not incidental thereto, which are expressly prohibited by the terms, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth." Paragraph 9, the restriction giving rise to the instant action, provides: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 5003.5, fn. 1;31 or any germane amendment thereof or similar statute, no private right of way for vehicular travel or for the purpose of transporting, hauling or conveying timber, logs, tanbark or any other product produced by logging operations on privately -owned land shall ever be granted to any person, firm or corporation upon or across any portion of the property conveyed to Grantee by this deed. This provision shall not impair or affect Grantee's authority under said Section 5003.5 to provide means of ingress to and egress from said real property to provide ready access thereto by the public." Paragraph 11 of the deed pro -Odes, in part: "None of the restrictive covenants of this deed shall be construed as repugnant to the grant, but shall be considered as conditions of delivery, without which delivery of this deed would not have been made by the Grantor; and the acceptance of this deed by the Grantee shall be deemed to constitute full acceptance of all of the terms, covenants and conditions hereinabove set forth." By grant deed dated June 24, 1968, appellant Big Sur Properties acquired title to a parcel of real property, containing 120 acres, separated [62 CaLApp.3d 1031 from California State Highway No. 1 by the Park. At the time of acquisition, appellant knew of the separation and of the restrictions in the gift deed. On or about March 20, 1972, appellant filed an application for vehicular access to its property across the Park, pursuant to section 5003.5. Subsequently, appellant filed a formal request that the access he provided by means of an extension of about 60o feet to the existing jeep road across the Park. The Department denied the application because of the provisions of the gift deed; no hearing was ever scheduled. Appellant's principal contention, and the focus of the trial court's decision, is that the restriction in the gift deed is invalid and void. However, we need not consider the validity of the specific restrictive provision contained in paragraph 9 of the deed. [ta] We hold that the public trust upon which the state holds such land prohibits private access rights-of-way (authorized by Pub. Resources Code, § 5003.5) across property acquired by gift, when such property is dedicated exclusively to public park purposes and uses incidental thereto. On this ground, we affirm the judgment. The gift deed provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that the property is to "be used in perpetuity as a public park and for all lawful uses incidental thereto...." This is an explicit statement of the exclusive purpose of the dedication. Thus, the trial court in its findings concluded that the "property ... is owned in fee by the State of California as trustee of a public trust for use in perpetuity as a public park for the benefit of the public." (2] "It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 9:3 C'al.App 2J 545, 547 [209 P.2d 71; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, 141 C'al.App.A 376, 380 [296 P.2d 8381.) 131 "Where a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction upon its use -- as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park — the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant." (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles, 220 Cal. 366, 368 131 P.2d 1931; City and County of S.F. v. Linares, 16 Cal. 2d 441, 446 [1o6 P.2d 369].) [62 Cal.App.3d 1041 [4] Moreover, where property is acquired through private dedication, the deed is strictly construed. (Roberts, supra, 93 Cal.App.2d at P. 548; 57 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 348, 349•) "[L]and which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes." (Slavish v. Hamilton, 201 Cal. 299, 302 [257 P. 60]; City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 2:3i Cal.APp.•_)d 295, 300 141 Cal.Rptr. 796].) 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 'fres act. (City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 299-300.) Appellant contends (1), that section 5003.5 states a public policy that access shall be granted across state parks if the circumstances so require, and the granting of such rights-of-way would not divert the property from a park purpose; and (2), the specific statutory provisions of section 5003.5 cannot be waived by agreement between the state and a grantor. The first argument is transparent. As stated in Roberts, supra, in which the city sought to use property, granted exclusively for park purposes, for storage of equipment used in maintenance of other city property: "Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) The fact that section 5003.5 is a statement of public policy is not controlling: "[a] use for a public purpose may be utterly inconsistent with a use for park purposes." (Slavish, supra, 201 Cal. at P. 306.) In determining what is a park purpose we do not look to the type of structure erected, but rather, to the use of that structure in relation to the park. It seems fundamental that a right-of-way for private access across park land to private property beyond the borders of the park cannot possibly be incidental to its use as a public park. Again, as stated in Roberts, supra: "Courts have guarded zealously the restrictive covenants fn. [_;J in donations of property for public use.... Such an effort on the part of a municipality if successful may be but the opening wedge and, as stated in Kelly v. Town of Hayward ... [192 Cal. 242 (219 P. 749)1, 'some future board might claim that under their discretion a corporation yard [62 Cal.App.3d log] and rock -pile for the employment of prisoners, and other very useful adjuncts to the administration of the economic affairs of the town, might be located thereupon, until the entire space was fully so occupied.'" (93 Cal.App.2d at P. 548.) Nor does application of the public trust doctrine, restricting the property exclusively to the public park purposes for which it was donated, make acceptance of the gift deed "an agreement to waive" the provisions of section 5003.5• Rather, the section must be applied consistently with the public trust under which the state holds the property. If the Legislature intended to alter the doctrine's application, it could have done so explicitly. [5a] "[I]t is not to be presumed that the legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless such intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication." (County of Los Angeles v. Frisbie, 1 q Ca1.2d 634, 644 [122 P.2d 526]; Theodor v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.3d :,, 92 1104 Cal.Rptr. 226, 501 P.2d 234].) No such expression or necessity appears in section 50035• Section 5005 provides for acceptance of gifts for the park system, and section 5006 provides for acquisition by purchase or condemnation. [61 Application of section 5003.5 only to property acquired without express and exclusive restriction to use for park purposes is consistent with the long-established difference in construction and treatment between dedications by private donors and dedications by the public. (Slavish, supra, tot Cal. at P. 303•) [5b] "When a rule is so long engrained in the public policy of the state it must be presumed that the legislature took it for granted rather than sought to alter it in omitting any specific provision for its application." (Garvey v. Byram, +8 Cal 2d 279, 2811115 P.2d 501, 136 A.L.R. 11371•) Further, "where uncertainty exists consideration may he given to the consequences that will flow from a particular interpretation." (Jaynes v. Stockton, 193 Cal.App.2d 47, 56 114 Cal.Rptr. 49].) Clearly, the consequences of the application of section 5003.5, and other similar regulations, to defeat the public trust doctrine would result in a policy discouraging such gifts to the state for park purposes. Such an unwise intended result is not to be readily implied where another construction is possible. (City of EI Monte v. City of Industry, 188 CaLApp.2(1 774, 782 [10 Cal.Rptr. 802].) [1b] The provision of section 5003.5 granting a right-of-way to any person, firm or corporation is thus inapplicable to property donated to the state exclusively for use as a park. [62 Cal.App.3d io6] The case of Wills v. Los Angeles, 2o9 Cal. 448 [287 P. 962, 69 A.L.R. 10441, cited by appellant, does not require a contrary conclusion. In that action, plaintiff had conveyed certain property to the city for street purposes, the deed stating that the property could not be used for street railway purposes. Street railway tracks were later built on the property, and plaintiff sued to quiet title. The court stated: "In Finch v. Riverside etc. Co., 87 Cal. 597, 598 [25 Pac. 7651, it is said: The dedication of a street to public use authorizes any ordinary use for street purposes; and the use of a street in a city or town for the tracks of a streetcar company is of this class and is therefore authorized.'" (Id., at P. 451.) In 1 Elliott on Roads and Streets (4th ed.) page 186, section 163, the court stated: "A condition or limitation which would render the dedication ineffectual cannot be annexed; thus, a man cannot reserve possession to himself, nor reserve a right to do anything in the way (street) which will destroy its character as a public way." In the present case, a private right-of-way across a dedicated public park cannot be considered as a use of the same class as a public park. Nor can a reservation in a deed, prohibiting the granting of a right-of-way to a private person across a public park, be said to render the dedication ineffectual or destroy its character. In fact, the very opposite is true. Wills actually supports the position of the respondent Mott (State of California) in this case even though in Wills the public trust doctrine was not relevant and not discussed. County of San Diego v. Cal. Water etc. Co., ;;o Cal.>d S17 [186 P.2d 124,175 A.L.R. 7471, also cited by appellant, is likewise inapplicable to the instant situation. That case involved an agreement to abandon a road and locate it elsewhere; the court held the contractual arrangement void, as it was not one of the methods authorized by statute for abandonment of roads. Appellant argues from this case the proposition that contracts entered contrary to express statutory authority are null and void. However, as observed earlier, section 5005 expressly authorizes acceptance by the Department of gifts of real property, as undertaken here. Application of the public trust doctrine thereupon mandates the use of such property exclusively for the purposes of the dedication, and the Legislature cannot be presumed to have implicitly altered this result. [62 Cal.App.3d 107] The cited case is thus inapposite, as no statutory authority is abrogated by acceptance of the gift deed. The judgment is affirmed. Rattigan, J., and Christian, J., concurred. FN i. All statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise noted. FN s. A hearing was not held on the application. The parties have stipulated that under the circumstance a hearing would be a useless act. FN 1;;j. Public Resources Code section 5003.5 provides in part: "The department is authorized to provide means of ingress to and egress from all state parks in order to provide ready access thereto by the public and to provide means of ingress and egress to highways and roads across state parks from lands separated from such highways and roads by state parks, and for that purpose may enter into contracts or agreements with cities, counties, and other political subdivisions of the State and with other state agencies or with persons, firms or corporations for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of suitable roads, trails, and pathways. "When application is received by the department, other than under Section 5012, from any person, firm or corporation for right-of-way across a state park for ingress and egress to a highway or road from their lands separated from such highway or road by the state park, the department shall determine whether any reasonable access exists outside the boundaries of the park, or could be economically constructed. Where reasonable access does not exist or cannot be economically constructed outside the boundaries of the park, the department shall grant a permit for right-of-way across the park over such route and subject to such conditions and construction and maintenance specifications as the department may determine which will cause minimum alteration to the physical features of the park and minimum interference with the use of the park by the public." FN [41. We note that no party has challenged the finding that the restriction did not create a condition subsequent; therefore, there is no question of reversion of the property to the grantor. Dim a�oMllit�tx�w�.0 Lg00RgIr1 LMWJUM U. AM tLi■t tuopLDm an to: -P!! 0 9120 0700 t fay at TamU Q• ti.Agotti� tnntin, CA M= Ates: Director of tba Undersigned Values tbet this Oo,nity lavelepmm" dsomma is recorded at the regm et of and Ret to b"WeLt of the City of tlntim and therefore is easmpe from the payasat of the 066 1610 too a Ti$ frMoNSMA rom the " Oewss�cntt Ori Itip ad 'lressfec knot to Reid Temation Cods 1119=!. (Above Dpeea for Recorder's Use tMR IV= COMM. a Middom oerpsration (00romeme) busby Lia to the City of !intim. a hmeielpal corporation ('Ormatos'), for p bite esmemity pat pmepscec. the Rellwing real property le the City of twstit. Cwt of Orange, Calitoeaia: to: It of Treat des. ISUI. as tecsrdmI an Im. to "A _ W -, h/se 1 tbnu& 7O . iuoladve. of Miceellssseas Sap is the Office of the Comiray Recorder of said Canaty (des 'fes forty+') . =hie a a )Me@ to WAS parwaot to the peevidaw of Califeraia gm ammt Cods 1iKn. ■tUQtrrltio AM RDBZMXo sato MANMR. its summosen and aedphs, together with the rie►t Le Stant and trewefor all at a portion of the some, the followime: A. AV sed all oil, oil rights, aiaorala. mineral riotm, onseral Som riebtc sad other Iydeooatboam by wbatacever aces bases, es, goodmen l steam and all predus" Onvivod tram may of to fetegeivg. that may be withia or mader do Prsperty. tmgstbrr win to perpetual riebt of drillim "she, o"loriag and operative therefor and staring in std rommin do maims from the frepertp or amW other lead. inmlrdt% the right to Uhipaoeok or diroatiasally drill sed viae from leads oder thea the frsprty, all or P wale. tumels and abates into, threvo or scream dee wlsurlaoo of des Property d to bottom such rhipstoehd at dirsetieeally drilled wells, towels d shaft, ander and beasath or beyond the ustsrisr limits tercet. and to radrill, rattenel. equip, nalmtdR, repair. deepen mad opera" aq such wells or Elan; but without, however. to right to drill, min. store, aglw* or operate dmouib to sortaes or the upper 300 feet of the subsurface of the Property. !. Arty and all rater, water rich" or interests torein •ppur"amm or relating to the Property or eased or Used by Oraeeer is amnesties with or with respect to the Property (coo natter ben acquired by Ormter) , vhetor seek water rights shall be riparian, overlying. sop repriative. literal. percolating. prescriptive. adjudicated, statartery or Contractual, together with the riot and power to .atplore. drill, redrill aed roasee do ease free at in the Property. to store the sees beneath the eurfaee of do Property d to divert or 0.. . s utilise scab water, riots or interests on carp odor preporty evened or loaned by Gxmtn-; but witihoet. be- -r. any right to water upon or use the nmrfeee of the Property in the exercise of ash rights. C. Mea-malusive easennts in Drams on. ever, Wader or across to Property within 10 feet tram all propmrty lines bordering on and parallel to may public stroet for to oaamtruation, ine"llatiw, amplaessmet, aperatica and mmietonemme of alattris and/or water facilities, widest =MmwomMy iaterf ring with grantee's reassemble ono and eyoyment of the Property; and (ii) a mos-enelrsivs esmwst on. over, Usdsr sad son" do waotstly parties of the Property rot the oonmttuctiss. installatiaa. operation sad maiassmoe of state drala Geilitiss related to do Mary Campus Retardiag &" s. wLdw&t weroasanbly intarforime with Oraatco's roasanbla am and onjcysent out the Property. Tomas - Community Pari .J' = WAM AA BU MJ1TIGM INVAMMOM desnAnd Shall be MOJOct u: 1. Oewnewl awe a neial teal proparq eases and wpplawsotal ossoanssts. it mW. ler do ever out floss& lwrt ptori&C however. dint Growt r shall ph tae (a) 4 sash town mod mmesamessts applisatle to do •roWrq prim a do daft of nowdseias of Phi. dssd. and (b) etq asseesewses. *Paul twoso war oeMe payaseaes atiai% tros tesds. eewtraats w Luam areata/ by. dwow# or as a roodt of do etbrta w sotivities of Gloom; 2. All offossua, ooritlowo. restrlettess, reservation. r4hts. ries of way, assomwes d edaat waturs of reseed or appormat soler class n wetary ueve: d S. So sopalreweat that essopt as /reddnA herein. Orewae a000pts the !sporty •AO IY Is do oondtiew that the Property swiss as at the data of Oawtes's aeoeptaros elanted. Orestes rgreaesta sed Nssaets that, to do lest K O-Wtle'a hnsoloela as of the date of Grawtee's aseeptasse of the trsperty. chs Property to is omplImme vitt all Stats ad prdand ►ssardow wssts laws. orastsr *ansa that it shall cowply with all of atouse's Onnettieas of Apprewl for Tlraot UM as they rolaa to the !sporty. isslweisg psrfo=isg atq rends tion regw1ad to omme the property to amply with boss saditiesa. Swsept as provldsd above. Orawtoe waits eM rapNsestation ac earsaatles ooneesnt" td eoditlsa of do Property. 0 h. So roWdrewwt dace, prier ado isstallaties of chs initial lopcowwaaa for do satire pork (digs •Isitlal Path L4ewssnwtM) Mpow tis Property. Orastoo call provids Otastot with oepies d pLes of dw prpeset uitlal tach I+romman". Orewhe way. withis thim (30) am after to reaeipt of otda Plano. Sive Orsatse esassnes on t!s plans. to which cossets Orawae a W*w to give teemstmble esssldnratiss. Groat" shall net mmnmme essstewstias d the Initial Pads iapesvew ou "t to oho o piratias d the tbirq (30) dq review period. Ibis rowdo mot droll apply to the IsltSal task Iwpewswesb may MA tot to ow stissgrsst iwprsreoeMtnettos. rgain. rsplaaswasta. adelt:lens Of 4004199 - IS 4ITMtSi v MSw. Grawter Ms assoutsd this asst Dead as of the r"- Aq of M —. o". This great seed emu rt to effective foe mW pnrposo w4ow ase wool the Assapeases below to daly mmeetmi bf ftatoe. TM IRVIM a Ill &4 By: _. V Orestes, by its esssatien of Hie Groat Ooed. boaeby aoeepts dm dsdieaties of eke Property M� ad "Jo4t to the rias MA prwldeas Stated absee. CITY OF Twas Its: IPAVAM by: Its S M,.ara/a iM Or d LIFON" ) )N, Donna d oe ) 4. im. before tin • i a haply nulla is sa. po�W "row"12 - ad personally s (oe proved to nt so the a loopa •• w ) to bsdo do • ridds lmmlv�N resp•otiroly. a •Melt Wdw secps:atloe dorels eased ad tee low to so drat dw corporation amass%& It. YlTftas ow bud ad oftisial •sal. CIPPOWLSA OMMUM ssaw sonar• 0009MA • g sasR�el it AAPBA siecseyMUG I midl cold !tate Tbia is to certify that do Interest in rel IV p sty - - -3 a by the sidds Ouse Ossd It m Tha l:.Ine Cespop, to as Ciq se Tenets, is baeaMy eesapt•d by do W06MIpi4 otfiesr ter anent sn bslslL of d W City Of Thous w ai Orasta• command to recordation tbarwt by Ito dopy atteMerlaw •[Lias. but": my: ATUM: Clot!: )N. CON&V OF ORAM ) On this 11th dsY Of N AItt . 19e9, before r. the saderaipnl a sbtary Public is aha for •aid state. h persesel 1rltlt IMath>1 .aste aff"a d ad Y1 to " to In do at the City of Thetis. do City that aoosstd the Within laateacse. ad hssea to tee to be do pecoom tAie seeeatsd *A within isstramet ss hshalf of do city Acrops neat, and aahasdl•yed to ter that numb arty oneosted do within LostsasaR pe mmm to a r oolsittw of Its City Cassell vi UBS 4 Let sod otiietal seal. CWMIAL sRAL WIN WHRIM" Zzolllt�� amw ft" -car"*, •story Ai11e Is ad ter said state •a has MANMIM JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW "PINE TREE" CELL TOWER IN PARK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. cC 2006 James C. Kozlowski Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"), 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 56 (1996). At the same time, Congress recognized that there are legitimate State and local concerns involved in regulating the siting of telecommunications facilities. See voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix County, No. 02-2889 (7'h Cir. 2003). As illustrated by the case of AT&T Wireless Services of Fla., Inc. v. WC1 Communities., Inc., Nos. 41304-3285 and 41304-3286, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14108 (Fla.App. 4`h Dist. 2005), one such local concern, the siting of telecommunications towers in public parks, remains subject to deed restrictions which limit the use ofparticular tracts of public land to specified `park purposes." In this particular case, a telecommunications tower was erected in a public park in the City of Coral Springs, Fla. In 1975, a land developer had conveyed the land for Sherwood Forest Park to the City ofCoral Springs. WCI Communities, Inc. (WCI) acquired the rights of the Grantor under the terms of the deed conveying the land to the City. In pertinent part, the deed conveying the land to the City contained the following restriction: In consideration of this conveyance, by acceptance hereof, the Grantee [City] agrees and understands and assures to Grantor that the above described property would be used and maintained solely for passive park purposes unless the express written consent of Grantor, its successors or assignees, is first obtained. In October 1996, the City passed Ordinance 96-137 which allowed freestanding telecommunications towers to be placed in parks and recreation areas greater than five acres. The legislative intent of this Ordinance was to accomplish the following: (1) promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens by regulating the siting of telecommunications towers; (2) provide for the appropriate location and development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the city; and (3) minimize adverse visual effects of telecommunication towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening and innovative camouflaging techniques. Sherwood Forest Park was listed on the City's list of parks as potential sites for cellular towers. On July 9, 2001, pursuant to the Ordinance, the City entered into a lease agreement with AT&T Wireless Services of Florida., Inc. (ATT) to install a telecommunications tower in Sherwood Forest Park. The City leased 1600 square feet of park land to ATT for the construction of a "Stealth Tree" type tower, equipment building, black chain- link fencing and associated equipment. JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW In January 2002, the City processed and approved an application for the issuance of a building permit to ATT to allow construction of an eighty-five (85) foot telecommunications tower, a maintenance building and access ways, supporting structures, and hard -surface areas. The City required ATT to construct the "stealth tree tower" in the form of a pine tree to blend in with the park's aesthetics. ATT paid the City a one-time payment of $10,000 to be used at the park and pays annual rent in the amount of $24,000. In its complaint, WCI claimed the City's approval of the telecommunications tower was in violation of the deed restriction on the park's use. Specifically, WCI alleged that "the use contemplated by ATT and the structure submitted for a building permit was an active commercial use and not a passive use, and thus, the use and construction thereof are violative of the deed restriction." Moreover, according to WCI, neither the City nor ATT had requested or received WCI's "express written consent for the construction of the tower" as required by the terms of the deed. In the opinion of the trial court, "there was no ambiguity in the deed restrictiod' which required that "the park was to be used for "passive park purposes only." Further, the trial court found that ATT and the City had both investigated the status of the title of the park prior to entering the lease agreement for the construction of the telecommunications tower, and that they were aware of the applicable deed restriction" In addition, the trial court noted that neither the City nor ATT had made a written request for WCI to waive the restriction in the deed or otherwise consent to the placement of a communication tower in the park. Under the terms of the agreement between the City and ATT, the trial court found that "the public was physically excluded from the leased property and that the City was receiving a financial benefit from its commercial venture." As a result, the trial court held 'the use of the park space was a direct violation of the deed restriction, and therefore, impermissible." Accordingly, the trial court granted an injunction in favor of WCI. In so doing, however, the trial court found it would be "impractical, and unwise, to order the immediate destruction of the cellular communication tower" because "[t]hat would, no doubt, affect the public negatively." The trial court, therefore, ordered that "ATT search for, and attempt to acquire or lease an alternate location for a communications tower which would provide suitable coverage to residents and the police, within a 24 -month period." ATT and the City appealed. ON APPEAL As described by the appeals court, "[d]eed restrictions on lands are deemed contractual in nature and subject to the same rules of interpretation as are contracts." Accordingly, the appeals court would apply the following general contract principles to determine whether "the City violated the deed restriction by using the park property for a telecommunications tower." When a contract is clear and unambiguous, the actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties, and the plain meaning of the language controls... 2 Courts have unfailingly guarded against encroachments on public park land where such park land is under the protection of a deed restriction or restrictive covenant... Although restrictive covenants should be narrowly construed, they should not be construed in a manner that would defeat the plain and obvious purpose and intent of the restriction. Restrictive covenants will be enforced where their intent is clear and their restrictions are reasonable. Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the appeals court found the trial court had "properly concluded that there was no ambiguity in the deed restriction requiring that the property be `used and maintained solely for passive park purposes' and that the `property herein conveyed is dedicated to the public for use as passive parks'." In reaching this determination, the appeals court rejected ATT and the City's contention that "the telecommunications tower's use was passive." As characterized by the appeals court, it was not a question as to whether the tower itself and its use in the park was passive. Rather, the specific issue to be resolved by the court was `whether the use was consistent with the deed restriction that limits use `solely' to `passive park purposes'." In this particular instance, the appeals court found `tluite simply, the use of the park for the telecommunications tower is not related to or in furtherance of `solely for passive park purposes'." A telecommunications tower does not support a park use. While appellants [ATT and the City] argue that the tower supports a park use, like utilities or restrooms, because someone at the park could make a cell call from the park, the tower has no park use... The City devoted a portion of deed -restricted park lands to a private commercial enterprise and as a result restricted access of park lands from the public's use. While courts have consistently ruled that commercial benefit does not defeat a park purpose, the telecommunications tower has no park purpose. ATT's use of the park property is neither passive, nor is it used to support the park. The lands are being used to fill in ATT's telecommunications grid for monetary gain. In determining whether the park was being `used for passive park purposes only," the appeals court noted further that "[t]ractional use was not specified" in the deed restriction. Moreover, the appeals court acknowledged that `a fraction of the park is not being used for passive purposes." Accordingly, ATT and the City had contended on appeal that the alleged violation of the deed restriction was "de minimis," i.e., the impact of the "tree tower" on the passive recreational use of the park was minimal and that WCI was unaffected by the use. While acknowledging that `the impact of the tower to the neighborhood is minimal," the appeals court noted that "[a] minor violation of the deed restriction is still a violation of the deed restriction." Moreover, in this particular instance, the appeals court had determined that "the telecommunications tower is not reasonably incidental to `passive park purposes'." As characterized by ATT and the City, the trial court had "found that the public interest would not be served by granting the relief sought," i.e., demolition and removal of the JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW telecommunications tower from the park. The appeals court acknowledged that the trial court had held that "the immediate destruction of the cellular telecommunications tower "would, no doubt, affect the public negatively." However, in the opinion of the appeals court, such recognition of a negative impact on the public did not alter the trial court's conclusion that the construction of the telecommunications tower in the park was `Inconsistent with the deed restriction. " The order granting the injunction clearly stated that the public was physically excluded from the leased property. This exclusion cut off access to park property to the very members of the public for whose benefit the park was given.. While appellants characterize the telecommunications tower as a de minimis violation, it was nevertheless a violation of which they were aware and which they ignored. As a result, the appeals court held "[t]he public interest is best served by the maintenance of the parks, as dedicated and restricted, particularly where there is a common plan served by the parks." In this particular instance, the appeals court found "the public interest was served by the maintenance of WCI's common plan for development." On appeal, ATT and the City had argued further that `the public interest would be harmed if the injunction were entered where the telecommunications tower served the public interest by providing safety to its citizens through the reception of 911 calls made from the area." The appeals court rejected this argument. According to the appeals court, ATT and the City"cannot negate the property and legal rights of others based on a decision regarding public safety. " Here, the City circumscribed the location of telecommunications towers to City park lands and presented ATT with Sherwood Forest Park as the only candidate site. Clearly, public safety was not the City's most paramount concern as evidenced by its removal of phone service previously available to park users due to the low revenue it generated... [I]n an effort to balance the competing interests and ensure fairness to all involved, the court properly ordered the removal to take place over time, allowing ATT and the City to relocate the necessary cellular telecommunications tower. The two-year transition period was intended to allow for the removal of the tower in a manner that minimizes potential harm to the parties and the public. As a result, the appeals court concluded that `the trial court did not err in granting permanent injunctive relief' to WCI. The appeals court, therefore, affirmed "the final judgment [of the trial court] ordering the demolition and removal of a telecommunications tower from Sherwood Forest Park and permanently enjoining appellants from maintaining a tower on that property. " 4 save cedar grove park JENNIFER ANN WIERKS, ESO. INDIVIDUALLY AND TOGETHER WITH THE COMMITTEE TO SAVE CEDAR GROVE PARK 714-505-9236 jaws2@cox.net 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 April 21, 2011 Planning Commission City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Position Paper of Save Cedar Grove Park Proposed 65' "Fake Tree" Cellular Tower Application by T -Mobile Communications; Design Review 09-033 Dear Planning Commission, Staff and City Council: This letter is in response to the revised application of T -Mobile which now requests design approval of two (2) 40' and one (1) 43' flagpole wireless telecommunication facility towers in the front of the park adjacent to the parking lot. I, as well as numerous other residents, still vehemently object to the plan, albeit revised with the new configuration and location. Please include this letter and all of its attachments as part of the packet provided to the Planning Commission on this issue. 1. Deed Restriction that the land be used "for public community nark purposes" only — this precludes placement of a wireless telecommunications facility First and foremost, the Planning Staff does not understand the deed restriction that is imposed on the park. The most recent staff report did attempt to address the issue, but got it completely wrong. I cannot stress enough the importance of this issue as a complete bar to this entire pursuit. I quote the staff report, which erroneously identifies the issue, here: "Deed Restriction A concern was raised by a resident in the area Ms Jennifer Wierks that the existing Grant Deed for Cedar Grove Park restricts use of the park for a wireless facility The Grant Deed for Cedar Grove Park which was deeded to the City of Tustin from the Irvine Company on August 8 1989 identifies restrictions to the property Attachment F One of which was to provide plans for review to the Irvine Company of the Initial Park Improvements This was done at the time of the development of Cedar Grove Park The restriction is specific in stating This requirement shall apply to the Initial Park Improvements only and not to any subsequent improvements reconstruction repairs replacements additions or changes The Irvine Company concurs and indicated that no release or approval is necessary from them The City Attorney has provided an opinion on the matter related to a public inquiry which is contained within Attachment G" The initial park improvement section is NOT the deed restriction I am referring to: the deed restriction is contained in the vett' opening paragraphs of the Grant Deed, which I again attach hereto for your reference. It states in pertinent part: "The Irvine Company ... herehy grants to the City cif "Dustin.... for public community park purposes, the lulls»ging real prupertN ...." The operative term is "for public community park purposes". As I have informed you previously, the courts have strictly construed this type of restriction and have held that a municipality may not stray from this use even to put a maintenance building in the park that contains city equipment not used in the park. I urge you to take this issue very seriously because the City has no authority to authorize this land use that does not serve its intended use as a public park. A commercial wireless telecommunications facility lease of parkland for revenue does not support a park purpose and extends beyond the land use rights granted to the City. Even what might be perceived to be a minor violation of the deed restriction is still a violation of the deed restriction. I have previously provided you case authority as well as a relevant law review article (attached) on the subject which I ask be made part of the packet available to the Planning Commission. One of the more important cases on the issue is Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 103 which I attach hereto for your convenience. In sum, California courts have been loathe to case aside use restrictions on property contained in deeds. "'It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose. (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1949) 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith v. Department of Public Works (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 376, 380.)"' (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 103; see also Save the Welwood Murray Memorial Library Com. v. City Council (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1012.) Moreover, "1w1here a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction on its use — as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated to a city with a restriction upon its use — as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park — the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant.' (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles (1934) 220 Cal. 366, 368; City and County of S.F. v. Linares (1940) 16 Cal.2d 441, 446.)" Big Sur Properties, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at 103; Baldwin v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 70 Cal.App.41h 819, 836, 837; see also Slavich v. P. ,r 3 Hamilton (1927) 201 Cal. 299, 302 ["land which has been deciated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes"]. Further, where property is acquired by a public entity through private dedication such as here from the Irvine Company, the deed is stricly construed. (Big Sur Properties, supra 62 Cal.App.3d at p. 104; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, supra, 141 Cal.App.2d at p. 380.) Other states have held similarly, and in at least Florida and Arizona there are specific cases on point wherein cell towers in public parks were held to violate a "public park use" deed restriction. 2. Lack of Co -location opportunity defeats cost/benefit analysis and purpose of burdening park As the Staff report confirms, this type of design and configuration eliminates any possibility of co -location of wireless facilities at this location. While this proposal was previously promoted as a unique and desirable opportunity to co -locate multiple carriers in one facility in furtherance of the City's cell tower plan and policy and as recommended by ATS Communications, this prospective advantage has now been completely eliminated. Now the application is asking to burden the public park for a single carrier's profit purpose. As the Planning Commission is well aware, a suitable alternative location exists a mere 400 yards away that can truly accommodate multiple carriers and which is out of the public access at the Orange County Fire Authority maintenance yard. Those plans have been approved by the OCFA Board of Directors and appear to be moving forward in due course. Of course, OCFA is not within the revenue generating city limits — the revenue would be had by the City of Irvine. However, the revenue stream should not be factored into the analysis when determining the best location for something as critical to the public welfare as placement of a wireless telecommunications facility. It just doesn't make sense to burden the park for a single carrier. It is not in the City's best interest or the public's best interest to accommodate this request to marr our preserved open space that is used and enjoyed by Tustin residents as well as residents from all over Southern California. Moreover, Joe Thompson of T -Mobile has admitted to me personally that it is not in the business of tower building and that it is not uncommon for it to build a tower, sell it to a third party, and then rent back from them at a profit. Don't do T -Mobile any favors just to give them a hand with their tower -flipping business at the expense of our beautiful and natural park. Although admittedly this new design is less unattractive as the previous fake tree design, its placement in our park is still offensive, concerning, undesirable, and undermines its sanctity. Don't compare it to the Tustin Sports Complex — it is by no means the same — Cedar Grove is more akin to a nature preserve. Again, I cannot urge enough the importance of considering this matter with upmost caution, with consideration for the nature and beauty of this park, the burden on the nearby residents, as well as future generations and preservation of the little bit of natural space and beauty we have left in P, 14 this City. I further incorporate by reference all the other points I have made in previous correspondence under the former design. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 (714)505-9236 Jaws2@cox.net Swiontek, Ryan From: graham.lambert (graham.lambert@cox.net] Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 9:29 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) My bad, I didn't see the second picture in my browser. Thanks for the quick response. Side question, is this all irrelevant now — I understand that AT&T has got permission for transmitters at the fire authority and as they are taking over t -mobile there should be no need for a facility in the park. Don't you agree? Many thanks Graham From: Swiontek, Ryan Lmailto:RSwiontek(abtustinca.org] Sent: Monday, April 18, 20118:55 AM To: graham.lambert Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Graham, The photo -simulations on the City website (Projects in Progress) do include the proposed facility. The top photo on each page represents the existing conditions and the bottom photo on each page represents the proposed condition (photo simulation). The photos appear very similar as the proposed flagpoles will replace existing flagpoles in the same location. Thank you, Ryan From: graham.lambert (mailto:graham.lambert(@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:12 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Your email says photo -simulations but I only see photos of the existing site. Can you please post the photo simulations you are referring to? My family will now live within 400 feet of the facility and are very concerned. I think all the same reasons for not putting this in the park at the previous location still hold true. The bottom line is this should not be placed in what is today a picturesque park within close proximity to schools and residences. Thankyou Graham Lambert From: Swiontek, Ryan(mailto:RSwiontek@)tustinca.orgj Sent: Thursday, April 14, 20112:56 PM Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Thank you for your interest in the proposed wireless telecommunications facility at Cedar Grove Park (Design Review 09- 033). On January 25, 2011, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public meeting for Design Review 09-033, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The applicant has redesigned the facility which now consists of three flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. The three proposed flagpoles would replace two existing flagpoles in the same location. Accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault adjacent to the flagpoles with vents screened by landscaping. Plans and photo -simulations of the project may be accessed on the City's website under the projects in progress section at: http://www.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/ProiectsInProcess/viewProeects aspx?x=5#5 The proposed project has been scheduled for the April 26, 2011 meeting before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 300 Centennial Way. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, jwillkom@tustinca.orR Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Tel. (714) 573 3123 Fax (714)573 3113 2 Swiontek, Ryan From: graham.lambert [graham.lambert@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:12 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Your email says photo -simulations but I only see photos of the existing site. Can you please post the photo simulations you are referring to? My family will now live within 400 feet of the facility and are very concerned. I think all the same reasons for not putting this in the park at the previous location still hold true. The bottom line is this should not be placed in what is today a picturesque park within close proximity to schools and residences. Thankyou Graham Lambert From: Swiontek, Ryan fmaiIto: RSwiontekCaatustinca.orgl Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 2:56 PM Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Thank you for your interest in the proposed wireless telecommunications facility at Cedar Grove Park (Design Review 09- 033). On January 25, 2011, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public meeting for Design Review 09-033, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The applicant has redesigned the facility which now consists of three flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. The three proposed flagpoles would replace two existing flagpoles in the same location. Accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault adjacent to the flagpoles with vents screened by landscaping. Plans and photo -simulations of the project may be accessed on the City's website under the projects in progress section at: http://www tustinca orp/departments/commdev/ProlectsInProcess/viewProiects.aspx?x=5#5 The proposed project has been scheduled for the April 26, 2011 meeting before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 300 Centennial Way. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkom tustinca.ore Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Swiontek, Ryan From: Xiaoming Yu [xiaoming.yu@mscsoftware.com] Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 3:05 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Hi ALL Please don't put our kids in any risk, please STOP Cedar Grove Wireless Project!!! Thanks, Xiaoming From: Swiontek, Ryan fmailto:RSwiontek(atustinca.orgj Sent: Thursday, April 14, 20112:56 PM Cc: Willkom, Justina Subject: Cedar Grove Wireless Project (DR 09-033) Thank you for your interest in the proposed wireless telecommunications facility at Cedar Grove Park (Design Review 09- 033). On January 25, 2011, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public meeting for Design Review 09-033, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. At that meeting the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. The applicant has redesigned the facility which now consists of three flagpoles with a maximum height of forty-three (43) feet located within the landscaped circle in the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park. The three proposed flagpoles would replace two existing flagpoles in the same location. Accessory equipment would be located within an underground vault adjacent to the flagpoles with vents screened by landscaping. Plans and photo -simulations of the project may be accessed on the City's website under the projects in progress section at: http://www.tustinca.org/departments/commdev/ProiectsInProcess/viewProiects.aspx?x=5#5 The proposed project has been scheduled for the April 26, 2011 meeting before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 300 Centennial Way. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkom@tustinca.ore Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks gaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:15 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Attachments: 06JUN06 Cell Tower in Park.pdf Elizabeth - Here is a law review article that you might find helpful in this discussion... From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20116:05 PM To: 'Binsack, Elizabeth'; 'Swiontek, Ryan'; 'Biggs, David' Cc: 'Willkom, Justina'; 'Buchanan, John'; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Attached is a copy of the grant deed, fyi From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20116:04 PM To: 'Binsack, Elizabeth'; 'Swiontek, Ryan'; 'Biggs, David' Cc: 'Willkom, Justina'; 'Buchanan, John'; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Koza k@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Elizabeth — with all due respect, that is not true. The Grant Deed plainly states that the Irvine Company granted the land to the City of Tustin "for public community park purposes". The proposed use of any of the park land as a cell site with a license or lease to a commercial entity and the installation of a cellular telecommunications facility plainly violates the deed restriction. It serves no park purpose. "It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, 141 Cal.App.2d 376. "Where a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction upon its use -- as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park — the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant." (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles, 220 Cal. 366, 368; City and County of S.F. v. Linares, 16 Cal.2d 441, 446 106 P.2d 369].) (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 104.) Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1942) 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) In determining what is a park purpose we do not look to the type of structure erected, but rather, to the use of that structure in relation to the park. (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99.) "Moreover, where property is acquired through private dedication, the deed is strictly construed. (Roberts, supra, 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548; 57 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 348, 349.) "[L]and which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and It is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes." (Slavich v. Hamilton, 201 Cal. 299, 302; City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.2d 295, 300.) Such land is held upon what is loosely referred to as a "public trust," and any attempt to divert the use of the property from its dedicated purposes or uses incidental thereto is an ultra vires act." (City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 299-300.) As stated in Roberts, supra, in which the city sought to use property, granted exclusively for park purposes, for storage of equipment used in maintenance of other city property: "Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) See also White v. Metropolitan Dade County as an example, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla App 1990) Based upon the above, I submit that the City lacks any authority to use the property in this manner. Frankly, I find it incredible that City Planning is unaware of this and that I am actually spelling this out to you — how is it possible that the City has proceeded this far on these cell applications at Tustin Ranch parks without knowing what its land rights are? Jennifer Wierks From: Binsack, Elizabeth [mailto:EBinsack@tustinca.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20114:39 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Jennifer: Thank you for your e-mail. I wanted to follow up on your question regarding the Irvine Company approval for uses in Cedar Grove Park. The Deed Restriction only required the City to provide copies of the initial park improvement plans. There is not a consent/release agreement required from the Irvine Company for the proposed request from T -Mobile. If you would like to discuss this my number is 714-573-3031. Elizabeth From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swlontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties — specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best — Jennifer Wierks JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW "PINE TREE" CELL TOWER IN PARK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. C 2006 James C. Kozlowski Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"), 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., "to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 56 (1996). At the same time, Congress recognized that there are legitimate State and local concerns involved in regulating the siting of telecommunications facilities. See Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v. St. Croix County, No. 02-2889 (7'h Cir. 2003). As illustrated by the case ofAT&T Wireless Services of Fla., Inc. v. WCI Communities., Inc., Nos. 41304-3285 and 41304-3286, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14108 (F1a.App. 41h Dist. 2005), one such local concern the siting of telecommunications towers in public parks, remains subject to deed restrictions which limit the use of particular tracts of public land to specified `park purposes." In this particular case, a telecommunications tower was erected in a public park in the City of Coral Springs, Fla. In 1975, a land developer had conveyed the land for Sherwood Forest Park to the City ofCoral Springs. WCI Communities, Inc. (WCI) acquired the rights of the Grantor under the terms of the deed conveying the land to the City. In pertinent part, the deed conveying the land to the City contained the following restriction: In consideration of this conveyance, by acceptance hereof, the Grantee [City] agrees and understands and assures to Grantor that the above described property would be used and maintained solely for passive park purposes unless the express written consent of Grantor, its successors or assignees, is first obtained. In October 1996, the City passed Ordinance 96-137 which allowed freestanding telecommunications towers to be placed in parks and recreation areas greater than five acres. The legislative intent of this Ordinance was to accomplish the following: (1) promote the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens by regulating the siting of telecommunications towers; (2) provide for the appropriate location and development of telecommunications towers and antennas within the city; and (3) minimize adverse visual effects of telecommunication towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening and innovative camouflaging techniques. Sherwood Forest Park was listed on the City's list of parks as potential sites for cellular towers. On July 9, 2001, pursuant to the Ordinance, the Cityentered into a lease agreement with AT&T Wireless Services of Florida., Inc. (ATT) to install a telecommunications tower in Sherwood Forest Park. The City leased 1600 square feet of park land to ATT for the construction of a "Stealth Tree" type tower, equipment building, black chairs_ link fencing and associated equipment. JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW In January 2002, the City processed and approved an application for the issuance of a building permit to ATT to allow construction of an eighty-five (85) foot telecommunications tower, a maintenance building and access ways, supporting structures, and hard -surface areas. The City required ATT to construct the "stealth tree tower" in the form of a pine tree to blend in with the park's aesthetics. ATT paid the City a one-time payment of $10,000 to be used at the park and pays annual rent in the amount of $24,000. In its complaint, WCI claimed the City's approval of the telecommunications tower was in violation of the deed restriction on the park's use. Specifically, WCI alleged that "the use contemplated by ATT and the structure submitted for a building permit was an active commercial use and not a passive use, and thus, the use and construction thereof are violative of the deed restriction. " Moreover, according to WCI, neither the City nor ATT had requested or received WCI's "express written consent for the construction of the tower" as required by the terms of the deed. In the opinion of the trial court, "there was no ambiguity in the deed restriction' which required that "the park was to be used for "passive park purposes only." Further, the trial court found that ATT and the City had both investigated the status of the title of the park prior to entering the lease agreement for the construction of the telecommunications tower, and that they were aware of the applicable deed restriction" In addition, the trial court noted that neither the City nor ATT had made a written request for WCI to waive the restriction in the deed or otherwise consent to the placement of a communication tower in the park. Under the terms of the agreement between the City and ATT, the trial court found that "the public was physically excluded from the leased property and that the City was receiving a financial benefit from its commercial venture." As a result, the trial court held `the use of the park space was a direct violation of the deed restriction, and therefore, impermissible." Accordingly, the trial court granted an injunction in favor of WCI. In so doing, however, the trial court found it would be "impractical, and unwise, to order the immediate destruction of the cellular communication tower" because "[t] hat would, no doubt, affect the public negatively." The trial court, therefore, ordered that "ATT search for, and attempt to acquire or lease an alternate location for a communications tower which would provide suitable coverage to residents and the police, within a 24 -month period." ATT and the City appealed. ON APPEAL As described by the appeals court, "[d]eed restrictions on lands are deemed contractual in nature and subject to the same rules of interpretation as are contracts." Accordingly, the appeals court would apply the following general contract principles to determine whether "the City violated the deed restriction by using the park property for a telecommunications tower." When a contract is clear and unambiguous, the actual language used in the contract is the best evidence of the intent of the parties, and the plain meaning of the language controls... 2 JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW Courts have unfailingly guarded against encroachments on public park land where such park land is under the protection of a deed restriction or restrictive covenant... Although restrictive covenants should be narrowly construed, they should not be construed in a manner that would defeat the plain and obvious purpose and intent of the restriction. Restrictive covenants will be enforced where their intent is clear and their restrictions are reasonable. Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the appeals court found the trial court had "properly concluded that there was no ambiguity in the deed restriction requiring that the property be `used and maintained solely for passive park purposes' and that the `property herein conveyed is dedicated to the public for use as passive parks'." In reaching this determination, the appeals court rejected ATT and the City's contention that "the telecommunications tower's use was passive." As characterized by the appeals court, it was not a question as to whether the tower itself and its use in the park was passive. Rather, the specific issue to be resolved by the court was `whether the use was consistent with the deed restriction that limits use `solely' to `passive park purposes'." In this particular instance, the appeals court found `tluite simply, the use of the park for the telecommunications tower is not related to or in furtherance of 'solely for passive park purposes'." A telecommunications tower does not support a park use. While appellants [ATT and the City] argue that the tower supports a park use, like utilities or restrooms, because someone at the park could make a cell call from the park, the tower has no park use... The City devoted a portion of deed -restricted park lands to a private commercial enterprise and as a result restricted access of park lands from the public's use. While courts have consistently ruled that commercial benefit does not defeat a park purpose, the telecommunications tower has no park purpose. ATT's use of the park property is neither passive, nor is it used to support the park. The lands are being used to fill in ATT's telecommunications grid for monetary gain. In determining whether the park was being `used for passive park purposes only," the appeals court noted further that "[f]ractional use was not specified" in the deed restriction. Moreover, the appeals court acknowledged that `a fraction of the park is not being used for passive purposes." Accordingly, ATT and the City had contended on appeal that the alleged violation of the deed restriction was "de minimis," i.e., the impact of the "tree tower" on the passive recreational use of the park was minimal and that WCI was unaffected by the use. While acknowledging that "the impact of the tower to the neighborhood is minimal," the appeals court noted that "[a] minor violation of the deed restriction is still a violation of the deed restriction." Moreover, in this particular instance, the appeals court had determined that "the telecommunications tower is not reasonably incidental to `passive park purposes'." As characterized by ATT and the City, the trial court had "found that the public interest would not be served by granting the relief sought," i.e., demolition and removal of the JUNE 2006 LAW REVIEW telecommunications tower from the park. The appeals court acknowledged that the trial court had held that "the immediate destruction of the cellular telecommunications tower "would, no doubt, affect the public negatively." However, in the opinion of the appeals court, such recognition of a negative impact on the public did not alter the trial court's conclusion that the construction of the telecommunications tower in the park was `inconsistent with the deed restriction. " The order granting the injunction clearly stated that the public was physically excluded from the leased property. This exclusion cut off access to park property to the very members of the public for whose benefit the park was given.. While appellants characterize the telecommunications tower as a de minimis violation, it was nevertheless a violation of which they were aware and which they ignored. As a result, the appeals court held "[t]he public interest is best served by the maintenance of the parks, as dedicated and restricted, particularly where there is a common plan served by the parks." In this particular instance, the appeals court found "the public interest was served by the maintenance of WCI's common plan for development." On appeal, ATT and the City had argued further that `the public interest would be harmed if the injunction were entered where the telecommunications tower served the public interest by providing safety to its citizens through the reception of 911 calls made from the area." The appeals court rejected this argument. According to the appeals court, ATT and the City `cannot negate the property and legal rights of others based on a decision regarding public safety." Here, the City circumscribed the location of telecommunications towers to City park lands and presented ATT with Sherwood Forest Park as the only candidate site. Clearly, public safety was not the City's most paramount concern as evidenced by its removal of phone service previously available to park users due to the low revenue it generated... [I]n an effort to balance the competing interests and ensure fairness to all involved, the court properly ordered the removal to take place over time, allowing ATT and the City to relocate the necessary cellular telecommunications tower. The two-year transition period was intended to allow for the removal of the tower in a manner that minimizes potential harm to the parties and the public. As a result, the appeals court concluded that 'the trial court did not err in granting permanent injunctive relief' to WCI. The appeals court, therefore, affirmed "the final judgment [of the trial court] ordering the demolition and removal of a telecommunications tower from Sherwood Forest Park and permanently enjoining appellants from maintaining a tower on that property." Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks baws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 6:05 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Attachments: OR_1989 00565752 (3).pdf Attached is a copy of the grant deed, fyi From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20116:04 PM To: 'Binsack, Elizabeth'; 'Swiontek, Ryan'; 'Biggs, David' Cc: 'Willkom, Jusbna'; 'Buchanan, John'; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Koza k@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Elizabeth — with all due respect, that is not true. The Grant Deed plainly states that the Irvine Company granted the land to the City of Tustin "for public community park purposes". The proposed use of any of the park land as a cell site with a license or lease to a commercial entity and the installation of a cellular telecommunications facility plainly violates the deed restriction. It serves no park purpose. "It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, 141 Cal.App.2d 376. "Where a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction upon its use -- as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park -- the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant." (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles, 220 Cal. 366, 368; City and County of S.F. v. Linares, 16 Cal.2d 441, 446 106 P.2d 369].) (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 104.) Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1942) 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) In determining what is a park purpose we do not look to the type of structure erected, but rather, to the use of that structure in relation to the park. (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99.) "Moreover, where property is acquired through private dedication, the deed is strictly construed. (Roberts, supra, 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548; 57 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 348, 349.) "[L]and which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes." (Slovich v. Hamilton, 201 Cal. 299, 302; City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.2d 295, 300.) Such land is held upon what is loosely referred to as a "public trust," and any attempt to divert the use of the property from its dedicated purposes or uses incidental thereto is an ultra vires act." (City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 299-300.) As stated in Roberts, supra, in which the city sought to use property, granted exclusively for park purposes, for storage of equipment used in maintenance of other city property: "Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) See also White v. Metropolitan Dade County as an example, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla App 1990) Based upon the above, I submit that the City lacks any authority to use the property in this manner. Frankly, I find it incredible that City Planning is unaware of this and that I am actually spelling this out to you — how is it possible that the City has proceeded this far on these cell applications at Tustin Ranch parks without knowing what its land rights are? Jennifer Wierks From: Binsack, Elizabeth [mailto:EBinsack@tustinca.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20114:39 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Jennifer: Thank you for your e-mail. I wanted to follow up on your question regarding the Irvine Company approval for uses in Cedar Grove Park. The Deed Restriction only required the City to provide copies of the initial park improvement plans. There is not a consent/release agreement required from the Irvine Company for the proposed request from T -Mobile. if you would like to discuss this my number is 714-573-3031. Elizabeth From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties — specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best — Jennifer Wierks 2 fNTJIIId1�'�itl�� O�iM�t�Ca r�r RS0OR01a upuYlm at. At hMiai R>DooRatoa MIL to: 42 AM 020119 Ctq of Thrive 700 conte muni W" 4 a-' hs ret Tustin, a "M Ata: Director of the *WWraipted doolaca that dde Onnumit7 aevelspmome doomm et Is neNrfM at the rovwst of mad for tM herein of the City of Thetis sad tiotafom is - 1t from the payaest of the r000rdtug too to Or"nul" amdo 16163 end h � ya7wnt of do Naawtory Transfer tom pursomat is Rewtw and Tamatifm Loft h11t0=l. .� Ob we apaee tar R000r/or's the 211E MM COI m". a Mlahlow aatperattaw ('Orontes) here" arowto to the City of llatiu. a wmdolOal eorporatton (vtoutee). for ptdlto oemnalty park pttepeses. tiro tallow1% coal pvvWty L the City of Thoth. Cwmtcy of Oramp. California: tar 22 of Troat se. 1 7. an taeerdeI as '"0. is noel 40 . PyN 1 throuO 10 . ittelmaive, of Niaollatmeta Nape to the Mies of the Crotty Roaorbr of matt OMmtty (do •rcaportr). Ihia ewweymes Is Node pu -not to the prsedateta of Callfwaia Onornmout Coda 1iAL77. �l1>4 Am RIZMOR 0 unto MAN=. its noweemn sed aodpa. t ortbw rill do right to groat end transfer all ac a portion of do ammo. the following; A. bq W all oil, oil rlghp. minerals. mineral cightm. tetwcal Sas rights and mums hydcw wt&oovw mar lawn. ne lan. podwool ■toamt all perdwts derived teem � y wthe forepimg, thrt my be within er seder the Prspert7, tWtbw weft da perpetual ris>tt of drilling. ddaS, emplorig and operating ehtrefec and a0eriss is ad mewing do nme from deo Property or any other lad, imslrding do rigbt to Alpetock or dtcwtismally drill sed mics from lands odor them the Prep aq. oil or pe rolls. traaels sed dbafts into, through ar serer the wAsurtaoe of the Praprq one to bottom sae# %Mipeteahod or dicrstiomslly drilled wells, tamolo and &#Ates rafts sed beneath or beyond the oatgttor limits thereof. And to ndrlll. ratamel. pulp. melntaia. repair. despot- and operate And Aum# wells at mines; Out without. bsrsvac, dao riot to drill. micro. alarm, aoploaa or operate throng# the oastam or the appm 300 toot of dw std oorfaso of the Property. a. Amy and all water. rater ridta or Intonate tberaim oppareoamat or rolatimg to the Praporty or owned w weed by Grouter in Oaauoetiem with or with roopoat to the Property (me Wetter bow aeluiraA by Oranter). vbodter rah rater rights shall be ripwiAs, overlying. approprtative, littoral. perwelatiug. preoulpelve, djudiestod, statwtoey or eamsaetual, together with do riot oft power to »*Ivro. wit. cadrltl and remove the same from or is Cite Property, to stere the some beneath the surfaeo of rho haparey end to diwrt or atst&cwio I utilir stork eater. rights or into , to w sq other preperey wetted or leased by O[aatar; but without, hourver. mW rift to mew upon or use the swrf000 of the Property in the aseraiw of such rights. C. Mao-atcluoive easements is gross on. owes, under or moron the Property within 10 toot from all property liters berderieg one and parallol to mW Public stseot for rho ewatrustisa. imstollatiem, ompiatmnnt, operatisa and seiatsuemes of aloctris aWor wear fasilitte. ritheat taromoomily itrtorferimg with 0ramtos's Towevablo use ad ayoymoat of the Property; mod (it) a nen-e olrivo wsmemt one. over. under and sates the wntocly portion of the rroperty ter the oamsttmotion. Installation. opsratisa MA ami tsmatem of &term drain tasilitt" related to do Mars Csgw Retarding arts, widwa omreAsaebly interfering with Or ataa's reasonable use and emjsymmt of the heart,. throne - Comnarity Park us.oNlaw J TM GRAM AA gttM TMW WXZWJW g described stall M subject tet 1. Onwml and gavial real peorw y tome red aapplwatal awesome", it atp, ler de osrn -I decal year; Provided. bsweat. set dt+aseer aball py lee (a) mW sunk tastes and aasaaaseuta applisable to ds PgoMty prier a ab deurre el aaedstiaa of dda Owed. and (b) sag asaeasassb. peaW cases w eda pa)eawta arialag tree basila. ~Uses or Ilsss areatod by. thr"O sr as a ""It of da ottarts K aativitiaa of Ormw; i. All eateaana, ewrition, restsietletsf reaerratlow. ribtef ri jM at my. aausaoto sed edtae weten of resets ter aeg , t etMr tban sesetwy Ileac: sod 1. The ngninsaat Mat osaapt as Provided hams, ataaao wogto duo Property OAS Ir In de wadities that tits tttortrty ansa as of da date at aeatteea's aeaapentss dated. thea AW nepreaeats and wsersata dust, to the best ad orwtar' o lowledia M we tie data Of ditomm's sasaptsan K dw Property. the rrepaty to Is aaplisnn Witt# all •tea sed prderal bassrdson oma lass. greater drat it stall 68007 KM all at otassaa'a tlaaditlass of Awevel tee react Intl as day mares to da Prwany. Isel"Wg May a4 noodlatlas required to sates de proynty to amply with there aasditiass. Smapt as provided abea. 0natar sakes se rsptaeastatiou or wrrea l" season&% tits essditiss at ted Psapaq. •. no ""I- st dot. prior to the lustalLtiw of do initial in, wwoe-to tae eM esNre pat! (the •Iaitial rad bwwwsetta•) upon de Property. frames shall provide greeter with sepias of plena of do pegoae4 Initial Past lopevwsesta. Orestes ay, widita dirty (10) dye aurae its neelpt of nosh slaw, give areatue susses on due plass. to which eeewes 0ratttas aFce to give Tessa mus aessideraties. desstes shell we aaswtae eaastrusties of the Initial rest Iapeevaoawq prier to ohs etslindon of the thirty (n) b review peeled. this ngvi sontt oball gply to da Initial Nrk Ispraosasea only ad sot to ag wiaegrest lap MW8M& a. newettwtUs. twain. nplaesssats. d"tions Our ebaages. IN —i ebtYd , atsatot Asa eeaeuted this Onnt peed as at the dy e! IM. This grew pent doll sat be ettestiw ter atgr puePI Ud*= Md estil tits Aawpt� Mies L Only saearted by feaster. M Ii a Mich F- Sy:- - - - T � M, ! i WA. Grandes, by its eeesaties of We Qrast geed. beaeky asegta the Oediaatiw of the Pts"M qw and object to the terga and proviain= sats& above. CM Or TWO By: A?Zkwl^l Its: L j" mAyALV, 11y: Its: nr..weuo Mu w CAUYMRA ) )M, ODrtK (r ) 1M. !serer. the l eed pcasRelly laiws is as (er stored to M M do sr L w . ) to s.SMARMERMIA ed rials rse�sstlwiy. saom ru . seepesatlsa a: Within a M dot the sar�ecetisa saserted !t. ItilsRsls + hed teed sKtslal .sal.s` aaarr wrur • aOasaWA QA.: i ss��si r t7 cad r eeid state Uts is to asstity that the ladzMt in rut I I ty — mysd by dw within Crset 2"d rt+w sb lrvlas Cee*ap. to tin City ter tta ". is booby MM*td by do nedtselpod .MOW ter yeas M welt K the City of lWUR M Md gramme CMA05te to reeeribtlsa tb vd by Its dely wadwrls" srrlser. Dated: iy: A'�!MT: V ' Clrh rM1Y Of CMDON" ) )N. comttY a a�Aro� ) Ow dds llth W 0* k0 st . Mss herors N. Me milwaipod a Beta" PWMU in ad fte sato state. Mrswsll'' cwsatsd PC, IMsad Yi:11M Ila:taa boom to M to be t d do City of stiatit, do City that assented do rldda l . d bewa te M Is h• The ysrseas .Ao Meested the widds !Moront ea bdeli of do slty thessls ■Med. ad asbsw Ud d to M dot sur city ssseetsd as Atlee lrtrung I - 0 is a rssslutiw of its City CsMel1 VIM" IF bd d drlslal out. • SAL sRAL r .elerPUK w ary Adis is d be ed/ state glsea � M x M. Mlel/M/Q Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Daws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 6:04 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com; jsdavis@irvinecompany.com Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Elizabeth —with all due respect, that is not true. The Grant Deed plainly states that the Irvine Company granted the land to the City of Tustin "for public community park purposes". The proposed use of any of the park land as a cell site with a license or lease to a commercial entity and the installation of a cellular telecommunications facility plainly violates the deed restriction. It serves no park purpose. "It is well settled that where a grant deed is for a specified, limited and definite purpose, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, 93 Cal.App.2d 545, 547; Griffith v. Department of Public Works, 141 Cal.App.2d 376. "Where a tract of land is donated to a city with a restriction upon its use -- as, for instance, when it is donated or dedicated solely for a park -- the city cannot legally divert the use of such property to purposes inconsistent with the terms of the grant." (Spinks v. City of Los Angeles, 220 Cal. 366, 368; City and County of S.F. v. Linares, 16 Cal.2d 441, 446 106 P.2d 369].) (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99, 104.) Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1942) 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) In determining what is a park purpose we do not look to the type of structure erected, but rather, to the use of that structure in relation to the park. (Big Sur Properties v. Mott (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 99.) "Moreover, where property is acquired through private dedication, the deed is strictly construed. (Roberts, supra, 93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548; 57 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 348, 349.) "[L]and which has been dedicated as a public park must be used in conformity with the terms of the dedication, and it is without the power of a municipality to divert or withdraw the land from use for park purposes." (Slavich v. Hamilton, 201 Cal. 299, 302; City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court, 231 Cal.App.2d 295, 300.) Such land is held upon what is loosely referred to as a "public trust," and any attempt to divert the use of the property from its dedicated purposes or uses incidental thereto is an ultra vires act." (City of Hermosa Beach, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 299-300.) As stated in Roberts, supra, in which the city sought to use property, granted exclusively for park purposes, for storage of equipment used in maintenance of other city property: "Unless the buildings directly contribute to the use and enjoyment of the property in question for park purposes, there exists a violation of the restrictions." (93 Cal.App.2d at p. 548.) See also White v. Metropolitan Dade County as an example, 563 So.2d 117 (Fla App 1990) Based upon the above, I submit that the City lacks any authority to use the property in this manner. Frankly, I find it incredible that City Planning is unaware of this and that I am actually spelling this out to you — how is it possible that the City has proceeded this far on these cell applications at Tustin Ranch parks without knowing what its land rights are? Jennifer Wierks From: Binsack, Elizabeth [mailto:EBinsack@tustinca.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20114:39 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Jennifer: Thank you for your e-mail. I wanted to follow up on your question regarding the Irvine Company approval for uses in Cedar Grove Park. The Deed Restriction only required the City to provide copies of the initial park improvement plans. There is not a consent/release agreement required from the Irvine Company for the proposed request from T -Mobile. If you would like to discuss this my number is 714-573-3031. Elizabeth From: Jennifer Wierks [maiito:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties — specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best — Jennifer Wierks 2 Swiontek. Rvan From: Binsack, Elizabeth Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:39 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Cc: Willkom, Justina; Buchanan, John Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Jennifer: Thank you for your e-mail. I wanted to follow up on your question regarding the Irvine Company approval for uses in Cedar Grove Park. The Deed Restriction only required the City to provide copies of the initial park improvement plans. There is not a consent/release agreement required from the Irvine Company for the proposed request from T -Mobile. If you would like to discuss this my number is 714-573-3031. Elizabeth From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net) Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties — specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best — Jennifer Wierks Swiontek. Rvan From: Jennifer Wierks aaws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:38 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 T -Mobile Cell Tower - Deed Restriction release? Hi Ryan, Elizabeth and David: Several residents (myself included) are interested in obtaining a copy of the consent/release agreement you have obtained from the Irvine Company on the deed restriction, if any exist, allowing the City to proceed with commercial cell sites on Tustin Ranch Park properties — specifically, Cedar Grove. Could you please provide a copy to me? Thanks. Best — Jennifer Wierks Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Uaws2@cox.netj Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 3:24 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David; 'Shubin, Pete (Sequoia)'; 'Gerst, Paul (Sequoia)'; 'Gonzales, Jarryd'; 'George Cardenas' Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Re: weak north signal - To the north you have the Salvation Army TMO cell site. Haven't had a chance to read this all the way through - I am in meetings this afternoon but I will take a look at it this evening. Thank you very much. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:46 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org; Shubin, Pete (Sequoia); Gerst, Paul (Sequoia); Gonzales, Jarryd; George Cardenas Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Jennifer, please see the responses to your questions below. Response to Question 1: The number of potential residential customers is 963. This figure is determined by a computer program that overlays the RF propagation map onto the most current census map. Other than going to the jurisdiction and researching the number of average daily trips that each street holds, there is no way to know how many cars a cell site will serve. However, we can get a good sense of how well an area is served (or not served) is by the number of dropped calls that each surrounding site reports. This is under the assumption that if people have poor residential service, they call only once or twice to report that. Whereas, if people drop calls while driving, surveys state they usually report this immediately after dropping the call. For reasons including our competitors could gain a competitive advantage, we do not provide T -Mobile customer totals for any given area. Response to Question 2: As you know, we performed 'drive tests' from both the Park (test conducted at 60 feet and 40 feet above grade) and the OCFA property (test conducted at 38 feet above grade). I received your email on January 7th (before the drive tests). As such, I will wait for the results of the drive tests before responding to your Question 2. However, I can say that in speaking with the RF engineers that conducted the OCFA tests, they received very poor service to the north of the OCFA property as there was no service inside a structure, including a car. Further, I've now received confirmation that neither Metro PCS or Clearwire have accepted space on the Vista towers. The only carrier that has confirmed is Verizon. Responds to Question 3: I'll wait to get the results of the drive tests before responding to your question, which is in regard to the coverage analysis. The drive test will provide the level of service that can be expected street by street within the intended coverage area. Responds to Question 4: The PCC map is effective for gauging the general level of coverage in an area, but doesn't provide the level of detail needed for site development. As such, I've only provided the City with RF propagation maps that show a higher level of detail than the PCC map. Further, the PCC map may show good coverage availability, but the level of coverage may not be adequate to hold a call, especially while indoors. Call quality may be degraded based on the low signal or spotty coverage indoors. Responds to Question 5: The U.S. Government has done extensive research regarding the safety of wireless technologies. This research was reflected in the Congress -approved Telecom Act of 1996, which states local jurisdictions cannot make land -use decisions based on perceived health impacts. The FCC provided the maximum power levels that we must operate within. T -Mobile operates at about 1/10th of 1% of this maximum (or about 0.1 microwatts). For comparison, a typical in-home WiFi router operates at .13 microwatts, a baby monitor at 1.0 microwatts and a cordless phone operates at 15 microwatts of power. I've attached a magazine article that supports this. Further, per the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, 93% of all Americans own a cell phone (http://www.ctia.org/media/industry info/index.cfm/AID/1 0323). Per Antenna Search.com (http://www.antennasearch.com/). there is currently 72 towers and 213 antennas within a 4 -mite distance from Cedar Grove Park. With this many people using cell phones on a daily basis, I have not heard from any government or private agency stating that cancer of other adverse health impacts have escalated due to increased cell phone use. You could say the same for property values. With 72 towers and 213 antennas close by, I would invite any real estate professional to prove that homes within this 4 -mile distance have lost any value because they are in close proximity to an RF tower. Responds to Question 6: The public interest policy that T -Mobile promotes is to provide the very best and most reliable service possible. This is no different than any other carrier. During my career in wireless telecom, which is more extensive than most, I have worked directly or indirectly for every other major carrier and they all approach the "public interest policy" in the same way. We all follow to the letter, the submittal requirements set forth by each jurisdiction. Through the course of processing the land - use entitlement, if we are asked to do public outreach, we will in every case. That being said, we generally don't do such outreach until after the application is filed and the project discussed with the jurisdiction. I've made many applications where I thought the project could become controversial and not a single person shows up to protest, while other times, I've proposed very simple projects that are completely hidden on the top of commercial structures, and many people show up in opposition. The bottom line is that we place new cell facilities in areas where we get the most complaints from our customers. Therefore, it is the public driving the demand for new cellular facilities. We are simply responding to that demand. In regard to having global moral responsibility, I would suggest that we address that everyday by providing not only 911 service that wireless users have come to expect (most 911 calls are made from mobile phones), but we keep these same people, including yourself and the community that surrounds you, with a means to contact work, friends and family from almost anywhere you travel. To make this happen, however, infrastructure is required and in some cases must be located in areas that may be more sensitive than others. Response to Question 7: T -Mobile is the 4th largest provider of cell service in the country. We offer rate plans and other services that the other carriers don't offer. Even though the other carriers can operate further away from their intended coverage areas does not mean they don't have sites in controversial or sensitive areas. Believe me they do as I have helped put many of them in. People have freedom of choice. This choice not only drives quality, but also keeps prices down and is why we have monopoly and anti-trust laws in the United States. Therefore, I would not describe this as the "community having to shoulder additional equipment" as much as providing an additional choice to the community regarding their options for wireless service. After all, just because a real estate agent specializes in selling homes in your neighborhood, shouldn't prevent other real estate agents from trying to do the same; even if it means getting an extra flyer on your door or increased traffic in your neighborhood by those looking for a new home. Thank you for asking the questions and if I can clarify any of my responses, please contact me at your earliest convenience. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 3 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) 4 Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.comj Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:46 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David; Shubin, Pete (Sequoia); Gerst, Paul (Sequoia); Gonzales, Jarryd; George Cardenas Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Attachments: Cell Phone and Cancer article 7.10.pdf Hi Jennifer, please see the responses to your questions below. Response to Question 1: The number of potential residential customers is 963. This figure is determined by a computer program that overlays the RF propagation map onto the most current census map. Other than going to the jurisdiction and researching the number of average daily trips that each street holds, there is no way to know how many cars a cell site will serve. However, we can get a good sense of how well an area is served (or not served) is by the number of dropped calls that each surrounding site reports. This is under the assumption that if people have poor residential service, they call only once or twice to report that. Whereas, if people drop calls while driving, surveys state they usually report this immediately after dropping the call. For reasons including our competitors could gain a competitive advantage, we do not provide T -Mobile customer totals for any given area. Response to Question 2: As you know, we performed 'drive tests' from both the Park (test conducted at 60 feet and 40 feet above grade) and the OCFA property (test conducted at 38 feet above grade). I received your email on January 7th (before the drive tests). As such, I will wait for the results of the drive tests before responding to your Question 2. However, I can say that in speaking with the RF engineers that conducted the OCFA tests, they received very poor service to the north of the OCFA property as there was no service inside a structure, including a car. Further, I've now received confirmation that neither Metro PCS or Clearwire have accepted space on the Vista towers. The only carrier that has confirmed is Verizon. Responds to Question 3: I'll wait to get the results of the drive tests before responding to your question, which is in regard to the coverage analysis. The drive test will provide the level of service that can be expected street by street within the intended coverage area. Responds to Question 4: The PCC map is effective for gauging the general level of coverage in an area, but doesn't provide the level of detail needed for site development. As such, I've only provided the City with RF propagation maps that show a higher level of detail than the PCC map. Further, the PCC map may show good coverage availability, but the level of coverage may not be adequate to hold a call, especially while indoors. Call quality may be degraded based on the low signal or spotty coverage indoors. Responds to Question 5: The U.S. Government has done extensive research regarding the safety of wireless technologies. This research was reflected in the Congress -approved Telecom Act of 1996, which states local jurisdictions cannot make land -use decisions based on perceived health impacts. The FCC provided the maximum power levels that we must operate within. T -Mobile operates at about 1/10th of 1% of this maximum (or about 0.1 microwatts). For comparison, a typical in-home WiFi router operates at .13 microwatts, a baby monitor at 1.0 microwatts and a cordless phone operates at 15 microwatts of power. I've attached a magazine article that supports this. Further, per the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, 93% of all Americans own a cell phone (http://www.ctia.org/mediafindustry info/index-cfm/AID/10323). Per Antenna Search.com (http://www.antennasearch.comn. there is currently 72 towers and 213 antennas within a 4 -mile distance from Cedar Grove Park. With this many people using cell phones on a daily basis, I have not heard from any government or private agency stating that cancer of other adverse health impacts have escalated due to increased cell phone use. You could say the same for property values. With 72 towers and 213 antennas close by, I would invite any real estate professional to prove that homes within this 4 -mile distance have lost any value because they are in close proximity to an RF tower. Responds to Question 6: The public interest policy that T -Mobile promotes is to provide the very best and most reliable service possible. This is no different than any other carrier. During my career in wireless telecom, which is more extensive than most, I have worked directly or indirectly for every other major carrier and they all approach the "public interest policy" in the same way. We all follow to the letter, the submittal requirements set forth by each jurisdiction. Through the course of processing the land - use entitlement, if we are asked to do public outreach, we will in every case. That being said, we generally don't do such outreach until after the application is filed and the project discussed with the jurisdiction. I've made many applications where I thought the project could become controversial and not a single person shows up to protest, while other times, I've proposed very simple projects that are completely hidden on the top of commercial structures, and many people show up in opposition. The bottom line is that we place new cell facilities in areas where we get the most complaints from our customers. Therefore, it is the public driving the demand for new cellular facilities. We are simply responding to that demand. In regard to having global moral responsibility, I would suggest that we address that everyday by providing not only 911 service that wireless users have come to expect (most 911 calls are made from mobile phones), but we keep these same people, including yourself and the community that surrounds you, with a means to contact work, friends and family from almost anywhere you travel. To make this happen, however, infrastructure is required and in some cases must be located in areas that may be more sensitive than others. Response to Question 7: T -Mobile is the 4th largest provider of cell service in the country. We offer rate plans and other services that the other carriers don't offer. Even though the other carriers can operate further away from their intended coverage areas does not mean they don't have sites in controversial or sensitive areas. Believe me they do as I have helped put many of them in. People have freedom of choice. This choice not only drives quality, but also keeps prices down and is why we have monopoly and anti-trust laws in the United States. Therefore, I would not describe this as the "community having to shoulder additional equipment" as much as providing an additional choice to the community regarding their options for wireless service. After all, just because a real estate agent specializes in selling homes in your neighborhood, shouldn't prevent other real estate agents from trying to do the same; even if it means getting an extra flyer on your door or increased traffic in your neighborhood by those looking for a new home. Thank you for asking the questions and if I can clarify any of my responses, please contact me at your earliest convenience. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? I You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 3 Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) ARTICLE Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? BY BERNARD LEIKIND NEWS REPORTS THREATEN THAT OUR CELL PHONES may cause cancer—brain cancer, eye cancer, and oth- ers. We are told that fragile children's developing brains are at risk. Concerned epidemiologists collect their data and warn that they cannot rule out the pos- sibility of harm from cell phone radiation and that they must do more research. Medical professionals as- sert, as a precaution and in the absence of definitive data, that we should place our phones at arms length. News accounts fill us with alarm. Danger lurks. Fears that cell phones cause cancer are ground- less. There is not a shred of evidence that the elec- tromagnetic radiation from your cell phones causes harm, much less that from the wiring in the walls of your house, your hair dryer, electric blanket, or the power distribution wires nearby. We know exactly what happens to energy from any of these sources when it meets the atoms and molecules in your body, and that energy cannot cause cancer. There is no known way that this energy can cause any cancer, nor is there any unknown way that this energy can cause any cancer. There is a link between some forms of electro- magnetic radiation and some cancers. These forms of electromagnetic radiation are ultraviolet radiation, X-rays, and gamma rays. They are dangerous because they may break covalent chemical bonds in your body. Breakage of certain covalent bonds in key mol- ecules leads to an increased cancer risk. For example, there is a link between ultraviolet light from the sun and skin cancers. All other forms of electromagnetic radiation other than these may add to molecules' or atoms' thermal agitation, but can do nothing else. Visible light has sufficient energy to affect chemical bonds. When light strikes the cones and rods in our retinas rhodopsin bends from its resting state to another, but it does not break. When visible light strikes the chlorophyll molecules in plants, electrons shift about but the chlorophyll does not break. Visible light does not cause cancer. Electromagnetic radiation transfers its energy to atoms and molecules in chunks called photons. The energy of a single photon is proportional to the 30 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 15 number 4 2010 photon's frequency. The photons of high frequency radiation, such as ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays, carry relatively large amounts of en- ergy compared to those of lower frequency radia- tion. That is why high-energy photons can break covalent chemical bonds while the photon energy of all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, in- cluding visible light, infrared light, microwave, TV and radio waves, and AC power cannot. Figure i shows a range of energy that is impor- tant for life and for the science of biochemistry. The Figure displays an energy scale to help you place rel- evant energy states or processes in context. Hori- zontal positions indicate the energy range. Look at the area covered by the long bracket in the middle. It shows the general energy range of the major strong chemical bonds—covalent bonds— which are significant for all of life's molecules. Below to the right you can see where the energy of an im- portant organic covalent bond—that which occurs between two carbon atoms—falls on the scale. Fur- ther up the scale, on the upper right, is the energy range of carcinogenic electromagnetic radiation. No- tice where the call out for green light falls on this scale. Visible light does not cause cancer. Notice that the energy of cell phone radiation and AC power radiation in this scale is very low. Cell phone radiation cannot break, damage, or weaken any covalent bond. Figure a shows the lowest energy part of Figure is energy scale. Figure i ranges from o kJ/mole to 600 kJ/mole. Figure s ranges from o kJ/mole to 30 kJ/mole. Notice the bracket that shows the range of weak bonds in each figure. These are hydrogen bonds, van der Waals bonds, electrostatic bonds, and various other effects, such as hydrophobic or hydrophilic forces. in the complex molecules of life, these bonds play critical roles holding strands to- gether and creating the three-dimensional shapes of molecules. Covalent bonds hold together the single strands of DNA. Hydrogen bonds connect one strand to its mate. Enzymes fold and twist to create Biochemistry's Energy World Gray line shows reladve number of molecules at each energy level, These are thermal motions --random Idnebc energy. uv IV* pholpls, PRIM, The averegis molecule's energy at room temperature is about 2.i kJ/mole. • Roughly 100 to 000 IU/mole Energy range of covalent bonds 4.0.00000000001 kJ/mole .. AC power phobns General range of uncateyzed reaction . . activation barriers. Bonds tend to be stable ear i) this sed6 40,001 kJ/mole at these energy levels and require an . M tbi do" was Cell phone photons enzyme to break. Cum .:. /� aMamljaal tiaraih.. about 44110 W/rmals 740 W/mals 370 kJ/amt C C covalent bonds : I Weak bonhds Green IIg<nt photons 300 W/raaM roughly01 Reaction acthatkm energy bafflers s , • �.; � y 23.•7.':, [ 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 Energy In klloloulea/mole Figure i. The units of inla scab aro famlllar to chemist. Chemist like to thk* about testfiube-slzed quantltlas of stuff. A mole is a unit that mesaues how much stuff you hem. it is a count of object: atoms, moleoulss, photons, chemhk:al bonds. One mole of any object contains 6.023 x 1023 of those object. "Iciab prefer to state the erorgy in one bond or In one Photon. A physicist would dhrlde all the n unt wrz In this figure by the number of objects In a mole to show the eNrgy in Joules in a Single object. An (old) phySWW might prefer to express this energy In units of electron vola. Measured in eleo trop colt, the anargy In one green Ion photon Is about 2.5 electron volt. The energy in arm banarm Is 150 to 200 Calc• rhes, which corresponds to 600 or 600 Id/banans; that is, one banana, not a mole of banana. Figure 2. Biochemistry's Low Energy World The gray line stows the relative number of molecules at each energy level. Pum aro thermal motions—random kinetic energy. The average noleculs's energy at room temperature Is about 2.5 kJ/nab. about 4-30 kJ/nmb Weak bonds: hydrogen bonds, van der Waels bonds. Electrostatic bonds 40.001 kJ/male Cell phone photons 6.0.00000000001 kJ/cab . AC power photons 15 20 25 30 Energy in klloJoules/mole volume 15 number 4 2010 WWW.SKEPTIC.COM 31 the forms they require as they perform their role as catalysts. The various weak bonds maintain the shapes of these folds and twists. Drawn in both figures is a graph that suggests the energy of molecular thermal motions at body temperature. Everything in our bodies partakes in these thermal motions. The molecules jostle one another. They twist and vibrate. The thick grey line on the graph shows how energy distributes itself among these various motions. The motion's average energy is about 2.5 kJ/mole. Some molecules, but not many, have much more energy. If energy transfers of 2.5 kJ/mole, more or less, were sufficient to damage life's molecules, life would be impossible because random thermal mo- tions would quickly break most of them. Fortu- nately, covalent bonds require ten to fifty times this amount of energy transfer before they break. Ther- mal jostling does not interfere with them. Weak biochemical bonds, however, live within the upper range of thermal bonds and shakes. 'That is why they do not enter into life's structure as single bonds, but always as groups. In the long double he- lices of DNA, the hydrogen bonds are like the indi- vidual teeth of a long zipper. Together they withstand what any single one of them could not. These collisions are electromagnetic interac- tions. The molecules' outer electrons sense the presence of their neighbors though electromagnetic forces. These electrons resist oncoming neighbors, pushing them away, and pushing upon their own molecules as well. Electromagnetic forces transmit these pushes. All of the molecules of biology must be able to withstand these electromagnetic forces to maintain their shapes and their functions. The forces that electromagnetic fields from cell phones exert on life's molecules are no different from any of these molecular pushes, except that they are much, much smaller. Cancer is a disease of the heredity of individual cells. Something must cause a cell to begin transfer- ring mistakes to its progeny. One cell goes haywire, replicating wildly, transmitting the mistaken in- structions—the damaged DNA—to each of its daughters. If the damage is too great, the cell will die. If the damage is not sufficient, it is not cancer. The damaged cell and its damaged progeny must continue to function in their crippled, uncontrolled states. Cancer generally requires more than one mutation in a single cell. It is worth understanding how chemical changes occur, why life's molecules are stable in the cytoplasm, and how life controls its chemical reac- tions, turning them on or off. Consider Figure 3. Reaction energy barrier with and without an enzyme -------------------------------- Without AcVmUon energy (Ea) enzyme without enzyme ------- -- -- -I----I------------- i,'''� Activation e � (EN) �= enzyme +: with enryme U9 Change in free anergy (AE) Reaction direction moves from left to right Figure 3 The symbol Ea ie the activation energy, the amount of energy the reactants must have to ream Thh energy Is avall. able to the products on the right. The reactants collect energy Ea from their surroundings. The products have ra-ymed It and a little extra AE to the surroundings. The surroundings, in this case, are wanner than before the reaction. 32 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 15 number 4 2010 This famous diagram appears in all biochem- istry books. It is a schematic representation of a re- action. Consider this reaction A + B — c + D, where A and B are reactants and C and D are prod A Cell Phone's Heating Power 6 ucts. In the diagram and the equation, the reaction begins on the left and moves to the right. The verti- The central premise of this paper is that the only effect cell cal scale is energy. Don't worry about the technical phone radiation can have on our bodies is to warm them. details. Begin with the upper solid black line with Consider this. 1 am about the same height (6'1") and weight the label Reaction Energy Barrier without an Enzyme. (185 pounds) as President Obama. My basal metabolic rate is For this reaction, the molecules A and B must as- about 1750 Calories per day. This is the energy my body uses semble sufficient energy to carry them over the just to keep me idling at the desk. Add in 250 Calories each hill. This energy may come from the incessant day to account for mowing the lawn and vacuuming the rug. thermal collisions, from some other molecule's in- The average energy I might generate each day is about 2000 ternal energy, from an incoming photon of electro- magnetic radiation, or other sources. The total Calories. Calories per day, energy per unit time, represents energy of the entire system, including the sur- power. Convert 2000 Calories per day into physics units, roundings, is a constant. Watts or Joules per second. The result is about ioo Watts. Through the continual random exchange of Thus, as I go about my ordinary life I am the power equiva- energy between the molecules A and B and their lent of a loo Watt light bulb on all the time. surroundings, if A and B happen to meet when Many days, I visit a health club and jog on one of their they have sufficient energy to make it over the top treadmills. I like the level a hill workout, and I clomp along of the hill, then they will react, forming C and D. at about a 9 -minute mile pace for 3o minutes. According to These products appear on the diagram's right. the treadmill's display, this burns about 500 Calories. Five This diagram is illustrative. The actual dia- hundred calories in 30 minutes corresponds to a power of gram of even a simple reaction might have several i 15 Watts. This is tt or 12 times my usual power; it or 12 dimensions in place of the single horizontal axis. loo -Watt light bulbs on for 30 minutes in my leg muscles. The hills would be complicated surfaces with The efficiency of the human body as it converts internal mountains and valleys. The diagram would have to power into external work is a complicated matter that de - take into account factors such as the orientation of pends upon many factors. For the purposes of this estimate, the reactant molecules, and much else. It is the it would not be misleading to take that efficiency to be about case, however, that all of life's stable molecules live 20%. Thus, of the 115o Watts I am using as I jog, about 230 in a well—a valley—similar to the left side of the Watts go to keeping me on the treadmill, and about 920 diagram. They will require an injection of energy Watts go into heat in my leg muscles. Blood flows through from their surroundings to escape. Biological mole- those muscles bringing in oxygen and fuel and carrying away cules have many possible reactions in which they carbon dioxide and other waste products. The blood also might take part. Remove an atom and replace it warms to the temperature of the muscles and carries that with another. Switch any molecular piece with an- energy throughout my body. My core body temperature rises, and I sweat a lot. other molecular piece. Natural selection has de- signed all of the molecules of life so that they are A cell phone radiates a Watt or two of electromagnetic stable in chemical composition, form, and fungi- radiation. Most of that goes out in every direction and some makes it to the cell phone tower. My body absorbs some of it tion. High activation energy barriers in all direc- tions make all possible reactions rare. If this were in my hand, my ear, my skull, my brain tissues, and so on. not the case, then the molecules of life would not bet's say that my body absorbs one Watt of this power in be stable. those nearby tissues. Those tissues warm a bit, and the blood When life requires a particular reaction to flowing through them warms too. The blood carries any take place, there will be an enzyme to facilitate it. extra heat energy throughout the rest of my body, which it An enzyme is a biological catalyst. Consider the eventually transfers to the air around me. lower dashed line in Figure 3. This line has the No one believes that the goo Watts that I generate in my leg muscles during hard exercise causes cancer in those label Reaction Energy Barrier with an Enzyme. This depicts the same reaction A + B - C + D, but this muscles or anywhere else in my body. Why would anyone time there is an enzyme to facilitate the reaction. believe that 1 Watt of heating power from a cell phone might Without going into the remarkable details of enzy- cause cancer? matic function, we can say that the enzyme has the volume 15 number 4 2010 WWW.SKEPTIC.COM 33 effect of lowering the activation energy barrier for the reaction. With lower activation energy, the thermal jostling or other sources of reaction energy have a much easier time pushing the reactants over the hill. The reaction rate goes from nearly zero to some reasonable value. There are no enzymes for unwanted reactions. Enzymes have and maintain the proper constitu- tion and form to work correctly. For a mutation to occur or an enzyme to change, the energy for the chemical reaction must come from some place. An X-ray photon—from a cosmic ray, from the earth's radioactivity, or from an X-ray machine—may pro- vide the required energy. Photons from any other form of electromagnetic radiation cannot. Glance at Figure i again. All of those chemical bonds across the middle of the diagram are stable. They do not break and reform, unless there is an enzyme to do it. On the left of the diagram is the graph showing the energy available from ordinary thermal motions to break these bonds. Also on the left is a bracket showing the range of typical activa- tion energies. Thermal motions are insufficient to take molecules over the activation energy barrier for any reaction. Far to the right, however, you can see the photons of ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays. These photons may break bonds. They may cause mutations directly. They may damage in- dividual enzyme molecules. Even green visible light photons in the middle of this range do not have enough energy to break bonds and take molecules over any activation energy barrier. Now find the photons of cell phone radiation and of AC power. They are at the far left of this diagram. No photon from a cell phone can ever break a chemical bond. Making the radiation 34 SKEPTIC MAGAZINE volume 15 number 4 2010 more intense does not make the photons stronger. it just means that there are more of them. The pho- tons cannot gang up. Lots of them cannot do what one of them cannot. When those weak photons disappear into a molecule, the molecule shifts and quivers a tiny bit. Its energy is a bit larger and the photon is gone. The molecule adjusts itself to its new slightly higher en- ergy, and in subsequent collisions with its neigh- bors, it may transfer some of that energy to them. The temperature of the biological soup—the cyto- plasm—is then a bit higher. The amount of beating due to cell phone radiation is small compared to your microwave, or standing in the sunshine, or wearing a scarf around your neck. This small in- crease in temperature does not cause cancer. If cell phone photons or AC power photons, far to the left of Figure r, were able to cause cancer by any mechanism, known or unknown, then those thermal vibrations also shown to the left side of the diagram would also cause cancer. So would all the forms of electromagnetic radiation that have more energetic photons than cell phone radiation. Some of the concern over cellphone radiation may have originated from the normal statistical fluctuations that occur when studies are con- ducted. In recent years, epidemiologists have found significant environmental hazards, such as smoking and asbestos. They are now searching for hazards among much weaker effects. Some studies of a sup- posed hazard will show a small risk. Others studies of the same hazard will show no risk. In fact, some studies of the same potential hazard will show a benefit. This is the sign that there is no hazard, only statistical fluctuations. But only the studies that suggest risks, even small risks, will make news. We can all be confident that airy epidemiologi- cal study that purports to show that cell phone radi- ation causes any cancer must have at least one mistake. We can be certain because there is no plausible—or even implausible—mechanism by which cell phone radiation can cause any cancer. When asked for a physicist's advice about cell phone safety, I explain that the radiation cannot cause cancer by any mechanism, known or un- known. If I am further pressed for comment I re- spond, "dont teat while you drive, and don't eat your cell phone:' ■ Acknowledgment: I thank physicists Dr. Arthur West and Dr. Craig Bohren. and biochemists Dr. Joseph H. Guth and Dr. Jill Ferguson, for their careful review of this paper and for their suggestions. Swiontek, Ryan From: Chen chen [cheninca1998@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:54 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: RE: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless lii Ryan. Could you tell me in PLAIN English that my grandma can understand what this really means'? "I'hank y0 U' Chen --- On Mon, 1/24/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.orq> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSw1ontek@tustinca.or4> Subject: RE: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: "chen chen" <cheninca1998@yahoo.com> Cc: "Willkom, Justina" <JWillkom@tustinca.org> Date: !Monday, January 24, 2011, 9:45 AM Chen, The applicant, T -Mobile, has requested to continue the item indefinitely. The Planning Commission would still need to make a motion to continue the item at the January 25, 2011, meeting. Staff has not prepared any additional re0orts on the item and is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item to a date uncertain. If continued, the item would be evaluated by the Planning Commission at a later date which has not yet been determined. Thank you, Ryan From: chen chen [mailto:cheninca1998@yahoo.comj Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:46 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Ryan "1 hank you for vour information. Could you please let me know what does that mean by "T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item "? Thank vou! Chen --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.orR> Subject: Desi;n Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:38 PM On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public heating for Design Revicw 09- 030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono- CCd.0 faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the Janu.►ry 2011. Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-31 "3. rswiontckCO'tustinea.or�l., or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, jwillkom@tustinca.ore. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek 2 Swiontek, Ryan From: bob stevenson [blackkeysbob@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:42 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Hi Ryan and Justina, Please show the Tustin City Council, Planning Commission and City Attorney the scientific studies contained in the link below that detail the adverse health effects that people who live near cell phone towers experience. http://www.centerforsaferwireless or./Living-Near-Cell-Towers,php Make sure that the City Council, Planning Commission and City Attorney are aware of the liability issues related to the below proposed project. Thank you very much. 130h Stevenson --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> Subject: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:38 PM On December lel, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public hearing for Desi«n Review 09-030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility desi`;ned as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011. Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.or, orJustina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkomC�tustinca.org. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner Center for Safer Wireless Page I of Home About Us Why Wireless Safety? Children Research News and Events Get Involved - Our Stories Products Contact Us Donate! Links Home o Research a Living Near Cell Towers Research on Health Effects of People Living or Working Near Cell Phone Towers Levitt, B.B. and Lai, H. 2010. Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Environmental Reviews, 18 : 369-395. D0I:10.1139/A10-018 htt :R //tinyurl.com/26cwfc6 Eger, H., ]ah M., Spezifische Symptome and Mobilfunkstrahlung in Selbtz (Bayern) - Evidenz fur eine Dosiswirkungsbeziehung, umwelt- medizin-gesellschaft, 23, 2 (2010), 130-139. Translation by Katharin Gustays Specific Health Symptoms and Cell Phone Radiation In Bavaria, Germany - Evidence of a Dose -Response Relationship In Selbitz, a town in Bavaria, Germany 251 residents completed a health survey. Citizens were organized in groups, based on their proximity to cell phone transmitters of 3 service providers. Groups were assigned a mean RF exposure value in volts per meter. Group 1 was within 100 meters of the cell antennas. Group 2 was within 200 meters of the cell phone antennas. Groups 1 and 2 had a mean exposure value of 1.17 V/m. Group 3 was within 300 meters and Group 4 within 400 meters. The mean RF exposure value for Groups 3 and 4 was .7 V/m. The control group was in Group 5, outside of the 400 meter radius, with a mean exposure level of .18 V/m. In comparison to the control group, significant (p <0.01, t-test) differences were found for the following symptoms in the four exposure groups 1 to 4 located within 400 meters of the antennas: sleep problems, symptoms of depression, cerebral symptoms, joint problems, infections, skin problems, cardiovascular problems, disorders of the visual and auditory system, as well as hormone system and gastrointestinal problems. The study showed a significantly increased health risk in the vicinity of cell phone antennas. According to the study, "the current exposure limit regulations basically do not provide sufficient protection against health risks." Read the entire study R68sli, 2004 "sleep disorders (58%), headaches (41%), nervousness or distress (19%), fatigue (180/6), and concentration difficulties were most common complaints. Complainants related their symptoms most frequently to exposure to mobile phone base stations..." Santini, 2002 "Comparisons of complaints frequencies ... in relation with distance from base station and sex, show significant (p<0.05) increase as compared to people living >300 m or not exposed to base station, till 300m for tiredness, 200m for headache, sleep disturbance, discomfort, etc. 100m for irritability, depression, loss of memory, dizziness, libido decrease, etc. Women significantly more often than men (p<0.05) complained of headache, nausea, loss of appetite, sleep disturbance, depression, discomfort and visual perturbations." Bortkiewicz, 2004 Center for Safer Wireless Page 2 of "People living in the vicinity of base stations report various complaints mostly of the circulatory system, but also of sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite, headache and vertigo." Navarro, 2003 People more exposed to radiation from mobile phone antennas in La Nora (operating at 1800 MHz) had more symptoms than those who were less -exposed. Exposure was associated with discomfort, irritability, appetite loss, fatigue, headache, difficulties concentrating and sleep disturbance. Zwamborn, 2003 A study by the Dutch Technical Research Institute (TNO) found that volunteers exposed to a signal simulating exposure from a 3G (UTMS) antenna experienced adverse effects on well-being. Oberfeld, 2004 Spain, 2004: A follow-up study in Spain found that the most -exposed people in Murcia had a higher incidence of fatigue, irritability, headaches, nausea, loss of appetite, sleeping disorders, depression, discomfort, difficulties concentrating, memory loss, visual disorders, dizziness and cardiovascular problems. The authors recommended a maximum exposure of 0.0001 pW/cm2. Oberfeld, 2005 Austrian researchers found that volunteers exposed to radiation typical of that experienced at 80 metres from a mobile phone tower experienced changes in the electrical activity of their brains and feelings of unwellness. Subjects reported buzzing in the head, palpitations of the heart, unwellness, light-headedness, Mast-Victims.org includes case studies of individuals who have suffered health effects they believe results from being near cell phone towers httpo//www.mast-victams-org/index-phD?content=iournal Sunday 22 January 2011 Dear :Vis. Elizabeth Binsack: On behalf of my wife, I am writing you with regards to the T -Mobile cell tower project at Cedar Grove Park. Since you are the Chief of Staff'of the Planning Commission for the City of Tustin, this complaint letter is directed to you — primarily — as well as for the members of said commission. As can be clearly seen in this unretouched photograph taken on Tuesday 18 January 2011, it is evident that T -Mobile is moving forward with the edification of their cell tower, which is clearly an abomination. If memory serves me correctly, I — along with the many individuals present at the December 2010 city council meeting — it was stated that no further action would be done until the following meeting scheduled for Tuesday 25 January 2011. In the meantime, it is obvious that the T -Mobile organization has clearly ignored the stated motion, as evidenced by the photographic attachment. Furthermore, it was clearly understood that said organization was to conduct a town -hall meeting prior to the January 2011 city council meeting, in order to improve their already disastrous attempt at public relations with respect to the placement and construction of their cell tower. The meeting they proffered was a mockery and a sham. Instead of a well -organized town -hall meeting, they — purposely — held a small reunion inside the Tustin Library and sent postcards to certain members of the affected surrounding communities. Their presentation had four (4) undersized "work stations", the idea clearly being divide-and-coliquer. This was supposedly taped for the city council members; no one has any notion as to whether -or -not this was forwarded to you and your colleagues for your viewing. My wife and I asked clear and pertinent questions regarding safety and property value effects; quite sadly and most troubling was the fact that none of our questions were directly answered. The answers they gave were either for us to read their brochures or that all matters were "statistically insignificant;" this latter comment was the apparent go -to answer for the few who did receive and attend this inadequately prepared meeting. For example, when I asked specifically how much will property values be undermined, the response was that ..."it would not be greatly affected." When pressed for a specific number or percent from that rhetorical comment, the individual only answered that it would be statistica!!v insignificant. I was never given a clear nor specific response. My wife asked another gentleman about the radio frequency strength and its effect upon the environment; this person stated that the radio waves emitted from the tower would only travel horizontally and thus would not cause any harm on the environment. Anyone with common sense and basic elementary science would sreatly refute this ridiculous reply! Added to this, it is a known and proven fact that the fiberglass to be utilized to cover up this tower is greatly carcinogenic, and the heat that will be emitted from it will significantly affect the fiberglass to produce greater toxicity and harm the high -traffic volume of people — particularly children — using Cedar Grove Park. Finally, the Save Cedar Grove Park organization has forwarded to you and the commission information that five (5) other wireless carvers are placing their towers/antennas at the Orange County Fire Authority complex; since this is the case, it is not only reasonable, but responsible that T -Mobile should do the same, also. Sunday 22 January 2011 In the end, I am sadly aware that politics and money go hand-in-hand. I can only hope that you — and the commission — will not succumb to back door politics and will carefully consider not only what has been shared in this note, but the many others who have spoken and/or written to the committee, many countless individuals who value (a multiple -meaning word) Cedar Grove Park. Sincerely, Ricardo Silvestre Sedona Comnuntity Family Resident Enclosure: -- Photograph of T -Mobile test tower on Tues 18 Jan 2011 From: ric.silvestre@cox.net [mailto:ric.silvestre@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 11:55 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: T -Mobile Cell Tower Inquiry Importance: High Sensitivity: Personal Dear Ms. Elizabeth Binsack: On behalf of my wife, I am writing you with regards to the T -Mobile cell tower project at Cedar Grove Park. Since you are the Chief of Staff of the Planning Commission for the City of Tustin, this complaint letter is directed to you - primarily - as well as for the members of said commission. As can be clearly seen in this unretouched photograph taken on Tuesday 18 January 2011, it is evident that T -Mobile is moving forward with the edification of their cell tower, which is clearly an abomination. If memory serves me correctly, I - along with the many individuals present at the December 2010 city council meeting - it was stated that no further action would be done until the following meeting scheduled for Tuesday 25 January 2011. In the meantime, it is obvious that the T -Mobile organization has clearly ignored the stated motion, as evidenced by the photographic attachment. Furthermore, it was clearly understood that said organization was to conduct a town -hall meeting prior to the January 2011 city council meeting, in order to improve their already disastrous attempt at public relations with respect to the placement and construction of their cell tower. The meeting they proffered was a mockery and a sham. Instead of a well -organized town -hall meeting, they - purposely - held a small reunion inside the Tustin Library and sent postcards to certain members of the affected surrounding communities. Their presentation had four (4) undersized "work stations", the idea clearly being divide -and -conquer. This was supposedly taped for the city council members; no one has any notion as to whether -or -not this was forwarded to you and your colleagues for your viewing. My wife and I asked clear and pertinent questions regarding safety and property value effects; quite sadly and most troubling was the fact that none of our questions were directly answered. The answers they gave were either for us to read their brochures or that all matters were "statistically insignificant;" this latter comment was the apparent go -to answer for the few who did receive and attend this inadequately prepared meeting. For example, when I asked specifically how much will property values be undermined, the response was that ..."it would not be greatly affected." When pressed for a specific number or percent from that rhetorical comment, the individual only answered that it would be statistically insignificant. I was never given a clear nor specific response. My wife asked another gentleman about the radio frequency strength and its effect upon the environment; this person stated that the radio waves emitted from the tower would only travel horizontally and thus would not cause any harm on the environment. Anyone with common sense and basic elementary science would greatly refute this ridiculous reply! Added to this, it is a known and proven fact that the fiberglass to be utilized to cover up this tower is greatly carcinogenic, and the heat that will be emitted from it will significantly affect the fiberglass to produce greater toxicity and harm the high -traffic volume of people - particularly children - using Cedar Grove Park. Finally, the Save Cedar Grove Park organization has forwarded to you and the commission information that five (5) other wireless carriers are placing their towers/antennas at the Orange County Fire Authority complex; since this is the case, it is not only reasonable, but responsible that T -Mobile should do the same, also. In the end, I am sadly aware that politics and money go hand-in-hand. I can only hope that you - and the commission - will not succumb to back door politics and will carefully consider not only what has been shared in this note, but the many others who have spoken and/or written to the committee, many countless individuals who value (a multiple -meaning word) Cedar Grove Park. Sincerely, Ricardo Silvestre Sedona Community Family Resident Enclosure: Photograph of T -Mobile test tower on Tues 18 Jan 2011 9 Swiontek, Ryan From: chen chen [cheninca1998@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:46 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Rvan. Thank you for your information. could you please let me know what does that mean by "T -:Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-01,0) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item "? Thank vou! Chen --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.ore> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> Subject: Design Review -030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:38 PM On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public hearing for Design Review 09-030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility desi-ned as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123. rswiontek@tustinca.org orJustina Willkom at 714-573-3115, jwillkom@tustinci!, . Thank you, Ryan Ryan .Swiontek Swiontek, Ryan From: Ipkull@aol.com Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 1:51 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Ryan, Thank you for the message regarding Design Review 09-030 Will this item still be on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, 1/25? Thank you, Lynnea Kull -----Original Message ----- From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> Sent: Thu, Jan 20, 2011 5:40 pm Subject: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public hearing for Design Review 09-030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono -cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. T•Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please .do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontek@tustinca.org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkom@tustinca.orq. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Tel. (714) 573 3123 Fax (714) 573 3113 From: Stephanie Holoubek [mailto:sjholoubek@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:05 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cell tower Ms. Binsack, I am writing to express my opposition regarding the cell tower at Cedar Grove Park. I am concerned for my family's well-being and I am shocked that anyone would think placing a cell tower in a park would ever be a good idea. There are other options nearby like the OC Fire Authority that would be much better suited for a cell tower. As a parent and a teacher in Tustin, I ask you to please not vote to place the cell tower at Cedar Grove Park or any other park in Tustin. Thank you for you consideration, Stephanie Holoubek Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks (jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 4:05 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Design Change and Continuance Request I realize you may have to adjust some of your data for the new design, but I am still waiting for your response to my nitial questions posed to you in my January 7"' email... I still would very much appreciate a response — now as it applies to your new plan. Do you have the coverage maps available yet that were generated as a result of your recent testing at the 2 sites? Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 20114:20 PM To: ebinsack@tustinca.org Cc: George Cardenas; Gonzales, Jarryd; Shubin, Pete (Sequoia); Jennifer Wierks; Tony Ingegneri Subject: Design Change and Continuance Request Elizabeth, After thoughtful consideration and to address the concerns of the community, this is T -Mobile's formal request to change the design of the proposed project at Cedar Grove Park from a mono -pine to a flagpole configuarion. Our amended project design includes replacing the two existing flag poles currently located in the parking lot turn -around with three 40 - foot flagpoles. Three flag poles are needed as one antenna will be located within each pole so to minimize the pole diameter. Regarding the Planning Commission hearing, we ask that the City grant us a continuance to a date uncertain so that revised plans, photo simulations, RF propagation maps and other entitlement application requirements can be prepared for submittal to city staff. Further, because of the extra time needed to facilitate the new design, T -Mobile releases the City of Tustin from the required maximum processing timelines set forth by the California Permit Streamlining Act and Federal Wireless Shotclock. We hope to continue an open dialogue with both the City and its concerned residents so that we build the best wireless project possible. If you have any questions regarding the new design, continuance request or timeline release, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Joe Thompson Zoning and Government Affairs Manager T -Mobile USA (949) 350-5376 January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ore I f s� . (Print Name, Address, Email) env WCL1 stn g l4li Ci& c n �-` January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I LSt r cA ea -7 1�- (Print Name, Address, Email) ftl mCcrLSkc lC,' y4ko-,c_�v. January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, S 114 C' (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ►. 1 JCL C tc. � ry � (Print Name, Address, Email) PL6:-Asc- " t-E -77-1-A7- r:E3/vEllrs AL,4 /ll ANJ S74cI-I 0tiv�-7vS 7-b-S 7-1Av Cfr--- jZ 78 Z 0094,076— 7-/-/E- Tb s rim gA/v January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, � N 6n:�� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, u I 1 27--Z `J C_� Zsoo AeKaj r C+ T -+n CA 9IT? Z (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, f ILI (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, V e L cc s n e �— (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, --U.4;n, C A (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Tv s -L (Print Name, Address, Email) C. (CU r'f� L nT U" C74) C January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 2-7 (Print Name, Address,) Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, h AfJ r� ",etzu�vwn Print Name Address, Email) (,' January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, f (Air td)4 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincere , (0Y.35- OVAvy wr�rL7 rusrin; �� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, � 1�,3 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (P; N;:)rne, Ad reps, Erjil) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 12 9z_ (Print Name, Address, Email) /-d f ;�,-/ 1, /;'IiC,�( roA, A January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, r (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, V i IM A►Lie-,44 fix, 0 /i�o-fw�.�� � • C.su�. Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, l� 0 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, it A- L/I Lq L"w YI1_OT)()1 `Yl (Prin Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, C (T (Print Name, Address, mail) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, f OXVAC5 (Print Na e, A dress, E ail) ,<— January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, .IL Tustin 92.1192 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) '� jCc �i —r�\v r rv�tiw V (- - - January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, grwJ; I<I,o-„ ,JZ� � Do 5&Wer l c-. 61?0'21 e� �0 ���► (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families Thank you. Sincerely, -1 44tkq, Amit j �TI^� Chi i L7 k, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, l � Q (Print Name, Address, ,Email) r ` A ✓\ 0� t� i 6'�� January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, le{- X lye !-� (ut�ir Cry,^�'� SGt, ��E `/o-�cvy'rl I, e0. (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, n (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, .Fsci (-fid /��� I-ia,- C4 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I -Aa^ V t=a'l0rd I Q 9 MGn 1� I GCss, ��S-�► �l �j e2 �So2 (Print ame, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I� P � i (Print Nhme, Address, mail) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �a P6U\ I I (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Lk ��, tij �, I Y1,q 5i 1 Z 2 W 0P� ����� C� Cox, cj (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, /� I 1 L I �� I I IV C )) -[ K - (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, i (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 1, WA �T�tl� r� c� �c c, V, s %nclf�� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, d, LAJ �A�IVVI 0,1 - (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (,kPs�—OLjIr6 XA,,'6 1-�6 �- X39) X 7« 4-( 1,� �L,42- kcH P` (wl.., jTE <, .\, . corp . (Print Name, Address, mail) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: 1 am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, -7-in�ee (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, &od 4s � (((Pint Nam6, Address, Email) C � `'Ar tail rt . 5 �9C � 1b �a� . r le f January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, i P 4- D Ta --� � � � �- �J fit.✓ ^.�-.� � '✓�'� ! � s,�� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of Flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, D( a� X AA,V, (U-, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, G� V lc..t�I�C (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ZA (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �'JI T 1 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I I i Zo Nt f �+e v�/s �✓� , f-1, s�,�� �� r P7 dna ayl . COM (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families Thank you. Sincerely, �l.' 'JOS (Print N me, Address, Email) �J S ,in -fr-r A� Cv >, iLA- t January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 2A 9 -2- (Print Name, Address, E ail) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, qtr ) PA. -f- �(v\ i- n� y S C1 < r e� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ✓`'i NtA&,.e- VI -It h C11 -'1 L-2-- (Print 2(Print Name, Address, Emai January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, C�A I �D r1_1 ?", 1, C A;4 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �- G 3 I JS -h n �Ce L (Print Name, Address, Email) �� (,� wl('6-c7L-Lo, %P� January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, C, ��c tIMu AAL�, As s a 6 V_ -fir (Print N me, Address, Email) a 4 -con January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, l � � i V ��Y►� � � � 7i ! v �- (Print lilame, Address, Email) - 41ee January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, l sf7 n qZ (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ck (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, JEFF a(,I, �6 � 91 l- L[t� w ti C'F _s 9:) 7`s4 (Print N me, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Ivs�(Print Name, Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, G v,,C-- (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I4gII 3ALIE L � I1 t4 A 101218() 15 (Pjnt'Nam�, address, Email) ( I,e 1a-{ 2 a hC,t ►"V-A`i cc m January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ll7 1!5 C A �� 7 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I M0.. / �n IQ _ Ytnnb_ cv C,c0-3,5 E. , K- Oh 1 c Oy19-79 cls�'.c-orY1 U�ocinnr (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Ipn,�AL 'N SCAM � Ivy � 1 G iZf�y f� L '1"v S T, rj A 7r1 g2 T'LiuQ • `1 cam{ �J � V�1 G.�.� C.;� V1'` (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, r "AH yam.' (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ti1�1�C,� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Arss, Ema January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Q(, - )a- 17te4-ric,l., —FL,S k, n, m r S SLS fy) C&j (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, s -T) (Print Name, Ad ress, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) ems= January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �C Akei � _` �O \A1� -tt1u0 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ^1 Aunqo -htil (A q (Print Name, Address, Email) /1-) 1 ) _.i—., (", a , -,/ i, ,—>~— January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 177-3ie, K` ?c / C Li �y-, ,� 2 LSC (Print Name, Address, Email) (' 'F1 Cl -�'i/ 14- 1-;i;V, {7ll-� January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, vt- 7C-,s4k) CA MIT 2 - (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print NO'me, Address, mail) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, N\Ji3 r (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, J/J (Print Name, ddress, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, -,-� 4<�� 2—� ( ( i bti- ,�c�,' (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, irk (Print Name, Addres , Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ho-eri l,l )n�P (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 9 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, a >7 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, , WAY `-IX - r (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, u-Y� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. 1 understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I (Print Name, Add . �m �, -�\ 5�,11\ ni I/ Email) �\, 4 � u,Vl January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, C,c,f --) 1 &6 ,- (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I (Print Name, Address Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, H294� Lyrn �1 Z, irk 1 I � ✓1G, 11 � ✓�� VY v, LA A- Z J DZ (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 5 sNL,r2,y I r-,tNE (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with -us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Z l 7 Creon tenor t/i�-e. y (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. 1 value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, S� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Yrcr�- C (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, A/ � (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Addr ss, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, All (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, ( S Clea • 1. ,-��� � ,,v'� (Print Name, Address, Email) YnSL, il-; g etC.( -Cc-)v1 -1II1 .—%111 7.7-, January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I I C S C�� C-tt�,1c'1 p4�T `,� C� q2 -J`2 -- C 1, -,C(l I A lz-J`2-- Clu(lIA ezee< I 1 1 - < C (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. 1 am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Ji f-, C �a ! -7L d (Print Name, Address, Email) 4J� 1 l January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, J,S�w-:� L voet'T� _ �X7 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, /t C JC I�0T1�7 C� ���C0u C. le C'C (Print Nam , Address, Email) �� January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, � I live .0 6n1 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, TJ 9 (2, (A S CACI-� o� C GSC , (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, � C', b c,m (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 7-- �,� Irk (Pr6t Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, / C �t.S�� ��.- E?�+ � � {s � xK" � N (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Grain Z C'C/►)( (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Ilk (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, -7o /a�2 Ave (rint Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, i (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 4 F5�1 2 Slee 'C' (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 4-1 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �� �- CA �P:�Yd Ca,y'"— � l ski (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, /101 Lu(lcks Tu s { In 9� "Z_ e i✓ d C fn ct i l. C C t" (Print Na e, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, � � . f, W � Lo S -�-, 7/ �� �Z-7 4�,2 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Sh�hr�Uf h� 5�1� h �, g- 51.E�Joc_ AVj • 1-ysi 1►J, �,4 %^7S Z (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, F.0geAT STRC �I 6P,,' -1-t (Print Name, Addresl, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Clq 7Y z_ g� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Q�ydn Q' l' (Print Name, Address, Email) b-" e"y/x. ,O,n January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, DP-n2amG_ �pt i+T0. CP,r�, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Loo rine P (CO n (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, mail) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. of Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. wonderfulreestrails, l nk it is e and playground the most beautiful and safe park becauselnt slahsafe and quiet place for families to play areas. I value and love the Pa and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camp come to use the Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at thisthe alio in any fng orm, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy p commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right inits id . This park preserve as left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the parks purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes this the financial area bsecas welause olf ass presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is for all publiche ac ss atmajothe OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable carriers who have signed on over there. The City should requitable to burden oususpect of any r of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be park so that a single carrier can have its way with us.Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, C� S C (Prin Name, Address, mail) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to'the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �,rkce S V-0 (Pri t Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, J�SSI CIA C�RT��70� 10&I rt Sum -rEr wad LUS n cf� (Print Name, Address, Email) 1ncc /- i,aih-)Yn/0.11A�n��.� January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Z, (Print Name, Address, Email) 1 r,'1 `1 z !/) �� 2--� January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. 1 value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Tat, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, i 0 1 70 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, N-� s ck e b7 E a �U I. ( c)1-,, (Print Name, Add ss, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, i (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print N me, ddress, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print 'dne, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, D' -1L4 V -'"-LI` (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, -�I ST I ► -I C' � Z Abu (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, c�YZ E% %� �� t✓ ,,2-7S / Dun/S 7Td ,J Dt? I u S i; i j CSD -7 (Print Name, Address, Email) /,/? 6 /Tt January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, /"�/) /C � NADIA16F /,-1 C Ho 7_",4�L . COV ,,`7ZC 71""ezlS --- -/7'g '�7N - cam-} yV %: t January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincero)y, T qzCJ (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, z� 2a //, - E f e.� So (Print Name, Address, Email) Gr y C G( td ianP ®rax , ,lei January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, P int Name Address Email) ) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: 1 am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, RY, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, S (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, CIA Li cA-C pr � C,L-)� C J C" • Q� V (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �rt� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, J (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (XV\meVNok (Print Na e, Address, Ema[ January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 0 "-� 7 ""' t:�, CA, �"LVIvC GA aj2-6-5 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Emai— l) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �i &J r l q (Print Na e, Addres , Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, t rint Name, Addrest, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower -here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 8117 04�t P% Vkr C► r 7Ucv (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, e_a TI \ 'Z 1J a C c VN C'.. 132- t-�arrk.�y<<w .4 1<4111- 5L6Gt (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, �' J1. / 11 /-/- zz �•9— s ���/�/ �� C�1,72e o�c �.ge, Z' (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, I,� CV:4,k tQtkiw QT V\eNc (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (GL C411](�1-.11a C+. 04 1261 Z Q) hooI . C9v" (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful Kittle bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, -7� y U/ ur, C.�.�,✓ -�- A1 -� �-I � (a yz62- (Print Name, Address, Email) ],72 C, �')Y,�4 Cott - January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 4LJ (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, a �Lo� If (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, Cwr (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, `t1 -ti\ w--\ 1\\eV � Gf�vNJ �' �Z��� (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, n- )ICC, 2a. l�Ic) - )VEti P(, Ne_V,�orrt (Sellc4 ) C)� �1)_66 3 (Print Name, Address, Email) -t- 5-q tZi� °` January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, t ( rint Name, Address, Email) / �J January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 1 ,l (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Na e, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, C "ic"i. (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, r ilzL (Prin Name, dress, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, 6L1 (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, jr.`r Chi J°�1 U '`� 7✓� (Print Name, Address -,mail) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sin,A�erely, V% (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerelv. (J ro 6, (Print Name, Address, Email) m January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Na(ne,'Adbress, Ema' January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Name, Address, Email) January 22, 2011 Dear Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Tustin: I am a frequent visitor of Cedar Grove Park. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a Cell Phone Facility in the park, whether it is a fake tree or a set of flagpoles. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our families. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. A commercial wireless facility at this location, in any form, will compromise the integrity of the park and our ability to enjoy the park knowing there is a commercial facility interfering with the park's purpose right in its midst. This park was left to us through the legacy of the Irvine Family, who worked hard to keep and preserve our open spaces and promote appreciation and enjoyment of nature. Placement of a commercial telecommunications facility in our park's boundaries will affect our quality of life at and around the park and is contrary to the park's purpose. I am concerned it will lower the property values of the homes in the area because of its presence. It is not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower in exchange for the revenue stream the City will gain through selling off our parkland. I understand that an alternative location exists that is out of the public access at the OCFA training center. This location appears to be suitable for all the other major carriers who have signed on over there. The City should be highly suspect of any claim of T -Mobile that that site will not fill their need. It would be inequitable to burden our park so that a single carrier can have its way with us. Don't be bullied by T -Mobile's desire to make profits through their own tower ownership. Please don't put a commercial Cell Tower here, next to our playgrounds and 2 local schools, disturbing our peaceful little bit of nature. Please keep it for kids and families. Thank you. Sincerely, (Print Narhe, Address, `Email) Swiontek, Ryan From: Paul Martin [pablo_811 @yahoo.com) Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:52 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless Thanks Ryan for the update. I received a postcard in the mail today from the opposition alerting people of the hearing. Paul --- On Thu, 1/20/11, Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek(a'tustinca.orP> wrote: From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek(&tustinca ore> Subject: Design Review 09-030 - Cedar Grove Park Wireless To: Date: Thursday, January 20, 2011, 5:38 PM On December 14, 2010, the City of Tustin Planning Commission held a public hearing for Design Review 09- 030, a request by T -Mobile to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility designed as a mono - cedar faux tree within Cedar Grove Park. The Planning Commission continued the item to the January 25, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. T -Mobile has requested a continuance of the item (DR 09-030) to a date uncertain. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission continue the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswionteka,tustinca org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkom6Dtustinca org. Thank you, Ryan Ryan Swiontek Associate Planner City of Tustin 1 Swiontek, Ryan From: Tanya Zaverl [tazdesigns@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 6:48 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Opposition to Tmobile antennas in Cedar Grove Park I am writing to you to express my absolute opposition to the placement of the T -Mobil tower in Cedar Grove Park. This location is not an appropriate choice to place a 24 hour a day radiating antenna in such close proximity to homes and schools where our children spend the majority of their day. As residents of this community we have all sacrificed alot to ensure that our children grow up in a safe environment. The long term effects of spending time next to these towers is still not conclusive. There are other states that have taken the lead in trying to protect children from this technology that is not sufficiently researched. The state of Maryland now prohibits the placing of any wireless antenna on school property. It is a LAW there. This park, whether or not owned by the school district is close enough to the classrooms to be considered school propoerty even if not technically so. We, in Tustin deserve the same protection for our children !!! Please do not consider the placement of this tower where it could possibly put our children and our families at risk. There is a toll road near by that would serve the same purpose and although it would not create revenue for our city... it would be in the best interest of our city's citizens! Whatever revenue Tustin would receive from this tower from T -mobile or any other wireless carrier could be raised in other ways which would not put our community at risk unnecessarily. Please do not let T -Mobile or any other carrier bully their way into our towns and cities! Take a stand and do the right thing! NO WIRELESS ANTENNAS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEXT TO OUR SCHOOLS!!! Thank you, Tanya Tustin, CA From: Ipkull@aol.com [mailto:lpkull@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 20112:57 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: rdotson@t-mobile.com; jailing@t-mobile.com Subject: Cedar Grove Park Ms. Binsack and Planning Commission, I was at Cedar Grove Park on Tuesday, January 18 and Wednesday, January 19th while T -Mobile was conducting their testing and marking the location of the proposed tower. I wanted to write to you and ask that you please DECLINE the proposal to place a cell tower by T -Mobile in Cedar Grove park. I was playing at the park with my young children before picking up my older son at Peters Canyon Elementary. I have been aware of the T -Mobile request to enter the park however once seeing the test equipment and the green balloon that was placed at 65 feet to imitate the "faux tree" height,l am even more enraged at the idea. I was informed at the T -Mobile community event on January 6th that the "faux tree" would blend into the park. After seeing the placement of the green balloon, I believe even more that this 65' cell tower does not belong in Cedar Grove park. The placement was much taller and farther away from any of the other trees. As I am sure you are aware, there was nothing natural looking about this tower, its placement and/or it's height. I am requesting that you decline the T -Mobile proposal to erect a 65' Faux Tree Cell Tower in Cedar Grove park and/or any other location in the park (ie Flag poles). Please consider the OCFA site as an acceptable alternate location. Thank you! Lynnea Kull 10816 Churchill Place Tustin, CA 92782 (714) 334-1258 s � t;. i•, •3 iii � ���`�� • �` �1w, 1 � %t, Ap WA ' t �- •� unp y i:r'. hie. 14E& & 11�� �� �► y � t;. i•, •3 iii � ���`�� • �` �1w, 1 � %t, Ap WA ' t �- •� unp y i:r'. hie. 14E& & 11�� �� �► f R From: Tanya Zaverl [mailto:tazdesigns@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:33 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: opposition to cell tower at Cedar Grove Park Dear Ms. Binsack, I am writing to you to express my absolute opposition to the placement of the T -Mobil tower in Cedar Grove Park. This location is not an appropriate choice to place a 24 hour a day radiating antenna in such close proximity to homes and schools where our children spend the majority of their day. As residents of this community we have all sacrificed alot to ensure that our children grow up in a safe environment. The long term effects of spending time next to these towers is still not conclusive. There are other states that have taken the lead in trying to protect children from this technology that is not sufficiently researched. The state of Maryland now prohibits the placing of any wireless antenna on school property. It is a LAW there. This park, whether or not owned by the school district is close enough to the classrooms to be considered school propoerty even if not technically so. We, in Tustin deserve the same protection from our city for our children and do not want to be the guinea pigs. Please do not consider the placement of this tower where it can possibly put our children and our families at risk. There is a toll road near by that would serve the smae purpose and although would not create revenue for our city it would be in the best interest of our city's citizens. Whatever revenue you would receive from this tower from T -mobile or any other wireless carrier could be raised in other ways which would not put unnecessary risks on our community. Please do not let T -Mobile or any other carrier bully their way into our towns and cities! Take a stand and do the right thing! NO WIRELESS ANTENNAS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEXT TO OUR SCHOOLS!!! Thank you, Tanya Verdi Tustin, CA From: Xin Wang (mailto:xinwang98@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 10:23 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Regarding T -mobile's cell tower test at Cedar Grove Dear Elizabeth, I recently emailed you regarding T -mobile's incompetent technology (one of the highest call dropping rate) and bad credibility (faked coverage map especially for tustin ranch area). Again as a seasoned electrical engineer myself, I found another loophole in their testing to prove it is necessary to build a big tower instead of using OCFA's training facility. Let me share with you from the technical side: While it is true that bigger tower with higher power can improve cell phone coverage for sure, it is absolutely against the trend of technical competition in the market. Besides health issues constantly under debate, all major IC (integrated circuit) vendors are keen to cut down power consumption to boost battery life as well as solving heat dissipation problems for any mobile devices. Common approaches to achieve these goals are using more advanced DSP (digital signal processing) technology or algorithm and using novel RF front end design techniques. Now let's take a look why T -mobile always latches onto the idea of bigger tower and higher power -- engineering intuition tells me they most probably can not compete with good enough low power devices using more advance design skills. Then the question is, why do we accommodate a losing player in the market place by giving the big towers etc. which not only hurts community interests (clearly demonstrated by residents rages on this topic), but also goes against the technology trend to go GREEN, go low power, go healthy? We at Tustin city should at minimum ask T -mobile and our own staffs why we should trust that their own (lower class) equipment testing can justify their ridiculous request to build a bigger tower, instead of improving their own technology in RF/wireless design? Isn't this at least unfair for other competitors who invest in R&D rather than PR (or lying around) to get market share? Please feel free to check my technical reference for above comments. Best regards, Xin Wang 10985 Hiskey LN, Tustin, CA 9497355988 Swiontek, Ryan From: John & Kathy Tkach Sent: Wednesday, January To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Re: Sorry to bother you with another email... FW: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! Mr. Ryan Swiontek, This is a REVISED EMAilL - I removed a few sentences from an earlier email, that were upon further questioning on my part found to be too difficult to report as an accurate statement. If you have any questions please reply back to this email. Thanks, JST (Please remove my email address from public viewing and read this email at your next meeting) Ms. Elizabeth Binsack and City of Tustin Planning Commission, I thought this email would benefit the Tustin Planning Commission to know the following information Personally, I haven't made a decision... in favor or against a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. The main reason for my email is to inform you and our city planning commission, not ALL Tustin Ranch residents are "united in opposition to this tower." Out of fear of repercussion, six different residents within my Presidio community, have complained to me, (a Presidio H.O.A. Board member) and asked that I send this email. These six households, are in favor of a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. One resident gave me an example of her fear, which, I witnessed at the last planning commission meeting. A Presidio resident being booed after voicing her opinion, in favor of installing a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. On the www.savecedarQrovepark.org there is a closed poll of the community. 80 total votes: 41 votes (51 °4) against a cell site and 39 votes (4990) in favor of a cell site in the Cedar Grove park. My findings (within the 174 residents of Presidio) are of similar results, the community is basically split 50% in favor and 50% against the installation of a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. If a cell tower is approved, please make sure the tower is well camouflaged. (to blend in with the sounding environment) Lastly: in my opinion, t he emails below are a miss representation of "what a cell tower in the park would look like" and spreading unnecessary fear among the Tustin residents. One email states... "we need to show up in force to tell them we mean business!" This is the voice of a "community organizer" and not that of the Tustin community. My advice to you and the planning commission... Don't allow a couple of "community organizers" to put a stop to whatever you feel is best for the Tustin community. Best regards, John S. Tkach Presidio H.O.A. Board member 12 year Tustin Ranch resident From: John & Kathy Tkach Date: Tue, 18 Jan 201122:56:09 -0800 To: <rswiontek@tustinca.org> Subject: Sorry to bother you with another email... FW: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! (Please remove my email address from public viewing and have this email read at your next meeting) Mr. Ryan Swiontek, I thought this email would benefit you to know the following information. Personally, I haven't made a decision... in favor or against a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park The main reason for my email is to inform you, not ALL Tustin Ranch residents are 'united in opposition to this tower." Out of fear of repercussion, six different residents within my Presidio community, have complained to me, (a Presidio H.O.A. Board member) and asked that I send this email. These six households, are in favor of a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. One resident gave me an example of her fear, which, I witnessed at the last planning commission meeting. A Presidio resident being booed after voicing her opinion, in favor of installing a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. Another Presidio resident, complained that he was being sent repeated spam emails from a Presidio Homeowner Board member. (Sharon Komorous) Ms. Komorous is using an email list that is the property of the Presidio HOA Board, for her personal use, (in opposition of a cell tower) without the permission of the Presidio HOA Board. On this issue, she does not represent the Presidio Homeowners Board's opinion, nor do I. This abuse of the Presidio H.O.A. email list, will be addressed at our next meeting on January 20, 201 1. On the www.savecedargroveoark.org there is a closed poll of the community. 80 total votes: 41 votes (51 00 against a cell site and 39 votes (49%) in favor of a cell site in the Cedar Grove park. My findings (within the 174 residents of Presidio) are of similar results. the community is basically split 50% in favor and 50% against the installation of a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. If a cell tower is approved, please make sure the tower is well camouflaged. (to blend in with the sounding environment) Lastly; in my opinion, 1 he emails below are a miss representation of "what a cell tower in the park would look like' and spreading unnecessary fear among the Tustin residents. One email states... "we need to show up in force to tell them we mean business!" This is the voice of a "community organizer" and not that of the Tustin community. My thoughts are... Don't allow a couple of "community organizers" to put a stop to whatever you feel is best for the Tustin community. Best regards, John S. Tkach Presidio H.O.A. Board member 12 year Tustin Ranch resident From: Sharon Komorous <skomo@cox.net> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 201120:03:29 -0800 To: Sharon Komorous <skomo@cox.net> Subject: FW: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! Dear Friends and Neighbors, Please see the attached photograph and read the message below for an update on thecell tower. Thank you, Sharon Komorous From: Brandon Key[mai&savecedarcirov%yarkPcimail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:22 PM To: savecedargroveparkCcagmail.com Subject: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! For those of you who missed it today, although I don't know how you could have, T -Mobile -ave us a little taste of what a cell tower in the park would look like. They are conducting tests to determine the signal strength from towers located at the park and at the OC Fire Authority. If you feel this type of structure is an abomination in our park, call or email the city today and let them know that this tower doesn't belong in the park! Let them know that. since five other wireless carriers are putting their antennas over at the OC Fire LIthoritV complex, T -Mobile should too! Call the Planning Department: (714) 573-3140 or email Elizabeth Binsack, Chief of Staff at the Planning Commission: ehinsac:k0ri tustinca.c Also: Planning Commission Hearing next Tuesday Jan 2 -5th at 7pm. This may be our last chance to convince the city that we are united in opposition to this tower. T -Mobile may ask for another delay, but we need to show up in force to tell them we mean business! Chcck Out the website for additional info: w w w.savecedarL,rovepark.orQ Thanks! From: Lei Xu [mailto:shellyxu@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:20 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Againest T -mobile tower in Cedar Grove Park Hi, We live in Sedona community which is at other side of the park. and our daughter is a student in PCE. We strongly against to set up the cell phone tower in the park which increase the serious health risk for all residence here, especially the kids. Please really consider our concerns and make T -Mobile to change their set-up location. At least further away from the school. Thanks a lot for your help Shelly Xu, Qiang Ye 2925 Sleeper Ave Tustin, CA 92782 949-232-418 From: Kelly Ren [mailto:kelly_ren@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 5:31 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Re: Fwd: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! Mrs. Binsack, Please DO NOT allow T -Mobile to put the tower in the park. It doesn't belong to the park. If other carriers put the towers in the fire authority, why would T - Mobile make an exception? We don't need T -Mobile to be in the area at all! Thanks for protecting our children. Kelly Ren --- On Wed, 1/19/11, kamokids(@cox.net <kamokidspcox.net> wrote: > From: kamokids@cox.net <kamokids@cox.net> > Subject: Fwd: T -Mobile gives us a taste of what's to come! > Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 2:17 AM Aloha Friends, > Just in case you didn't get this email already. Please see the > attached photo and please email Ms. Binsack asap. Thank you for your > help. > With Aloha, > Gail Kamo > > For those of you who missed it today, although I don't > know how you could > > have, T -Mobile gave us a little taste of what a cell > tower in the park would > > look like. They are conducting tests to > determine the signal strength from > > towers located at the park and at the OC Fire > Authority. > > If you feel this type of structure is an abomination > in our park, call or > > email the city today and let them know that this tower > doesn't belong in the > > park! > > Let them know that, since five other wireless carriers > are putting their > > antennas over at the OC Fire Authority complex, > T -Mobile should too! > > Call the Planning Department: (714) 573-3140 > > or email Elizabeth Binsack, Chief of Staff at the > Planning Commission: > > ebinsack(@tustinca.org > > Also: > > *Planning Commission Hearing next Tuesday Jan 25th at > 7pm.* > > This may be our last chance to convince the city that > we are united in > > opposition to this tower. T-Mobile may ask for > another delay, but we need > > to show up in force to tell them we mean business! > > Check out the website for additional info: > > www.savecedargrovepark.org* > > Thanks! From: Nancy Letson [mailto:nkletson@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:30 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cell Tower As a resident of Tustin Ranch for the past 13 years, I am emailing to register my opposition to a cell tower, T -Mobile or any other carrier, going up in Cedar Grove Park. It will be an eye -sore even if they try to camouflage it. My understanding is that the Orange Count Fire Authority will have cell towers going in on its land. If so many local residents are against a cell tower at the park, why not have T -Mobile join the others on the tax -payer land of the Fire Authority? Why pollute a beautiful park when there is another option? With so much opposition and another option available, it seems clear that phone company equipment does not belong in Cedar Grove Park. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. -Nancy Letson From: Natalie [mailto:n.pohl@westates.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:02 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cell Tower Why would our community want to see a cell tower at Cedar Grove Park, when there are more rural areas in which it could be placed? Try over by the 241 freeway! Natalie Pohl Home owner in Emerson From: Kristie Johansen [mailto:kristiejohansen@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 1:28 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: T -mobile Cell Tower Ms. Binsack, I have recently become aware of T -mobiles request to erect a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. Although science has not concluded that the radio frequency waves emanating from base stations amount to harmful levels for humans and animals, it is a fact that radio frequency waves are harmful to life. 1 have read many studies detailing the relationship between the height of towers and the reduction of radio frequency waves. It seems to me that if harmful radiation is emanating from the base or the tower, then no amount of distance would be safe enough for me to allow my child to be anywhere near it. I have not yet decided whether or not the base stations or towers are harmful. However, as a daughter, a grand -daughter, a sister, a wife, and a mother, do know that I am not willing to test this theory using my family as the subjects. As brilliant as the human race is, there is great room for human error, which at times is considerable. 1 am a huge proponent of business growth, especially technological growth. I do not believe that limits should be imposed on growth. But, where there is an alternative to possible harm, and a reasonable compromise is available and acceptable, it should be pursued. T -mobile has the opportunity to bid for a space more appropriate. Whether it be a higher price for the location, or an upgrade of equipment to rival competitors, it should be done at T -mobile's expense, not the expense of the Tustin community, the horneowners, the children who come from all over Orange County to play at Cedar Grove Park, or the children who attend Peter's Canyon elementary School. T -mobile has a duty to provide for their customers much like the city of Tustin has a duty to provide for their community. The community is in upheaval over the prospects of this tower. The community is fearful for the safety of others and for yet another decrease in home values. Aside from this fear, this community takes great pride in the beauty and aesthetics of our parks and schools. An unsightly cell tower will interfere with the enjoyment of our public areas. Our community is supposed to be a safe place where we gather our friends and families, where we dine, we shop, and we live. If we cannot count on our city to have the best interest of the community over that of big business, we cannot continue to feel this safety. That would be a shame. Please stand up with us and stop T -mobile from putting up an obstacle in our community. Let's stand united, and force T -mobile to do the right thing; keep their cell towers out of residential areas. Thank you. Regards, Kristie Johansen From: vicki.austin@cox.net [mailto:vicki.austin@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 8:22 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cedar Grove Park To. Elizabeth Binsack, Chief of Staff at the Planning Commission I've been a resident of Tustin since 1994, when I moved here to raise my family. I did so to be in a new community where residents looked out for each other. In February 2000, I moved to my current residence, accross from Cedar Grove Park. What a beautiful park. My children have enjoyed playing in the large grassy area and every spring we would fly kites with many other residents. My sister loves bringing her children to stay at my house. And she too has enjoyed playing in the park and I taught her kids how to fly kites. The fact that the City wants to ruin what I and my family have enjoyed over these years is unthinkable. There is no reason that this tower can't be place where the other towers are. Why ruin this beautiful park where families have enjoyed spending time with their children, why put families health risks. Why??? Please, do not allow this. Vicki Austin 11650 Goetting Ave Tustin, CA 92782 714-734-8850 From: kamokids@cox.net [mailto:kamokids@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 10:48 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Save Cedar Grove Park .... NO towers! Aloha Ms. Binsack, We have FOUR children who live and go to school just yards away from the Cedar Grove Park. Today, as I walked my youngest daughter home from school, she literally froze in her steps as we approached the horrid cell phone tower. I cannot understand how anyone would choose to put a dangerous and unsightly cell tower in our beautiful Cedar Grove Park, just yards away from Peters Canyon Elementary and Pioneer Middle School. It is so close to our home that if it were to fall over, it would literally be in our backyard. I strongly encourage you to support the cell towers to be added along with the other five wireless carriers who are putting their antennas over at the OC Fire Authority. I understand this T -mobile will bring a substantial amount of money to our city, but at what costs to the residents? Adding a cell phone tower to our beautiful community when there are viable alternative sights available makes no sense. Thank you for your consideration and understanding. With Aloha, Howard and Gail Kamo From: larry [mailto:lberge@cox.net) Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:42 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cedar Grove To the Planning Commission: Dear Sirs: I am a grandmother who baby-sits and regularly take my Grand Daughter, 17 months old, to the Cedar Grove Park. The newly erected tower is very offensive to the beauty and tranquility of the park. A bigger concern is the long term health effects of the radio frequency to young children. Please consider placing the tower in a less visible location and away from an area where young children frequently play. Rebecca Berge Swiontek, Ryan From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Swiontek, Laurie Ayers [laurieayers@cox.net] Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:05 PM Swiontek, Ryan Proposed Cell Tower - Cedar Grove Park I drove by Cedar Grove Park and was alarmed to see a cell phone tower in the parking lot. I understand T -Mobile is conducting testing of signal strength. I want to express my opinion that Cedar Grove Park is not a location that should be considered for a cell phone tower for the following reasons: Cedar Grove Park is heavily utilized by children and families: • Every weekend the park is used as a venue for family gatherings and parties • Most weekdays the park is used by children for practices (LAX, soccer, etc) • The path behind the park is heavily traveled by children attending both Peters Canyon Elementary and Pioneer Middle Schools daily • On the weekends the path behind the park is used by numerous people (walking, running, biking) on the Mountains to Sea Trail The nark is named for the beautiful grove of Cedar Trees that is part of Tustin's history: Placing a cell tower disguised as a tree would destroy the natural beauty of the park . The integrity of the original grove of Cedar trees would be damaged with the addition of even a new different type of real tree, let alone a fake tree. I understand the need for cell phone coverage in the general area, however Cedar Grove Park is not a good location for a cell phone tower. The Orange County Fire Authority location would be the logical choice for T -Mobile's cell tower. I understand 5 other carriers are placing their antennaes at the OCFA location and this is where T -Mobile should place theirs as well. Thank you so much for your consideration and for saving our beautiful park. Laurie Ayers From: Laurie Ayers [mailto:laurieayers@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:59 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Proposed Cell Phone Tower - Cedar Grove Park Elizabeth, I drove by Cedar Grove Park and was alarmed to see a cell phone tower in the parking lot. I understand T -Mobile is conducting testing of signal strength. I want to express my opinion that Cedar Grove Park is not a location that should be considered for a cell phone tower for the following reasons: Cedar Grove Park is heavily utilized by children and families: • Every weekend the park is used as a venue for family gatherings and parties • Most weekdays the park is used by children for practices (LAX, soccer, etc) • The path behind the park is heavily traveled by children attending both Peters Canyon Elementary and Pioneer Middle Schools daily • On the weekends the path behind the park is used by numerous people (walking, running, biking) on the Mountains to Sea Trail The park is named for the beautiful grove of Cedar Trees that is part of Tustin's history: • Placing a cell tower disguised as a tree would destroy the natural beauty of the park . • The integrity of the original grove of Cedar trees would be damaged with the addition of even a new different type of real tree, let alone a fake tree. I understand the need for cell phone coverage in the general area, however Cedar Grove Park is not a good location for a cell phone tower. The Orange County Fire Authority location would be the logical choice for T -Mobile's cell tower. I understand S other carriers are placing their antennaes at the OCFA location and this is where T - Mobile should place theirs as well. Thank you so much for your consideration and for saving our beautiful park. Laurie Ayers From: Melinda Echeverria [mailto:melindaberge@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:19 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Please reconsider Please, I beg you as a happy taxpaying resident and Mom in Tustin Ranch, I cannot believe the city is even considering such an atrocity in a park by my child's school. I am horrified that I may have to consider leaving this area because of the unknown danger of celltowers. This is a preposterous idea and I have consulted with a colleague who is an engineer in broadcasting to learn that this is NOT a good idea. Why wouldn't the City put the tower where the other carriers are, near the toll road and away from our homes and schools. What a shame to ruin such a wonderful park. I saw the BEAST today being put up/tested and was truly HORRIFIED. I beg you to reconsider such a long lasting and poor decision. Melinda Echeverria From: Suma [mailto:suma_18@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:15 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: T -Moble Towers Dear Ms. Elizabeth Binsack T -mobile cell tower is an abomination in our Park. Our park is for kids and people who live here not for cell phone towers. When there is an alternative to this location i do not understand how they cannot put their cell tower at oc Fire authority complex. I request the city officials to please consider our reasonable request. Thanks From: Tp [mailto:phamtracie@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:58 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: No to T -Mobile at Grove Park Dear Ms. Binsack, My name is Tracie Pham and my family and I live in Tustin Ranch. We are strongly opposed to T -Mobile erecting its cell tower in Grove Park. Regards, Tracie Pham From: Xin Wang [mailto:xinwang98@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:33 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: T-mobile tower in Cedar Grove Dear Elizabeth, I am a resident at 10985 Hiskey LN in Tustin. I am writing to urge you veto the T-mobile proposal of setting up a high tower in Cedar Grove Park. I've read much information related to their proposal as well as vast opposition in the community. As an engineer with over 13 years of RF/wireless design experience, I found it a simply false statement from T-mobile that OCFA can not provide adequate signal strength coverage. However this does not come as a surprise since this is not the first time T- mobile provide false information to me personally. I've purchased their cellular phones at Costco and signed up for their service after seeing their coverage map which shows pure green (meaning excellent signal strength) in my community here at E1 Dorado. I had to return the phone and cancel service the same day since I did not even get any signal bars when I got home. In general, I feel that companies like T-mobile who has notorious inferior technology and credibility does not even deserve a chance to speak to our community, let alone a highly controversial one like this that irradiated so many residents. Please voice our opinions by saying NO to this company. Best regards, Xin Wang 10985 Hiskey LN Tustin, CA 92782 (949) 7355988 Swiontek, Ryan From: Binsack, Elizabeth Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 1:10 PM To: Jennifer Wierks; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Cedar Grove 09-033 continued to February 8? Please confirm M". ViierkS: Mr. Thompson has requested a continuance to the meeting of February 8, 2011. The Planning Commission did continua t,ie itern to the January 25, 2011 meeting so they would formally need to continue the item the night of the meeting. City staff will prepare a one page cover report and attach the applicant's request for continuance. City staff will also send out an e-mail blast and notice to those individuals that we have contact information for letting them know of the request. Please let me know if you have question. I I zab,,th Binsack From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:22 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 continued to February 8? Please confirm Dear Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek: Joe Thompson from T -Mobile just informed me that the Cedar Grove matter has been continued to the February 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Can you please confirm this? Thanks. Jennifer Wierks 714.505.9236 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Uaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 11:22 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 continued to February 8? Please confirm Dear Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek: Joe Thompson from T -Mobile just informed me that the Cedar Grove matter has been continued to the February 8, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Can you please confirm this? Thanks. Jennifer Wierks 714.505.9236 Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com) Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 9:12 AM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David; jthompson @ ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, During the community meeting, I'm sure you've seen the RF propagation maps that our RF engineers created through a computer program called ACCESS. This program is an RF modeling tool that creates a multi -colored map that predicts which areas will be covered and at what signal strength. Although its very accurate and takes into account existing topography, does not take into account existing trees, buildings and other envoronmental factors that could have an impact on intended coverage. As such, we met with the City late last week and asked for a continuance from the January 25th Planning Commission hearing to the February 8th hearing. During this time, we will be performing a more detailed RF test. This test involves placing a trailer at both the Park and OCFA property and raising an antennas mast to the same height as the proposed antennas. Then a team of RF engineers drives each street in the intended coverage area to measure the signal strength. The completed test will result in a map that shows the actual signal strength at each street and is the final word regarding our need for coverage and where a wireless facility must be located to cover that area. Once we receive the results of the test, we will make a final determination at what location will be most appropriate to build our site to serve our valued customers. Please understand that other factors such as lease rate and build costs will be considered as well. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, January 15, 20118:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Another follow up question for you - Heard through the grapevine that it sounds like OCFA/Vista can get you the extra 5 feet (38 feet) and that this second positiun placernent on the one tower is actually higher than 1" position on the 2"`' OCFA tower that will be occupied by Verizon (and Sprint and Metro PCS below it) and that those lower positions all seem to be fine with those carriers. I still can't believe that if a lower position (9 feet lower than the proposed T -Mobile position) can be occupied by Sprint and even lower position by MetroPCS, that T Mobile can't be fine with the much superior position it is being offered. Another S feet for you would be at 38 feet and you said previously you would be fine with 42 feet which was the original 1" position that AT&T has committed to — now we are talking a mere 4 feet difference. Can you please respond to this as well? Thanks. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:00 AM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, You're absolutely correct. The centerline of the antennas at the Park location is 55 -feet (total tree height is 65 -feet). It was a typo on my part and completely my error. I really apologize for the confusion. The difference in elevation between the Park site and the OCFA property is 13 -feet. However, due to trees and topography, still too substantial of an elevation difference for the site to satisfy the coverage objective. Regardless, the top spot on both trees at the OCFA property have been taken. Per the Vista Tower plans (attached), Verizon (top), Sprint (middle) and Metro PCS (bottom) are located on one tree, while AT&T (top), T -Mobile (middle) and Clearwire (bottom) are located on the second tree. I apologize, but cannot comment regarding why AT&T wants both locations or why Verizon has a site on the light pole in addition to a spot on the OCFA property. Even thought both carriers operate on more efficient frequencies, there could be several reasons why they want multiple sites in relatively close proximity. Possibilities include location of underperforming sites in the area they may have resulted from growing trees that block signals or new development that has resulted in increased data use such as text messaging, internet access, and emails. To my knowledge, AT&T has full intention of locating on both properties. Therefore, no application modification is necessary and the Cedar Grove Park tree is still considered a co -location. Regarding spending money for both locations, both AT&T and T -Mobile are spending the money because both have determined the need for a site at each location. As I explained at the community meeting, we do a lot of due diligence before deciding to build a site, especially in areas that may become contentious, but we need to provide our valued customers with the best wireless experience possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:43 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Joe — your email raises a few more questions for me - The Cedar Grove centerline is at 65 feet? I thought the entire tower height was 65 feet — is it even taller than proposed? Can you please clarify? Or is this just a typo? According to my math, and your earlier representations, being that the centerline of Cedar Grove would be at 55' at a 273 foot elevation, and the OCFA 2rd position at 33' at 282 elevation, you are only losing 13 feet, riot 23. If the Vista site can be 5 feet higher, then we are talking 8 feet. But if the Cedar Grove tower is going to be taller than 65' so your centerline can be adjusted, please clarify. Now I know you all have this inferior technology but I am reminded in this conversation that Verizon currently has lightpole installations along Jamboree below the proposed OCFA site which are even a lower elevation than any of this this avid their service is great. I assume they are happy with 3"' or 4"' position. Also, I thought OCFA was going to be 2 towers. Who is occupying the 2r.d tower? 1`T position, 2`1? If AT&T has already made a binding agreement to be at OCFA then are you modifying the application to suit just a single carrier? Is the Cedar Grove site not a "coloration" facility anymore? It does not make any sense that AT&T would spend money for 2 tower positions just 450 yards away from each other (in a residential area) when their superior technology doesn't require it? Then I would ask why build such a giant tower in our beautiful park for just you? I await your reply to my original email as well as the data and studies supporting this whole pursuit. Je;m!f,,,r Wierks From: Thompson, Joe[mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20114:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1— though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then v are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" — again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To:. Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks (mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? Wi You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out SO or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 8:32 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Tustin - Continuance Request Elizabeth, Please continuance request below. From: George Cardenas [mailto:george@cardenaspublicaffairs.com] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 4:54 PM To: Shubin, Pete (Sequoia) Cc: Thompson, Joe Subject: Tustin - Continuance Request Cedar Grove - Continuance Request In the matter concerning Cedar Grove Park, T -Mobile respectfully requests for a continuance from the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 2011 to the meeting of February 8. We request the additional time to adequately prepare responses to questions raised by the Planning Commission, city staff and residents. At the recent Town Hall several residents questioned the accuracy and sensitivity of the RF analysis submitted as part of T -Mobile's application. A comment also made by the Planning Commission. As such, T -Mobile has undertaken the additional step of performing a secondary RF analysis to test the veracity of the information already submitted. A secondary RF analysis is the laborious task of measuring RF signal strengths at the street level and modeling the large volume of data to produce an analysis at a near street by street basis. Moreover, T -Mobile is having the work performed outside the project area to include areas in close proximately. T -Mobile remains committed to responding to the issues and concerns raised during this approval process. In that effort, if there is any additional information we can provide please let us know. Let me know what you think. Also, good work today. Have a great weekend. Kind Regards, George 0 C A R D E N A S QQPUBLIC AFFAIRS m 714.343.7413 / w 562.259.7036 georqe@carden3spublicalfairs.com Swiontek, Ryan From: furniturerep [furniturerep®cox.net] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:35 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Planning commission Dear Ryan and Elizebeth: Can you please forward this letter to the planning commisisoners and acknowledge to me that it has been done. Thank you, David Bessen Dear Planning Commissioners: A cell tower does not belong in our park. Period. Forget about potential home values, forget about potential health concerns. G -d is not building any more land. We have a limited amount of parks. A cell tower does not belong in our park. Look at T -Mobile's website. It says we do not need a new tower. But, for argument's sake, suppose that we do need a tower. Verizon gets perfect coverage with micro sites on Jamboree road at the OCFA, why can't T -Mobile? Does Tustin need to partner with an inferior company that needs to destroy parks instead of using micro sites? I pay about $9,000 a year in property taxes; T -Mobile does not pay one dime in property taxes to support my park. It does pay sales taxes, which helps upkeep our streets, etc., but nothing to support our parks. If this is so important to T -Mobile, why weren't they at the last meeting? They sent their tower builders, but nobody from T -Mobile was there. Regarding both Sequoia and ATS, I personally have left telephone messages for both companies and have not received one return call. Are they the types of companies that Tustin needs to do business with? Do they not care enough about the citizens to return a phone call? Mr. Kozak, you are a COO of a children's organization. Obviously you care about children. Don't you think our children deserve a place to play without having structures and towers? It is right next to a school. Shouldn't kids be able to look out in the park and have unobstructed trees? Mr. Thompson, you have said you are a history buff. This park is over 100 years old. The park was started by James Irvine. James Irvine said if anyone chopped down a tree they were immediately fired. Don't you think we can honor a little history without technology right there? Mr. Moore, you are a land use attorney. The Tustin General Plan, written by the City Council, states: "Important viewsheds in East Tustin, including the Peters Canyon ridgeline, the redwood/cedar grove, the knoll, and theajor tree stands, should be protected from intrusion." When you read this passage, wasn't it clear to you what should be done? I do not even think it takes an attorney to see that the trees should not be intruded upon. The question is, what would a judge and jury decide? Ms. Kasalek, you have been a huge school supporter. I cannot believe you would want a 65' cell tower, the largest in Tustin, to be right next to our schools. Take into consideration what the World Health Organization says; they issued a policy statement stating that base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? Mr. Puckett, after reading about your background and accomplishments, I know you have integrity and character. I think about Paul Harvey's famous quote "integrity counts." He was referred to as the voice of reason. Shouldn't we side on the side of reason? Cell sites have not been around long enough for anyone to say one way or another that they are harmful or not. Shouldn't we have integrity to say no, we do not want a tower of any design in our park? At our last meeting, T-Moblie said they would do a community outreach meeting. I only found out about it after the meeting. They did not try to publicize it to the community. I was informed that only about 10 people showed up. Why wasn't it advertised, and why didn't they email it to the community? Which is a greater number, the 10 that showed up or the more than 500 on our petition? Please deny T -Mobile's application and send T-Moblie back to the drawing board to come up with a different location which will preserve our park. G -d bless our park!!! A cell tower does not belong in our park. Period. Thank you, David Bessen Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks (jaws2@cox.netj Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:35 AM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David; jthompson @ ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe. Another follow up question for you - Heard through the grapevine that it sounds like OCFA/Vista can get you the extra 5 feet (38 feet) and that this second position placement on the one tower is actually higher than 1"t position on the 2"" OCFA tower that will be occupied t)y Vernon (and Sprint and Metro PCS below it) and that those lower positions all seem to be fine with those carriers. I still .n't believe that if a lower position (9 feet lower than the proposed T -Mobile position) can be occupied by Sprint and evon lower position by MetroPCS, that T Mobile can't be fine with the much superior position it is being offered. At 5 feet for you would be at 38 feet and you said previously you would be fine with 42 feet which was the original 1` position that AT&T has committed to — now we are talking a mere 4 feet difference. Can you please respond to this as well? Thanks. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe[mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:00 AM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, You're absolutely correct. The centerline of the antennas at the Park location is 55 -feet (total tree height is 65 -feet). It was a typo on my part and completely my error. I really apologize for the confusion. The difference in elevation between the Park site and the OCFA property is 13 -feet. However, due to trees and topography, still too substantial of an elevation difference for the site to satisfy the coverage objective. Regardless, the top spot on both trees at the OCFA property have been taken. Per the Vista Tower plans (attached), Verizon (top), Sprint (middle) and Metro PCS (bottom) are located on one tree, while AT&T (top), T -Mobile (middle) and Clearwire (bottom) are located on the second tree. I apologize, but cannot comment regarding why AT&T wants both locations or why Verizon has a site on the light pole in addition to a spot on the OCFA property. Even thought both carriers operate on more efficient frequencies, there could be several reasons why they want multiple sites in relatively close proximity. Possibilities include location of underperforming sites in the area they may have resulted from growing trees that block signals or new development that has resulted in increased data use such as text messaging, internet access, and emails. To my knowledge, AT&T has full intention of locating on both properties. Therefore, no application modification is necessary and the Cedar Grove Park tree is still considered a co -location. Regarding spending money for both locations, both AT&T and T -Mobile are spending the money because both have determined the need for a site at each location. As I explained at the community meeting, we do a lot of due diligence before deciding to build a site, especially in areas that may become contentious, but we need to provide our valued customers with the best wireless experience possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:43 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jot' — your email raises a few more questions for me - The Cedar Grove centerline is at 65 feet? I thought the entire ,ower height was 65 feet — is it even taller than proposed? Can you please clarify? Or is this just a typo? According to my rnath, and your earlier representations, being that the centerline of Cedar Grove would be at 55' at a 273 foot elevation, and the OCFA 2"" position at 33' at 282 elevation, you are only losing 13 feet, not 23. If the Vista sit(, can be 5 feet higher, then we are talking 8 feet. But if the Cedar Grove tower is going to be taller than 65' so your centerline can be adjusted, please clarify Now I know you all have this inferior technology but 1 am reminded in this conversation that Verizon currently has lightpole installations along Jamboree below the proposed OCFA site which are even a lower elevation than any of this this and their service is great. I assume they are happy with 3'd or 4"' position. Also, I thought OCFA was going to be 2 towers. Who is occupying the 2"" tower? 1" position, 2""? If AT&T has already made a binding agreement to be at OCFA then are you modifying the application to suit just a single carrier? Is the Cedar Grove site not a "colocation" facility anymore? It does not make any sense that AT&T would spend money for 2 tower positions just 450 yards away from each other (in a residential area) when their superior technology doesn't require it? Then I would ask why build such a giant tower in our beautiful park for just you? I await your reply to my original email as well as the data and studies supporting this whole pursuit. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be fust 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1— though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then we are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" — again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe[mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not – standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)– which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 – why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). 11 I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Ccs Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Robert MacLachlan [robert@vistatowers.net] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:21 PM To: 'BK'; Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: Swiontek, Ryan; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@ctcoc.ocgov.com; tmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? I li M)oth like all involved to know that the OCFA has approved the height of 50 feet on the east tower within the t ti eframes I stated. We still need Irvine Company approval, but they had already approved the site generally, so we believe this will be accomplished within a few weeks. NOTE: OCFA just responded on my request for more information on TIC timeline, and they stated they will be reviewing the issue next week and it should be accomplished before 1-26-11. Additionally, and as everyone is aware from the height of the proposed Cedar Park still being in question, the final arbiter of the height will be the City of Irvine. The carriers will have to justify the height. With that said, given TMO's insistence on the extra height, I can't imagine they will not be able to help provide any justification required. Because the OCFA facility will serve the needs of all six carriers, I believe the City will understand the benefits of creating one, well contained, fairly low tower facility that allows for all foreseeable users as opposed to multiple facilities within the same community. But that is only my opinion based on our meetings with the City. Finally, I just let TMO know that the OCFA has approved the tower at 50 feet to allow their antennas to be at 38 feet, <,nd �% ill await their response — if any at all. Thanks, Robert MacLachlan Vista Towers (714)856-1000 From: BK [mailto:dcpost@cox. net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:35 PM To: ebinsack@tustinca.org Cc: Ryan Swiontek; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? To: Elizabeth Binsack, Tustin Planning Department Jennifer Wierks forwarded me the email today sent out by Joe Thompson in which he states that T -Mobile is not interested in looking at the OCFA site any longer (after pursuing it for just TWO DAYS!) if they cannot get the top spot on the tower. I am writing to request that you please look closely at the one-sided argument he puts forth in an attempt to reject the OCFA site out -of -hand. It T -Mobile had moved over to the OCFA site in December when the top spot was offered to them we would not be in the position we are today. But now that they have missed out on that opportunity because of their stubborn stance on the Cedar Grove Park site they are trying to throw their weight around to get what they want. I hope you see this tactic for what it is, an attempt to bully the city, the public and the other carriers into giving T -Mobile the best of everything. I would urge you and your staff to have an independent analysis done (something that the Planning Commission asked you to do at the December 14th hearing) to determine the coverage created by positioning antennas on the OCFA towers at the various heights available. Or, at the very least, obtain the coverage analysis already performed by the other carriers on the OCFA site. I am sure these maps must exist. The other carriers wouldn't agree to put their antennas on a tower without making sure it would work would they? If you can't get these maps from the other carriers then ask Vista Towers for them. Certainly they would have some analysis available. In Mr. Thompson's email to you he states that AT&T has committed to the OCFA site and is taking the top spot on the towers away from T -Mobile. Well, if AT&T is going to the OCFA site, why would they still need to be on the Cedar Grove Park tower? To listen to Mr. Thompson tell it, AT&T and T -Mobile both want to be in BOTH sites. But is that a realistic need? Can you show me another residential area in all of Orange County in which a single carrier needs so much bandwidth that they must have two cell sites within 450 yards of each other? I have mapped out all of the sites listed in the ATS Wireless Master Plan for the city of Tustin and the only location I can find that comes close is the two Metro PCS installations near the Intersection of the 5 and the 55 freeways where the cell traffic would be much greater than it is in our neighborhood. (Also, one of those is a rooftop antenna - not a full site.) With AT&T now saying they will move to the OCFA site we will be left with the situation that we have five carriers at the OCFA site and one, T -Mobile, at the Cedar Grove Park site. Why should we, as a community, have to shoulder the burden of two cell sites in our neighborhood so close together just because T -Mobile 'claims" that lowering their antennas on the pole a few feet will render their signal totally useless? T -Mobile also claims that the pine trees along Jamboree road will interfere with their signal at the OCFA. How can those few trees be any worse than the 60' high grove of cedar trees that stands between the proposed Cedar Grove Park tower and the surrounding houses? Their arguments are just ludicrous! Let's assume for a moment that T -Mobile's claims are true. I am not an RF engineer and so I can not say for certain what would work, SO LET'S ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW, preferably an independent, third party. Or at the very least, let's ASK VISTA TOWERS OR THE OTHER CARRIERS FOR THEIR ANALYSIS! It is logical to believe that putting an antenna at a lower elevation may reduce the coverage pattern - but can just a few feet really make so much difference? And even if it does not give them the complete coverage they would like, might it give adequate coverage to serve the homes in the area? Thank you for your time and consideration Brandon Key From: Thompson, Joe[mailto:Joe.ThompsonCaT-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:57 AM To: ebinsack(atustinca.org Cc: Dao, Duan; George Cardenas; Gonzales, Jarryd; Jennifer Wierks Subject: OCFA Property Director Binsack, I've been speaking with the Robert MacLachlan, the Vista Towers representative (builder of the OCFA trees) over the past several days in an attempt to abandon the Cedar Grove Park site and co -locate our facility on the OCFA property. As you know, yesterday t had our RF Department take another look at the viability of the OCFA property. After their review they stated they would accept the OCFA property if we could get the top spot on one of the 2 mono -trees they were building. Again, this was based on Mr. MacLachlan's prior commitment that the top spot was available to us. Even though we would lose coverage as compared to the tree proposed for Cedar Grove Park, due to community opposition, we were prepared to make a commitment to build at the OCFA site. When I contacted Mr. MacLachlan to make this commitment, he then stated he had committed the top spot to AT&T and asked if we could take the next spot down on the tree. I ran this lower spot past RF and was advised it would be too low for our wireless site to work. Mr. MacLachlan, through his desperation to fully populate his tree is now stating he can attempt to get approval to raise the OCFA trees from 45 to 50 -feet, but that would involve getting OCFA, Irvine Company and City of Irvine approval, and having the grant deed changed to allow for the new 50 -foot height limit. This process would take several months and I very much doubt these new height approvals can be obtained. Even so, if the trees were approved for 50 -feet, per AT&T they would still take the top spot leaving us with a 38 -foot antenna height; still too low for our site to work. This morning, I even called AT&T myself to see if they would relinquish the top spot, but they stated they are pursuing both that site and the Cedar Grove Park site in order to cover both areas (something we will do as well). As such, they will not give up the top spot. We tried to accommodate the public by attempting to move to the OCFA property, but in order for our site to work, the location we need on the OCFA tree is simply not available. As such, we are no longer pursuing the OCFA property and will continue on through the entitlement process for Cedar Grove Park. Swiontek, Ryan From: Robert MacLachlan [robert@vistatowers.net] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:26 AM To: 'BK'; Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: Swiontek, Ryan; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore @ gallagherandmoore.com Subject: RE: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? Attachments: Plans - OCFA_100%ZD 1-12-11.pdf; photo sim - sim from north copy 1-12-11.PDF; photo situ - sim from south copy 1-12-11.PDF; photo sim - sim from southwest copy 1-12-11.PDF All I know this is all getting a bit strained, but I can only offer my view of the recent events. 1. 1 have been trying to work with T -Mobile for the last couple months to locate them on the OCFA project. I let them know in early December that we would hold the top rad center, but that they would have to notify me sooner versus later as other carriers were asking for that spot. It was clear in every instance that the rad center could only be held for a limited time. 2. On December 27, 2010, 1 emailed Joe and TMO again telling them that unless they joined the OCFA project at that time, the top spot could no longer be held and would be offered to ATT. 3. The top spot was offered to ATT on 12-28 and they accepted. 4. When Joe called on 1-11-11 to discuss the site, we went over the plans and where everyone was located. He asked me if I would ask ATT to move down and I said I would. ATT was at 42 feet centerline. Joe had indicated to me that 42 feet would work and that TMO would commit to the OCFA project to the extent that position was available. I asked ATT in an email, they responded in the evening of that same day saying that they would not move to the lower antenna height. They stated that it had been promised to ATT, so they felt entitled to that spot. S. I then emailed Joe late later that same night and said we had one other option to help mitigate the issue. The City of Irvine will allow 50 feet on the tree with proper justification, so I would ask the OCFA and Irvine Company to allow. I made this request to OCFA and Irvine Company first thing on 1-12-11. This option would allow TMO a centerline height of 38 feet. Four feet lower than what TMO indicated was acceptable. G. Joe and I discussed this option at about 10 or Ilam on 1-12-11. Joe had indicated that he would provide me some time to get the answers, but immediately rejected that option and said TMO would continue at Cedar Park. It appears his email below was sent out immediately after that discussion. 7. 1 indicated in my email that it would be a couple days to a couple weeks to get this answer. In speaking with Joe, I stated that it was possible to hear from OCFA by the end of the week or early next and the Irvine Company within a couple weeks. But stated that it is difficult to make commitments for others. Please remember that OCFA has a good relationship with the Irvine Company, the Irvine Company has already agreed to a deed restriction release on this project, so this requested change is not a new issue. Could it take months? Possibly, but highly unlikely. All they have to do is amend the letter they have already provided to the project allowing for this change. Please see our attached plans and photo rims of the project. The plans have been amended to show a 50 foot tree. As stated above, this is not yet provided in the terms with the OCFA. The photo sims were included, but need to be amended as some live trees have been added. Additionally, the photo sims were ordered last week and arrived yesterday, so they do not pick up the east tower at 50 feet yet. Joe had asked that I write to Elizabeth about this project. Those are the facts as I see them. At current, we could only offer TMO a rad center of 33 feet. We are working to increase that by 5 feet. I could also only offer that the A1.3 page of the plans show that a rad center of 38 feet is actually higher than the top spot on the other tower (because the TIv10 1 tower is almost 6 feet higher at its base) and that Sprint has indicated no issues with being at OCFA at an effective height 1, feet lower than the 38 feet we are trying to get TMO. Thanks, Robert MacLachlan Vista Towers (714) S56-1000 From: BK [mailto:dcpost@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:35 PM To: ebinsack@tustinca.org Ce: Ryan Swiontek; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve.Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore@gallagherandmoore.com Subject: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? To: Elizabeth Binsack, Tustin Planning Department Jennifer Wierks forwarded me the email today sent out by Joe Thompson in which he states that T -Mobile is not interested in looking at the OCFA site any longer (after pursuing it for just TWO DAYS!) if they cannot get the top spot on the tower. I am writing to request that you please look closely at the one-sided argument he puts forth in an attempt to reject the OCFA site out -of -hand. If T -Mobile had moved over to the OCFA site in December when the top spot was offered to them we would not be in the position we are today. But now that they have missed out on that opportunity because of their stubborn stance on the Cedar Grove Park site they are trying to throw their weight around to get what they want. I hope you see this tactic for what it is, an attempt to bully the city, the public and the other carriers into giving T -Mobile the best of everything. I would urge you and your staff to have an independent analysis done (something that the Planning Commission asked you to do at the December 14th hearing) to determine the coverage created by positioning antennas on the OCFA towers at the various heights available. Or, at the very least, obtain the coverage analysis already performed by the other carriers on the OCFA site. I am sure these maps must exist. The other carriers wouldn't agree to put their antennas on a tower without making sure it would work would they? If you can't get these maps from the other carriers then ask Vista Towers for them. Certainly they would have some analysis available. In Mr. Thompson's email to you he states that AT&T has committed to the OCFA site and is taking the top spot on the towers away from T -Mobile. Well, if AT&T is going to the OCFA site, why would they still need to be on the Cedar Grove Park tower? To listen to Mr. Thompson tell it, AT&T and T -Mobile both want to be in BOTH sites. But is that a realistic need? Can you show me another residential area in all of Orange County in which a single carrier needs so much bandwidth that they must have two cell sites within 450 yards of each other? I have mapped out all of the sites listed in the ATS Wireless Master Plan for the city of Tustin and the only location I can find that comes close is the two Metro PCS installations near the Intersection of the 5 and the 55 freeways where the cell traffic would be much greater than it is in our neighborhood. (Also, one of those is a rooftop antenna - not a full site.) With AT&T now saying they will move to the OCFA site we will be left with the situation that we have five carriers at the OCFA site and one, T -Mobile, at the Cedar Grove Park site. Why should we, as a community, have to shoulder the burden of two cell sites in our neighborhood so close together just because T -Mobile "claims" that lowering their antennas on the pole a few feet will render their signal totally useless? T -Mobile also claims that the pine trees along Jamboree road will interfere with their signal at the OCFA. How can those few trees be any worse than the 60' high grove of cedar trees that stands between the proposed Cedar Grove Park tower and the surrounding houses? Their arguments are just ludicrous! Let's assume for a moment that T -Mobile's claims are true. I am not an RF engineer and so I can not say for certain what would work, SO LET'S ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW, preferably an independent, third party. Or at the very least, let's ASK VISTA TOWERS OR THE OTHER CARRIERS FOR THEIR ANALYSIS! It is logical to believe that putting an antenna at a lower elevation may reduce the coverage pattern - but can just a few feet really make so much difference? And even if it does not give them the complete coverage they would like, might it give adequate coverage to serve the homes in the area? Thank you for your time and consideration. -Brandon Key From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thomoson(a)T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:57 AM To: ebinsack@tustinca.org Cc: Dao, Duan; George Cardenas; Gonzales, Jarryd; Jennifer Wierks Subject: OCFA Property Director Binsack, I've been speaking with the Robert MacLachlan, the Vista Towers representative (builder of the OCFA trees) over the past several days in an attempt to abandon the Cedar Grove Park site and co -locate our facility on the OCFA property. As you know, yesterday I had our RF Department take another look at the viability of the OCFA property. After their review they stated they would accept the OCFA property if we could get the top spot on one of the 2 mono -trees they were building. Again, this was based on Mr. MacLachlan's prior commitment that the top spot was available to us. Even though we would lose coverage as compared to the tree proposed for Cedar Grove Park, due to community opposition, we were prepared to make a commitment to build at the OCFA site. When I contacted Mr. MacLachlan to make this commitment, he then stated he had committed the top spot to AT&T and asked if we could take the next spot down on the tree. I ran this lower spot past RF and was advised it would be too low for our wireless site to work. Mr. MacLachlan, through his desperation to fully populate his tree is now stating he can attempt to get approval to raise the OCFA trees from 45 to 50 -feet, but that would involve getting OCFA, Irvine Company and City of Irvine approval, and having the grant deed changed to allow for the new 50 -foot height limit. This process would take several months and I very much doubt these new height approvals can be obtained. Even so, if the trees were approved for 50 -feet, per AT&T they would still take the top spot leaving us with a 38 -foot antenna height; still too low for our site to work. This morning, I even called AT&T myself to see if they would relinquish the top spot, but they stated they are pursuing both that site and the Cedar Grove Park site in order to cover both areas (something we will do as well). As such, they will not give up the top spot. We tried to accommodate the public by attempting to move to the OCFA property, but in order for our site to work, the location we need on the OCFA tree is simply not available. As such, we are no longer pursuing the OCFA property and will continue on through the entitlement process for Cedar Grove Park. Joe Thompson Zoning and Government Affairs Manager T -Mobile USA (949) 350-5376 -TUJIMZDq vlva :olrobd ?Mid NoiiyXl '1J1H5 311il j r7 Snj OilNOKvu0en5 Va Z 4.1d 3Tantli Z► >,1g y;a v170 qk q q qq O N N a(yj{y o 0 0 a a CL Z pT J r O O u �- > m<V Q��O r t ;�b r O / O(x w N 11J Cl)V In W h - W> (n< U�� O _o Z Z Ln a WJ�Q L < -- a :z 'Sm 0 Qz 10 a- Q U Z f= N D ,.. C T i'1 I Tt i ► ' r=, W X � � 1='}S1 �j7 t_ l mmmmmuuu MEMO IBM Imm .1milm-i mmmmm�m NYId inoAvi 3US lwtj3Ao I Plu LID" �1 swan q w �•,=•:•^+�`�� NOISVYU8f15 3MM1 L1 M1B N10 � • • � S iJ31iN�ad Lsw r130 a �fW-�f r -i0 I I e I 3 5 �g wit_ i 4k- or, Q t R � •�i -.wr \� o M - O►Ob JJbpgPI NYId in0AV1 1N3Y1dlnO3 j PI P 1M _ill _ 10Mh 'V15�I1 slp MI ip I i SLJ71iNJav14W'� rC6Vu0BIK 3Vntl1 0 1118 )o i. N 1 .D -I .D -S .D -G .0-.0 .D•S I li,''IL =Ljll in i SNOlvn313 i33road S 1 J 311HO>jv ism' 20926 YO ''115111 suaNN y n� W NOKN108n5 3,ma 21 xis Nld YdJO .D -I .D -S .D -G .0-.0 .D•S I li,''IL =Ljll in i SNOIIVA313 173ro8d s1�31iN�avlsw'� Z ro,swaens 3NIMI e,41d 0 SIAMDO `�� ? .o-.. f .o- r t .0-.c q.o-.c .o- s ii EsMM> RA'ItM blII > EI g -X Z mo NA •g tr "I 9 �f.Z�(�� at�l� "� Y . ply d - j, • J ,T Existing Nfl PARKIMti FIRE LANE � • Proposed r p . w or r - , • it - t T ♦ _ � r r Proposed iiii nAnwauix-- --� Existing, Proposed Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:00 AM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Attachments: Plans - OCFA_100%ZD 1-4-11.pdf Jennifer, You're absolutely correct. The centerline of the antennas at the Park location is 55 -feet (total tree height is 65 -feet). It was a typo on my part and completely my error. I really apologize for the confusion. The difference in elevation between the Park site and the OCFA property is 13 -feet. However, due to trees and topography, still too substantial of an elevation difference for the site to satisfy the coverage objective. Regardless, the top spot on both trees at the OCFA property have been taken. Per the Vista Tower plans (attached), Verizon (top), Sprint (middle) and Metro PCS (bottom) are located on one tree, while AT&T (top), T -Mobile (middle) and Clearwire (bottom) are located on the second tree. I apologize, but cannot comment regarding why AT&T wants both locations or why Verizon has a site on the light pole in addition to a spot on the OCFA property. Even thought both carriers operate on more efficient frequencies, there could be several reasons why they want multiple sites in relatively close proximity. Possibilities include location of underperforming sites in the area they may have resulted from growing trees that block signals or new development that has resulted in increased data use such as text messaging, internet access, and emails. To my knowledge, AT&T has full intention of locating on both properties. Therefore, no application modification is necessary and the Cedar Grove Park tree is still considered a co -location. Regarding spending money for both locations, both AT&T and T -Mobile are spending the money because both have determined the need for a site at each location. As I explained at the community meeting, we do a lot of due diligence before deciding to build a site, especially in areas that may become contentious, but we need to provide our valued customers with the best wireless experience possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:43 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Joe — your email raises a few more questions for me - The Cedar Grove centerline is at 65 feet? I thought the entire tower height was 65 feet — is it even taller than proposed? Can you please clarify? Or is this just a typo? According to my math, and your earlier representations, being that the centerline of Cedar Grove would be at 55' at a 273 foot elevation, and the OCFA 2"`' position at 33' at 282 elevation, you are only losing 13 feet, not 23. If the Vista site can be 5 feet higher, then we are talking 8 feet. But if the Cedar Grove tower is going to be taller than 65' so your centerline can be adjusted, please clarify. Now I know you all have this inferior technology but I am reminded in this conversation that Verizon currently has lightpole installations along Jamboree below the proposed OCFA site which are even a lower elevation than any of this this and their service is great. I assume they are happy with 3" or 4"' position. Also, I thought OCFA was going to be 2 towers. Who is occupying the 2"' tower? 152 position, 2"'? It AT&T has already made a binding agreement to be at OCFA then are you modifying the application to suit just a single carrier? Is the Cedar Grove site not a "colocation" facility anymore? It does not make any sense that AT&T would spend money for 2 tower positions just 450 yards away from each other (in a residential area) when their superior technology doesn't require it? Then I would ask why build such a giant tower in our beautiful park for just you? I await your reply to my original email as well as the data and studies supporting this whole pursuit. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe[mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one. I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1 — though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then wL! are talking a rnere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" — again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20112:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) 'm.'7 YiYO 103f0lld •Nr1d 40IlYJO1 •1331K 31111 Tau LIMI ^) vas,naens w �i VO � sl � Z)av�w' • o _a@ i&= 6�i_i�i Sia N I 7 i=l� _ ;4` ~ ��• � ��-�� ` ~ S U oc �■1£0�; _ ���� < o `a < � 1812 •� �g ; } W I ±�z_` < l Rf W � :Eao i1'!OS- ='1 .1 li -_-- -oea si3 W "T `at�� - G a a T} Ni1p.R i '-1- Hpa'j y',� gY.r� °� a �• u i�y-ye 1.+.33ii3-E■�'yy-$6xx'•q Gia : X54 ' oQTa• Y d o o -.._.. M■ f 49.T:- 7-==¢ T§ a Z a z 0 Q 0 U +r =m o n1 O) Q O N O ~ CO< LLJ^W^'! ` . w W V i y J \ t •� • _Z4-5 CN U V)" �lVo Na O DN;z yori �' 0 < uj_j m 0 m clZ 0 1 CL 0-1 U z N F— .4 S V'�- iaag�ay���tL$ 3 tl C Yom_ 0g3 7 SS 3 g`fgas iff�4�oaaL�aiE o < aEy�,, yygi ;9��ii �p�- • � � 93 xcxc-�:! p a! &��_S �a{� U W v yid Y pp�E aIS 5 rs`ada p� ip� �s �a yyyyy 9b ��i �S ��i.Ca4 a ha nn _ Y7�Y� 4',�8ydy� 'Qada�� SY.,s � S��a���Si�3� i�toto �g7`-�(�= �Y��]iaS■ '�Y�� y� �!!s� �� j�yY�i'Y 7Sy7 �Y��•3 YYy��_.`iu�`�L�tz C��i� o 3 t � ..: �p�1LY��lY��3�l ��Y�i 3�y i1n�'�. Eooa� �71a ip of 1 d s C i - 19 INV ,, �� •is i Se ` Y) ! i e }�f �� �•� �� ��jf 1p�,,f� 7 f •3 L it ] j �ie. yy� � 7� t i�qq +� _ �etpa a °' r 6 c�� !�� d� a �8 i 79 �` 1 \ ON y i i a •� pe _+7 aq w Y �ipJi S i f !ij eli� �i • S ° A-�� - p� ! p � y� •� • %: _ �• 1 0 6j c• py a � � § � . i� Y � ?' Ci: �l!k!•+' �i° s? ;! �'. six, MA0 y ' / � �t�• �� . � z N Y J pit o I t1ty, I bit ilk i f d� 1 ed! jfA ,9 \y IL, Y v R 9CL vp Lz, _ .._ i T ip of 1 d s C i - 19 INV ,, �� •is i Se ` Y) ! i e }�f �� �•� �� ��jf 1p�,,f� 7 f •3 L it ] j �ie. yy� � 7� t i�qq +� _ �etpa a °' r 6 c�� !�� d� a �8 i 79 �` 1 \ ON y i i a •� pe _+7 aq w Y �ipJi S i f !ij eli� �i • S ° A-�� - p� ! p � y� •� • %: _ �• 1 0 6j c• py a � � § � . i� Y � ?' Ci: �l!k!•+' �i° s? ;! �'. six, MA0 y ' / � �t�• �� . � z N Y J pit o I t1ty, I bit ilk i f d� 1 ed! jfA ,9 \y IL, Y v R 9CL vp Lz, _ .._ I pit am _-H.M� NYId InOAYI UIS Tra3AO A 11dam Z09Z6 Y)UM, • LW4 _x= 47AMnS 3WS It xv SIZ)31JHZ)NW.LSVA I--- So 5t ol 44jr All/ NY1d lrrOAWI 1N3Mdln03 Z09Z6 YJ 'wsni wo o wWA Zt )M �N1dS10311KAIV 1 MIrnp IL16M *A� a °al M SN01VA313 1:)3('Oae I M S1-1311HC))4w LE 01 rc015N�fK 30" It yJp�F]4 1 §!V --- E c� 8801 E o o- E c cY fi Et1: n■ 11 -�.� K' n `�' o o,� ,�- Y` "c o� •1:; _'fes } .o -.c �rs� .o-� }.a-cF✓ .o -.c } n■ 11 .,; '.' �.,��ZS:i.�••Tr� .� sC SNO11VA313 133rObl PLU • ZOM S1731 �•L ' 4Z h Nle 0 • NOISYYI)Bf15 31M11 Z1 M19 no LI -- �� !� 7 �a q ail .0-! t .0-f t 0•S t .0-1 t .0-.0 F� Ila � L6 10 Swiontek, Ryan From: BK [dcpost@cox.net) Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:35 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: Swiontek, Ryan; jthompson@ranchomv.com; Steve. Kozak@cfcoc.ocgov.com; fmoore @ gal lagherandmoore.com Subject: T -Mobile - where is the coverage analysis? To: Elizabeth Binsack, Tustin Planning Department Jennifer Wierks forwarded me the email today sent out by Joe Thompson in which he states that T -Mobile is not interested in looking at the OCFA site any longer (after pursuing it for just TWO DAYS!) if they cannot get the top spot on the tower. I am writing to request that you please look closely at the one-sided argument he puts forth in an attempt to reject the OCFA site out -of -hand. If T -Mobile had moved over to the OCFA site in December when the top spot was offered to them we would not be in the position we are today. But now that they have missed out on that opportunity because of their stubborn stance on the Cedar Grove Park site they are trying to throw their weight around to get what they want. I hope you see this tactic for what it is, an attempt to bully the city, the public and the other carriers into giving T -Mobile the best of everything. I would urge you and your staff to have an independent analysis done (something that the Planning Commission asked you to do at the December 14th hearing) to determine the coverage created by positioning antennas on the OCFA towers at the various heights available. Or, at the very least, obtain the coverage analysis already performed by the other carriers on the OCFA site. I am sure these maps must exist. The other carriers wouldn't agree to put their antennas on a tower without making sure it would work would they? If you can't get these maps from the other carriers then ask Vista Towers for them. Certainly they would have some analysis available. In Mr. Thompson's email to you he states that AT&T has committed to the OCFA site and is taking the top spot on the towers away from T -Mobile. Well, if AT&T is going to the OCFA site, why would they still need to be on the Cedar Grove Park tower? To listen to Mr. Thompson tell it, AT&T and T -Mobile both want to be in BOTH sites. But is that a realistic need? Can you show me another residential area in all of Orange County in which a single carrier needs so much bandwidth that they must have two cell sites within 450 yards of each other? I have mapped out all of the sites listed in the ATS Wireless Master Plan for the city of Tustin and the only location I can find that comes close is the two Metro PCS installations near the Intersection of the 5 and the 55 freeways where the cell traffic would be much greater than it is in our neighborhood. (Also, one of those is a rooftop antenna - not a full site.) With AT&T now saying they will move to the OCFA site we will be left with the situation that we have five carriers at the OCFA site and one, T -Mobile, at the Cedar Grove Park site. Why should we, as a community, have to shoulder the burden of two cell sites in our neighborhood so close together just because T -Mobile 'claims" that lowering their antennas on the pole a few feet will render their signal totally useless? T -Mobile also claims that the pine trees along Jamboree road will interfere with their signal at the OCFA. How can those few trees be any worse than the 60' high grove of cedar trees that stands between the proposed Cedar Grove Park tower and the surrounding houses? Their arguments are just ludicrous! Let's assume for a moment that T -Mobile's claims are true. I am not an RF engineer and so I can not say for certain what would work, SO LET'S ASK SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW, preferably an independent, third party. Or at the very least, let's ASK VISTA TOWERS OR THE OTHER CARRIERS FOR THEIR ANALYSIS! It is logical to believe that putting an antenna at a lower elevation may reduce the coverage pattern - but can just a few feet really make so much difference? And even if it does not give them the complete coverage they would like, might it give adequate coverage to serve the homes in the area? Thank you for your time and consideration. -Brandon Key From: Thompson, Joe[maiIto: Joe.Thompson(a)T-Mobile. com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:57 AM To: ebinsackC&tustinca.org Cc: Dao, Duan; George Cardenas; Gonzales, Jarryd; Jennifer Wierks Subject: OCFA Property Director Binsack, I've been speaking with the Robert MacLachlan, the Vista Towers representative (builder of the OCFA trees) over the past several days in an attempt to abandon the Cedar Grove Park site and co -locate our facility on the OCFA property. As you know, yesterday I had our RF Department take another look at the viability of the OCFA property. After their review they stated they would accept the OCFA property if we could get the top spot on one of the 2 mono -trees they were building. Again, this was based on Mr. MacLachlan's prior commitment that the top spot was available to us. Even though we would lose coverage as compared to the tree proposed for Cedar Grove Park, due to community opposition, we were prepared to make a commitment to build at the OCFA site. When I contacted Mr. MacLachlan to make this commitment, he then stated he had committed the top spot to AT&T and asked if we could take the next spot down on the tree. I ran this lower spot past RF and was advised it would be too low for our wireless site to work. Mr. MacLachlan, through his desperation to fully populate his tree is now stating he can attempt to get approval to raise the OCFA trees from 45 to 50 -feet, but that would involve getting OCFA, Irvine Company and City of Irvine approval, and having the grant deed changed to allow for the new 50 -foot height limit. This process would take several months and I very much doubt these new height approvals can be obtained. Even so, if the trees were approved for 50 -feet, per AT&T they would still take the top spot leaving us with a 38 -foot antenna height; still too low for our site to work. This morning, I even called AT&T myself to see if they would relinquish the top spot, but they stated they are pursuing both that site and the Cedar Grove Park site in order to cover both areas (something we will do as well). As such, they will not give up the top spot. We tried to accommodate the public by attempting to move to the OCFA property, but in order for our site to work, the location we need on the OCFA tree is simply not available. As such, we are no longer pursuing the OCFA property and will continue on through the entitlement process for Cedar Grove Park. Joe Thompson Zoning and Government Affairs Manager T -Mobile USA (949) 350-5376 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Daws2@cox.netj Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:43 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jo:: - your email raises a few more questions for me - The Cedar Grove centerline is at 65 feet? I thought the entire tower height was 65 feet - is it even taller than proposed? Can you please clarify? Or is this just a typo? According to my math, and your earlier representations, being that the centerline of Cedar Grove would be at 55' at a )73 fort elevation, and the OCFA 2"" position at 33' at 282 elevation, you are only losing 13 feet, riot 23. If the Vista site can be 5 feet higher, then we are talking 8 feet. But if the Cedar Grove tower is going to be taller than 65' so your centerline can be adjusted, please clarify. Now I know you all have this inferior technology but I am reminded in this conversation that Verizon currently has lightpole installations along Jamboree below the proposed OCFA site which are even a lower elevation than any of this this and their service is great. I assume they are happy with 3" or 4"' position. Also, I thought OCFA was going to be 2 towers. Who is occupying the 2"" tower? 1" position, 2'I If AT&T Inas already made a binding agreement to be at OCFA then are you modifying the application to suit just a single carrier? Is the Cedar Grove site riot a "colocation" facility anymore? It does not make any sense that AT&T would spend money for 2 tower positions just 450 yards away from each other (in a residential area) when their superior technology doesn't require it? Then I would ask why build such a giant tower in our beautiful park for just you? I await your reply to my original email as well as the data and studies supporting this whole pursuit. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20114:49 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one. I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 3n-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you 41 — though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get SO feet if they needed to from ;lie powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to SO feet tall. Of course, then we are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" — again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe[mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was neveravailable as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 20112:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not–standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)– which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 4 Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:49 PM To: Jennifer W ierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I recognize that I need to respond to your first email, but please allow me to quickly respond to this one. I looked at the surveys (completed by California licenced surveyors) for both the Cedar Grove Park site and OCFA site. The elevation above mean sea level for the portion of Park where we are proposing to build our site is 273 feet. The elevation above mean sea level for the OCFA property where the Vista Tower trees are proposed is 282 feet. Therefore, the elevation difference is only 9 feet and not the 30 to 40 feet as you state below. The centerline antenna height at the Park is proposed at 65 -feet. If we took the second position at OCFA, our centerline antenna height would be just 33 -feet. Taking into account the 9 -foot elevation change, we're not talking about a 7 -foot difference, but a 23 -foot difference. Our original intention for the OCFA property is to build a site that will cover the residential neighborhoods to the south. If we used the same site to cover the neighborhoods to the west, we now not only have to shoot our signal over the pine trees along Jamboree and within the neighborhood, but make up for the 9 -feet in elevation change. This is why we cannot accept the second position on the tree proposed for the OCFA property. AT&T has already made a binding application with Vista Towers. They have full legal right to take the top position. As I explained this morning, I went so far as to call my competitor in an effort to have them move from the top spot. They respectfully, but flatly refused. There is nothing else I or T -Mobile can do in this regard. As far as the Vista Towers representative, after speaking with my counterpart at AT&T, we have both come to the conclusion that he has not provided accurate information. I've heard through a few sources that he attended the protest at City Hall and claimed to many of the attendees that he had a solution to this whole issue when in fact, he was only trying to make as much money as he could by fully populating the OCFA trees that he represents. He made several claims to me that the top spot on the tree was reserved for T -Mobile, yet when I was ready to commit, the top spot was not available, but was trying to talk me into accepting the second position. Now he claims he can get the tree higher. The City of Irvine has advised the OCFA property is zoned to allow for a 50 -foot height. The OCFA or the Irvine Company, however, has not yet approved this height and it could take months for them to do this if at all. The bottom line is that even if the tree was elevated to 50 -feet, the second spot is still to low for T -Mobile. As I stated to you during the community meeting, the other carriers operate at a more efficient frequency and can, therefore, broadcast from further away. Further, since most of the other wireless carriers are much older than T -Mobile (we entered the Los Angeles market in the fall of 2005), their networks ended up on more efficient locations. I can explain to you why we need a site where we need a site, but you would have to contact the other wireless carriers to have them better explain how their networks have evolved. I hope this responds to your questions and comments. please let me know if you have further questions. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 20112:45 PM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is at the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1 — though it seems reasonable to me that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vita Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then we aye talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" — again, not sure what separate areas ellen site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I understand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe[mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 3 You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc. Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Uaws2@cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:45 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Wow. This is all really difficult for me to understand. 7 feet makes or breaks it for you at OCFA? Even though OCFA is it the 30-40 feet higher elevation than the park? I am sorry Vista is not putting you #1 — though it seems reasonable to rile that Vista would give preference to the companies that were serious about the project and who committed — doesn't seem like you all have taken that site seriously up until yesterday. I look forward to seeing your RF report that explains how the 7 feet is an all or nothing point for you. Vista Towers represented to us at the site walk through in November that they could easily get 50 feet if they needed to from the powers that be. Something to the effect that the site had been approved up to 50 feet tall. Of course, then ,ve are talking a mere 2 feet. You indicated AT&T is pursuing both locations so they can cover "both areas" — again, not sure what separate areas each site will exclusively cover. Seems like they would serve pretty much the same area. I ,;nderstand the other carriers have completed their coverage analysis of the OCFA property as well - I would be interested in seeing how/why the OCFA seems to work for them but not for you. I look forward to your reply soon. Thanks for keeping me posted. Jennifer Wierks From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:15 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I just copied you on an email that I sent to the Planning Director advising we will continue to pursue the Cedar Grove Park site. In an effort to accommodate you and the public, I sincerely tried to move our cell site to the OCFA property, but the spot on the tree that the Vista Towers representative initially told us was available was never available as AT&T has taken that spot. The Planning Director is asking that we place stakes in the park so the Planning Commission can get a feel for how big the equipment shelter and tree will be. She suggested we continue our entitlement to either January 25th or February 8th in order to allow the Planning Commission the time to see the staking plan at the park. Because we have now begrudgingly given up on the OCFA property, I will again work on providing the answers to the questions you posed in your previous email. Please give me a couple of days to respond. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Thompson, Joe Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site — can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site — was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Doug Polett [dougpolett@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:43 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: dspolett @ aol.com Subject: Cell Tower proposal for Cedar Grove Park Mr. Ryan Swiontek Ms. Elizabeth Binsack Dear Mr. Swiontek and Ms. Binsack: I am a resident of Tustin Ranch in the Sedona development directly across the street from Cedar Grove Park. I have a concern in regard to the proposed T-Mobile/AT&T cell tower which may not have been addressed to this point. If the cell tower plans gain approval from the city, beyond the loss of park ground for public use, the 7' high masonry wall to be built around the ground equipment is totally inadequate for two important reasons. First, the drawings on display at the T -Mobile open house last week fail to show proper ground elevations. The elevation at the northern end of the park, close to Peter's Canyon Elementary School, according to my estimate is at least 7 to 10 feet higher than the elevation where the equipment is to be located. Anyone walking the park path or using the northern end of the park will be looking down on all the equipment behind the wall. When I mentioned this to the representative from AT&T, he said they could just build the wall higher, which would make this structure even more obvious, and more of an eyesore. As far as trash and leaves accumulating inside, he said they could just put chain link fencing across the top, a further eyesore. Secondly, this is a beautiful architecturally landscaped public park, not a green field location, or a back alley industrial site. The cell phone companies do not seem to be offering anything more than a 7' industrial wall and some greenery around their equipment, which is a total travesty to the design of the park. In the Sedona development across the street from the park, a resident can't even paint their house without selecting colors from a pre -approved list. I am concerned that if the cell tower proposal is accepted, against the will of many local people who live nearby and use the park, that T - Mobile and AT&T will proceed according to the existing plan, and we as a community will have failed to demand that these companies build a ground structure which is in keeping with the design of the existing building in the park. The building I am referring to is the rest room facility which is of stucco on masonry wall construction, includes decorative glass block accents, a metal security door of geometric design, and a terra cotta roof. I was told by one of the company representatives at the open house that T-Mobile/AT&T could build a roof over their equipment if required, but it would also necessitate the company to provide air conditioning to the interior for temperature control. They of course would like to avoid having to undertake this extra cost. I argue that there is, and should be, a higher cost to locate industrial equipment within a public area, as opposed to a commercial or industrial site. I sincerely hope that you will give my concerns raised herein, and the many others raised by local residents, the consideration they deserve. I ask you to please forward my email to the planning commission. Thank you. Sincerely, Doug Polett 2890 Schwendeman Ave. Tustin, CA 92782 714-417-9605 Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks oaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: FW: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 3:17 PM To: 'Thompson, Joe' Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Thanks for keeping me updated. I would just remind you that although the OCFA towers are only 45', the OCFA property is at a much higher elevation than the CG site. If I remember correctly, I want to say 30-40 feet higher elevation. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Jennifer From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? 5. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not – standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)– which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out SO or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:48 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've not forgotten about responding to your email, but have a meeting this afternoon to further discuss the OCFA property. Our concern is that the 2 towers (disguised as trees) which the OCFA approved will only have a total height of 45 -feet each (with antenna height at 42 -feet). Our proposed antenna height at Cedar Grove Park, however, is 55 -feet. To further complicate the mix, even though there is only 400 yards between the Park and OCFA site, there are many tall pine trees between the two properties that degrade the RF signal. This is the primary reason we chose Cedar Grove Park in the first place. I am, however, trying to convince the powers that be that we should table (not withdraw) the Cedar Grove Park application for now and build the OCFA site. If the OCFA site performs then we can back away from the Park. If it doesnt perform, then it only strengthens our argument to continue on at Cedar Grove Park. I will let you know my progress as soon as possible. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net) Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site — can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site — was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? S. Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Thompson, Joe [Joe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 1:33 PM To: Jennifer Wierks Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: RE: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Jennifer, I've directed my senior RF engineer to respond to your first 3 questions, but with other issues he's had to deal with today, it doesn't look like he'll be able to respond until early next week. Please believe me when I say that replying to your questions is one of my highest priorities and I intend to do so as soon as I have all the information. Thank you for your patience as I should be able to respond no later than Tuesday morning. You now have my email and direct mobile number so if any questions arise in the interim, please contact me. Thanks From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 20116:35 AM To: Thompson, Joe Cc: ebinsack@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe: Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: 1. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site — can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site — was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? 6. Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. 7. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks (jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 6:35 AM To: joe.thompson@t-mobile.com Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; Biggs, David Subject: Follow up from "Open House" re proposed 65' Cedar Grove tower Hi Joe Thank you for offering to follow up with information that was lacking at the open house community meeting last night. Although there were several employees of Sequoia present, I believe you were the sole T -Mobile representative at the meeting to provide answers to some of our questions. Sequoia was well versed and able to answer many of my questions concerning the appearance and installation of the proposed tower. They also provided me the location of a couple of other towers in the area to look at to get a general idea of what the proposed tower might look like (albeit a fake pine and fake eucalyptus of differing heights). However as to matters concerning T -Mobile's capabilities and limitations, coverage, selection and pursuit of this site, I was directed to your table. Unfortunately, you indicated you had a lack of data and information with you to truly respond to many of our questions. Here are the questions I had that you offered to respond to with specific data and material that you did not have access to at the meeting: I. How many potential and actual residential customers will this proposed tower serve? How many in car customers will this tower serve? How is this number determined? How many T—Mobile customers do you currently serve that reside in this area? This site is obviously of great importance to us. I would like to get a better understanding of why it is important to T -Mobile. This is basic information that I assumed would be readily available at the meeting. 2. You indicated that T -Mobile wants to have BOTH the tower in Cedar Grove AND antennas at the OCFA towers because the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". However, you also said last night that contrary to what you heard the private OCFA tower salesperson/rep may be professing (as well as your RF report submitted to the Planning Commission and claims made by Sequoia) that T -Mobile antennas would not work effectively at the OCFA site. I am a little confused. How many of these same customers will the OCFA towers (which you also intend to utilize) serve? You indicated the OCFA towers would serve "other areas". What "other areas" will your antennas at the OCFA serve? You claimed you did not know but threw out that possibly it would be for the toll roads. However, Verizon, AT&T, Vista Towers, and the T-Mobile/Coastal Business Group guy sent out to the OCFA site inspection in November all told me that the OCFA Towers would not reach the toll roads because of the berm backing the property and that there were additional towers along the toll roads that served that purpose. So, what exactly are these "other areas" and what is the need and gaps for these areas? 3. You indicated your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site – can you please provide a copy of that. Also, the map you provided at the open house indicated the wrong location for the OCFA site – was the RF analysis done under the pretense of this incorrect location or the actual sited location? Do you have a coverage analysis for the accurate OCFA location? 4. You acknowledged the discrepancy between the coverage maps submitted to the city and on display last night (which indicate poor coverage) and the coverage maps on your website that represent coverage to the buying public that you have "good to excellent" coverage and said "we are fixing that". I understand that this discrepancy occurs not infrequently and has been uncovered on numerous occasions in these local cell tower battles. Why does such a discrepancy exist and how does that happen? How long will it take to fix? How do the consumer maps work and do they rely on different data than your engineers rely on when identifying areas in need of improvement? Much of the emerging scientific data suggests that children may be particularly vulnerable to the health risks associated with continuous exposure to low emission RF frequencies. Until whether conclusive evidence is established that reveals whether indeed a correlation exists between this exposure and potential health risks, many in both the scientific community and government agencies advocate taking a Precautionary Approach (including the President's Cancer Panel in May 2010), in siting these towers near playgrounds and elementary schools. In other words, to not place them near areas where children frequent until we know more because the consensus agrees not enough research has been done. Even the World Health Organization, which you all have cited on numerous occasions, has given a policy statement that siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds should be given special consideration. Why should we ignore Precautionary Principles in this particular case? Why hasn't T -Mobile adopted a public interest policy in this regard? You indicated it did not — standing behind a mob mentality (none of the other carriers do)— which I find incredible in this day and age of global moral responsibility on the part of private business. Sequoia and T -Mobile indicated last night that T -Mobile's technology is inferior to the other large carriers and thus it requires more towers to replicate the same type of saturation and coverage enjoyed by the other big 2 — why should our community have to shoulder additional equipment, land use and burden because of T -Mobile's inferior technology? (I realize that this is a larger question but to the limited extent you can reply, I would appreciate the T -Mobile response). I understand that you professed to be ill versed on a lot of these issues and that you even claimed you had not encountered some of them before. You even went so far as to claim you were unaware of a lot of the local fights going on all throughout this country regarding placement of your towers in residential communities and parks (Huntington Beach excluded — it sounded like you were very much involved in that action) and claimed ignorance of the existence of information widely available on the Internet regarding potential health concerns and property value implications. I realize that you are "just a Government Affairs person". But to the extent you can answer and/or direct my questions to a T -Mobile representative who can answer my questions I depend on you as the only T -Mobile representative who was present or who has offered to help answer some of our questions. As I told you last night, our emails to T -Mobile have gone unanswered. I appreciate the time and effort taken to put into attending last night's meeting. It is unfortunate that Sequoia and T - Mobile only sent out 50 or 60 postcards (you had assumed it was "hundreds") advertising the event and that you did not attempt to conduct any further public outreach or advertising for the event. Indeed, 2 others who attended last night were there only because I told them of the event after I realized they were unaware of its details. I look forward to your speedy reply. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks (jaws2@cox.net) Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 7:05 AM To: paul.gerst@sequoia-ds.com Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: T-Mobile/Cedar Grove tower Attachments: Resource summary.docx Hi Paul: Thanks again for spending so much time with me last night — I appreciated the information and look forward to going over the packet you gave me. As we discussed, there is just so much information out there on the Internet it is burdensome to attempt to filter through what is reliable and what is not regarding the radiation RF and EMF issues. I appreciate the comparisons you had to microwave, cordless phones, cellular handsets, wifi, and all the other sources of RF frequencies that we are exposed to on a daily basis. Again, I have a hard time with the analogies because to a large extent I see them as apples and oranges when talking about the vulnerability to children and others — these are transient devices used for short bursts of time compared to a continuous, unending (abeit lower dose) RF. Of course, we personally assume the risk when we use these personal devices as opposed to a risk being thrust upon us by a private company building a tower next to our homes. I was intrigued by your analogy to UHF towers though and I am interested in looking more into that. That is why I agree with the growing scientific and government consensus that until more research is done, a precautionary approach as to placement of sites near schools and playgrounds needs to be adopted. Putting these factors aside, I am still opposed to the placement of the tower in our community park because it just simply has no place in our park. Our park is beautiful, rustic and has historical significance. Installation of this tower will marr the scenic beauty and denigrate its history. I am also concerned about potential safety issues and fire risk. In addition, I am concerned about it affecting my property values and pool of potential buyers should I wish to move from this area. Even the ATS Communications rep said it would affect it by 2%. To the extent you argue this data is inconclusive as well, I suggest a precautionary approach be taken for this consideration too! Let's not do it until we know better! Anyway, here is that compilation of references regarding the necessity of further research on RF affects and the Precautionary Principle that I mentioned I came across (on the Internet) that you were interested in looking at. Just one of many, many things that are available to peruse. I think it was really helpful that you put together your own packet of information from various sources and I appreciate the time and effort you spent on that. Sincerely, Jennifer Wierks Cc: Tustin Planning Commission (Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek — please forward to the PC by copy of this email — thank you) Resource Summary Healmy Schools Network "Brief of Healthy Schools Network Inc. As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner" (Sept. 2006). On petition for .vrite of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Questions Addressed by Brief: (Please click on the link below and read the brief) - Should the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC';, in launching a major new program that will risk biological harm to vulnerable children, be able to continue to ignore the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requirement that an environmental impact statement ("EIS' be prepared for all major governmental undertakings simply because scientific warnings of health hazards have not reached the stage of definitively establishing harm to humans? - Should the FCC be excused from performing an NEPA mandated EIS just because a multitude of ad hoc licensing and site - Specific reviews are available, as the so called "functional equivalent" of an EIS, which (a) impose new costs on local citizens and governments, (b) are dependant on challenges by potential victims who most often would not know of the risk, and (c) would be based on the scientifically questionable assumption that no biological harm is being caused by long term radio- frequency ("RF") radiation until the certainty of harm is definitively established? LINK: ��ULp:;,www.anlennaireeunion.org;healthy_ schools amicus.pdf The EMR Policy Institute According to the EMR Policy Institute, 1500 feet is an internationally recognized precautionary standard for the distance between a cell tower/antenna site and a school, playground, daycare center or other childcare facility. LINK: http:;/4vwvv.emrpolicy.org;public_policy/siting_zoning/tool_box.pdf (see page 1) World Health Organization (WHO) World Health Organization (WHO) fact sheet: Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health: Mobile Telephones and Their Base Stations. In the fad sheet, the WHO cautions: "Siting base stations near kindergartens, schools and playgrounds may need special consideration." LINK: http:,I/v4ww.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs3O4/en/ OR search in the WHO website for Electromagnetic fields and public health (look under "Conclusions and Recommendations" — 2ND to last paragraph): European Parliament In 2009, the European Parliament voted to recommend precautions be taken to protect human health with regard to wireless technologies, such as mobile phones, Wi-Fi/Wi-Max, Bluetooth, DECT portable phones and cell towers. Below are a few excerpts from "European Parliament resolution of 2 April 2009 on health concerns associated with electromagnetic fields": "E. whereas the fact that the scientific community has reached no definite conclusions has not prevented some national or regional governments, in China, Switzerland, and Russia, as well as in at least nine EU Member States, from setting what are termed "preventive" exposure limits, that is to say, lower than those advocated by the Commission and its independent scientific committee, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks(7) ," "H. whereas, however, there are some points that appear to be the subject of general agreement, in particular the idea that reactions to microwave exposure vary from one person to another, the need, as a matter of priority, to conduct exposure tests under actual conditions in order to assess the non -thermal effects associated with radio-frequency (RF) fields, and the fact that children exposed to EMFs are especially vulnerable(9) ," "8. Considers that, given the increasing numbers of legal actions and measures by public authorities having the effect of a moratorium on the installation of new EMF -transmitting equipment, it is in the general interest to encourage solutions based on negotiations involving industry stakeholders, public authorities, military authorities and residents" associations to determine the criteria for setting up new GSM antennas or high-voltage power lines, and to ensure at least that schools, creches, retirement homes, and health care institutions are kept clear, within a specific distance determined by scientific criteria, of facilities of this type;" "19. Calls on the Commission and Member States to increase research and development funding for the evaluation of potential long-term adverse effects of mobile telephony radio frequencies; calls also for an increase in public calls for proposals for investigation of the harmful effects of multiple exposure to different sources of EMFs, particularly where children are concerned;" LINK: http:;' www.europarl.eu,opa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-0/o2F',o2FEP�,62F°o2FTEXTTTA+PS-TA-2009- 0216+0+DOC+XML+VO °io2 F%2FEN Resource Summary Children's Environmental Health Network ("The Voice in Washington for Children's Environmental Health's In their 2008 Annual Report (their most recent annual report), CEHN states that they spoke out in support of policies to protect children, including "Joining other organizations in urging the relevant Federal health agencies to address the scientific uncertainties about long-term exposures to electromagnetic radiation emanating from cell phones and antenna base stations, wireless internet, TV and FM broadcast towers, radar and power lines, through an improved research strategy". LINK: http:,';'wwvj.cehn.org/cehn/2008-Annual-CERN-report.pdf Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE) Chair of CHE: Philip R. Lee, MD, Former United States Assistant Secretary of Health, Chancellor of the University of California at San Francisco, Professor at Stanford University. CHE's Working Group on Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) is a diverse international gathering of more than 170 health professionals, scientists, and concerned individuals from the U.S. and 17 other countries. The goals of this working group include: 1. Discussing emerging science that links EMF exposure with health effects, 2. Bringing this science to the attention of CHE Partners and the public, and 3. Exploring research and policy opportunities that CHE Partners may be interested in working on either individually or collectively. The link below provides useful resources: - Fact Sheet on Radiation and Cancer: This fact sheet addresses the health effects associated with EMF, specifically ELF (the power grid and electrical appliances) and RF (cellular technology). While the fact sheet addresses cell phones, it does not specifically address cell base stations. Nevertheless, it provides a very useful and thoughtful summary of the EMF issue. (Click on link below, scroll down to "Resources" and click on the 11th item on the list, "Radiation and Cancer — New In - Depth PDF Fact Sheet) - CHE's website includes links to a number of studies that are relevant to cell base stations (some of which are contained in this table). (Click on link below and scroll down to "Resources' LINK: http://www.healtharidenvironrnent.org/working groups/emf San Francisco Board of Supervisors (the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted the precautionary principle in 2003 — we feel the precautionary principal should be applied to the issue of cell base stations near schools) In 2003, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors adopted a municipal code on the precautionary principle. The precautionary principal policy statement includes the following text (see link for more information): "The following shall constitute the City and County of San Francisco's Precautionary Principle policy. All officers, boards, commission, and departments of the City and County shall implement the Precautionary Principle in conducting the City and County's affairs: - The Precautionary Principle requires a thorough exploration and a careful analysis of a wide range of alternatives. Based on the best available science, the Precautionary Principle requires the selection of the alternative that presents the least potential threat to human health and the City's natural systems. Public participation and an open and transparent decision making process are critical to finding and selecting alternatives. - Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone cost effective measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Any gaps in scientific data uncovered by the examination of alternatives will provide a guidepost for future research, but will not prevent the City from taking protective action. As new scientific data become available, the City will review its decisions and make adjustments when warranted. - Where there are reasonable grounds for concern, the precautionary approach to decision-making is meant to help reduce harm by triggering a process to select the least potential threat. The key elements of the Precautionary Principle approach to decision-making include:....." LINK: http:/;hbrary.nurnicode.corn/index.aspx?clientld=14134&stateld=S&stateName=California LINK: http:!,,'articles.sfgate.com/2003-06-19/opiriion/17497033 1_. sustainable -energy -air -pollution -public-health Concerns Expressed by Federal Agencies about the Inadequacy of the FCC's RF Exposure Guidelines Resource Summary Norbert Hankin, Center for Risk Assessment Radiation Protection Division, US Environental Protection Agency Letter (2002) from EPA's Norbert Hankin, Center for Risk Assessment Radiation Protection Division, to Janet Newton, then President of The EMR Network, stating that the current FCC RF exposure guidelines do not adequately treat nonthermal, prolonged exposures to RF radiation. LINK: http://www.emrpolicy.org/faq/noi_epa_response.pdf Grogory Lotz of the National Institute of Occupational Health & Safety (NIOSH) on behalf of the US Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (a government work group) Letter (1999) written on behalf of the federal Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG) by W. Gregory Lotz of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to Richard Tell, Chairman of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) subcommittee for RF safety. FCC looks to IEEE for primary input onRF safety standards. The letter outlines 14 issues that the federal health agencies find in the IEEE exposure scheme, LINK: http:!;www.crnrpoIicy.org/faq,/exhibit a.pdf FYI: According to the Noe Valley Voice (October 1997): "Cincinnati biophysicist W. Gregory Lotz told the Cincinnati Enquirer in August [1997] that he believes cellular phone towers should not be built close to schools or other places where children gather. Lotz is chief of physical agents at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 'To err on the side of caution, you would not put them on school grounds,' Lotz is quoted as saying. 'I can't assure [parents] we aren't going to find something 10 years from now that we don't know now. It's a matter of making a decision on limited research and scientific information.' LINK: 1,,ttp:!,"www.noevalleyvoice.com/1997/Octoberi'pacbelu.htryil LINK: See text above for relevant links. US Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (RFIAWG) RFIAWG is a group of federal agency staff representatives that considers the issue of wireless safety for the public. It is made up of representatives from the US government's National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the National Telecommunication and Information Administration, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). More than a decade ago, the RFIAWG concluded that "existing public safety limits may not protect public health" with respect to pulsed radiofrequency of this type. On June 17, 1999, the RFIAWG issued a Guidelines Statement that concluded the present RF standard "may not adequately protect the public". The RFIAWG identified fourteen (14) issues that they believe are needed in the planned revisions of ANSI/IEEE RF exposure guidelines including "to provide a strong and credible rationale to support RF exposure guidelines". In particular, the RFIAWG criticized the existing standards as not taking into account chronic, as opposed to acute exposures, modulated or pulsed radiation (digital or pulsed RF is proposed at this site), time -averaged measurements that may erase the unique characteristics of an intensity -modulated RF radiation that may be responsible for reported biologic effects, and stated the need for a comprehensive review of long-term, low-level exposure studies, neurological -behavioral effects and micronucleus assay studies (showing genetic damage from low-level RF). The areas of improvement where changes are needed include: a) selection of an adverse effect level for chronic exposures not based on tissue heating and considering modulation effects; b) recognition of different safety criteria for acute and chronic exposures at non -thermal or low -intensity levels; c) recognition of deficiencies in using time -averaged measurements of RF that does not differentiate between intensity -modulated RF and continuous wave (CW) exposure, and therefore may not adequately protect the public. LINK: http:,!,!www,einrpolicy.org/Iitigation/case- law/docs/exhibit a.pdf Cellular Telecommunications Industry's Successful Efforts to Curb Local Authorities' Power to Influence Antenna Siting Resource Summary Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) July 11, 2008 - The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), a trade association of the wireless industry in the US, petitioned the FCC to declare new limitations on local zoning authority as it affects antenna siting. This is the reason why local authorities cannot limit antenna siting based on health concerns. LINK: 1,,ttp://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/`document/view?id=6520038471 The EMR Policy Institute September 28, 2008 - The EMR Policy Institute's Comment and Cross Petition in opposition to the above petition by CTIA to the FCC. LINK: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520172536 Study Commissioned By T -Mobile The U.K.'s "The Sunday Times" published an article (April 15, 2007) that claims that an extensive research study commission by T -Mobile was hidden when the researchers concluded that cell handsets and cell base stations contribute to cancer and genetic damage. The following is an excerpt from the commissioned study: "Exposure From Base Stations (p. 37): In human, harmful organic effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields as used by mobile telecommunications have been demonstrated for power fluxensities from 0.2W/n2 (See Chapter 7). Already at values of 0.1 W/m2 such effects cannot be excluded. If a security factor of 10 is applied to this value, as it is applied by ICNIRP and appears appropriate given the current knowledge, the precautionary limit should be 0.01 W/m2. This should be rigorously adhered to by all base stations near sensitive places such as residential areas, schools, nurseries, playgrounds, hospitals and all other place at which humans are present for longer than 4 hours." LINK to article: http:/itechnology.timesonIine.co.uk/tol/news/tech and weblpersonal tech;'article1655012.ece LINK to research study: http:/;'www.hese-project.org/hese-uk,teril niemr/ecologsum.php Relevant Research Studies and Statements From Scientists, Scientific Bodies, Voluntary Health Organizations Useful Terminology Regarding Scientific Studies: There are two major categories of studies are used by scientists to assess health impacts of radiofrequency radiation: epidemiological studies and laboratory studies. Epidemiological studies, sometimes called human health studies, investigate the associations between health effects and the characteristics of people and their environment. Laboratory studies, which can include studies on animals, biological tissue samples, isolated cells, or human volunteers, are used to try to determine a causal relationship between a risk factor and human health, and the mechanism through which that relationship occurs. Epidemiological studies, by nature, have certain limitations. They are not good at detecting increases in risks that are small, and they generally cannot, on their own, demonstrate a cause -and -effect relationship. In addition, because mobile phones have been in widespread use for only a few years, epidemiological studies have limited value in providing information about a possible association with cancers that may have long latency periods. Laboratory studies have been conducted to try to determine the effect of radiofrequency emissions on individual human or animal cells, on laboratory animals, or on human test subjects. Studies testing individual cells have exposed samples of human or animal cells to radiofrequency emissions over a range of dose rates, durations, and conditions, and then examined the cells to try to detect any changes. Resource Summary National Research Council (National Academies, includes National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, and National Academy of Engineering) National Research Council Report (2008): "Identification of Research Needs Relating to Potential Biological or Adverse Health Effects of Wireless Communication " The U.S. Food and Drug Administration asked the National Research Council (NRC) to convene experts to identify research needs and gaps in knowledge about potential health risks of long-term exposure to RF energy from cell phones, cell towers, television towers, and other components of our communications system. In the NRC's Report (pg 2), on the top of the list of needs/gaps was "characterization of exposures from wireless devices and radiofrequency base station antennas in juveniles, children, fetuses, and pregnant women". Second on the list was "Characterization of radiated electromagnetic fields for typical multiple -element base station antennas and exposures to affected individuals." [Continued on next page] Resource Summary CONT'D: National Research Council The NRC's Report (pgs 11-12) identifies the following issues as not being covered by existing research and therefore are not addressed in current RF safety policy: • Are there differences in health effects of short-term vs. long-term exposure? • Are there differences between local vs. whole-body exposures? • Can the knowledge of biological effects from current signal types and exposure patterns be extrapolated to emerging exposure scenarios? • Are there any biological effects that are not caused by an increase in tissue temperature (nonthermal effects)? • Does RF exposure alter (synergize, antagonize, or potentiate) the biological effects of other chemical or physical agents? • Are there differences in risk to children? • Are there differences in risk to other subpopulations such as the elderly and individuals with underlying disease states? The NRC's Report (pg 17), includes the following statement on "Laboratory Exposure Systems": "Most of the present-day exposure systems used in laboratory studies focus on the exposure of the head. Though exposures to the head are relevant for most cell phone exposures, whole-body exposures due to base stations are a research need. The laboratory exposure systems also need to include ELF and pertinent modulation protocols." LINK: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12036.htmI President's Cancer Panel titay 2010 On May 7, 2010, the President's Cancer Panel issued its 2008-2009 Annual Report. Below are relevant excerpts from the report. Radiofrequency Radiation: Pg 58: "Considerable disagreement exists within the scientific community regarding potential harm due to RF exposure from cellular phones and other wireless devices, and many of the available studies have been interpreted quite differently by researchers on both sides of the issue. As one speaker noted, data on the long-term use of newer equipment still are relatively sparse, and it may be several years before enough data accumulate to reach informed conclusions about the harm cell phones, cell phone towers, and other wireless devices/ networks may cause." Pgs 58-59: "Thus, while considerable research has been conducted on cancer risk due to RF from cell phones, cell phone towers, and other wireless devices, the available data are neither consistent nor conclusive, and a mechanism of RF -related cancer has yet to be identified." Pg 29: William Suk, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: "We are not all exposed to a single agent, a single radiation or a single type of radiation, and we're not exposed at a single point in time. It's a cumulative effect..." Children's Environmental Health: Pg 5: "Children have many more years of life ahead of them than do adults—more time in which to be exposed to environmental toxics and time to develop diseases (including cancer) with long latency periods initiated by early exposures. At this time, little is known about interactions among multiple exposures over time, but many exposures to environmental contaminants are cumulative and some may have intergenerational effects." Pg 98: Conclusions Section: "Opportunities for eliminating or minimizing cancer-causing and cancer -promoting environmental exposures must be acted upon to protect all Americans, but especially children. They are at special risk due to their smaller body mass and rapid physical development, both of which magnify their vulnerability to known or suspected carcinogens, including radiation." [Continued on next page] Resource Summary CONT'D: President's Cancer Panel, May 2010 Precautionary Principle: Pg 103: Recommendations Section (1st recommendation listed): "A precautionary, prevention -oriented approach should replace current reactionary approaches to environmental contaminants in which human harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate exposure." Pg 17: "In 1998, a conference of international environmental scientists, scholars, activists, treaty negotiators, and others convened to discuss implementation of the Precautionary Principle asserted in a consensus statement that 'when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.' The core tenets of the Precautionary Principle are: • Taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty. • Shifting the burden of proof to proponents of an activity. • Exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions. • Including public participation in decision making." LINK: I,ttp:/;deainfo.ncr.nih.gov/advisory/pcp,,pcp08-09rpt,'PCP Report _08-09_508.pdf (Annual Report for 2008-2009) LINK: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/contentiarticlei20IO/05/06/AR2010050603813.htrnl (Washington Post article) Raymond Neutra, MD, PhD Former Chief, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, California Department of Health Services (retired 2007) Dr. Neutra led the California EMF Program which is housed in the Environmental Health Investigations Branch of the California Department of Health Services. The focus of Dr. Neutra's research, and the California EMF Program, has been on ELF EMF radiation (extremely low frequency electromagnetic frequency radiation), specifically the EMF radiation emitted by the power grid (power lines) and electrical appliances. Dr. Neutra, however, has worked closely with other researchers who focus on RF EMF (radio frequency electromagnetic frequency radiation), which includes EMF radiation emitted by cell phones and cell base stations. - See the following link to a webinar provided by the California Department of Health Services in 2009: LINK: http:r; w��w.ehib.org/ern f. pdf,/EMF_Webinar_ CDPH_ 10 .,26._09.pdf The webinar focused on ELF EMF (powerlines and electrical appliances) - but in the webinar, Dr. Neutra provides an interesting perspective on health risk assessment/management (he has published books on health risk assessment/management). The following are articles in which Dr. Neutra is quoted on the issue of cell towers. • Short-term cell -phone towers risk seems small; long-term effects unclear. By Pat O'brien, The Press -Enterprise, 10-18- 2005. (Press Enterprise is an Inland Southern California newspaper) LINK: �ilt;):!!P:,vay.pe.com/lifestyles/healthandfitness;'stories,'PE Fea Daily D cell IS.1059814e.html "Radio-frequency fields from cell towers are weak, and evidence so far is inconclusive as to whether they affect public health, according to Dr. Raymond %eutra, California's chief of environmental epidemiology. 'The state of the science now is that it's not virtually certain there is a problem. But there is some suggestion of possibility of problems,' he said. 'I'm not ready to make a judgment on that. It's an emerging picture.' Neutra, the state chief of environmental epidemiology, said researchers should continue to study the issue. 'Whenever there is a new technology out there, I think we are obliged to keep tracking it,' he said. • Safety advocates gain ground in cell phone debate: Doubts are emerging about the devices' long-term effects on health. By Suzanne Bohan, Contra Costa Times, 09/27/2009. LINK: http:r';'www.enifacts.com;v.,eblog/?p=1170 "I'm not certain if there are health effects from cell phones or cell antennas, but I'm very suspicious," said Dr. Raymond Neutra, one of the panelists and a former official with the California Department of Health Services (now the Department of Public Health) who led a research program on electromagnetic radiation in the 1990s. LINK: See text above for relevant links. Henry Lai, Ph.D. Research Professor Department of Bioengineering, Box 355061 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-5061 Letter from Dr. Henry Lai (Dec. 31, 2008) "expressing [his] opinion and concern about the possible health effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless transmitters": LINK: tittp:%,,'www.expelcelitowei's.org/download]WarningLetter.pdf Dr. Lai prepared a white paper : "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Transmission Towers" (2001): LINK: http://www.expelcelItowers.org/download/RFR exposure.pdf LINK: See above text for relevant link. Resource Summary David 0. Carpenter, MD Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, and Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health University at Albany In a telephone conversation with a CDS parent, Dr. Carpenter said he would be extremely concerned about a cell tower being erected in such proximity to a school. Below are links to a few research articles on EMF by Dr. Carpenter: Meeting Summary, President's Cancer Panel: Environmental Factors in Cancer. January 27, 2009. Phoenix, Arizona. Summary of Dr. Carpenter's remarks appears on pages 15-17. On page 17, Dr. Carpenter states that "Reduction of exposure to other sources of RF can be accomplished by keeping AM, FM, television, and mobile phone towers far from homes, schools, and businesses." LINK: http:/,deainfo.nu.nih.gov/advisory/pcp,'pcpOlG9isummary.pdf Public health implications of wireless technologies. Pathophysiology. Volume 16; Issue 2 August 2009 Cindy Sage and David 0. Carpenter LINK: http://wwvv.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/patphy,/article/SO928-4680(09)00017-OidbsLrdcL Setting Prudent Public Health Policy for Electromagnetic Field Exposures. Reviews on Environmental Health, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2008. David 0. Carpenter (1) and Cindy Sage (2) LINK: http:;,www.ncbi.iilin.nih.gov/pubmedil8763539 Presentation: Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields — David. 0 Carpenter, MD LINK: http://wwvv.youtube.com/watch?v=nSWDsgdgb88 LINK: See text above for relevant links. Martin Blank, PhD Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons In 2009, Dr. Blank submitted a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District's Board of Education regarding the issue of cell base stations near schools. In the letter, he wrote "I am writing in support of a limit on the construction of cell towers in the vicinity of schools". Dr. Blank's letter was prompted by the Board of Education's consideration of a second resolution on cell base stations — it was submitted as testimony in favor of the resolution. See the first item on Page 1 for more information on the resolution. LINK: http://www.cloutnow.org/lausdpdf/Columbia University. pdf Presenation: Electromagnetic Fields and Health Risks — Dr. Martin Blank, Columbia University LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6wLFeIrCtU Dr. Blank was Guest Editor of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): Special Issue, Pathophysiology, 2009. See two rows below for link. LINK: See text above for relevant links, Gerard Hyland, PhD University of Warwick, UK; Executive Member of the International Institute of Biophysics, in Neuss-Holzheim, Germany. Twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in medicine Dr. Gerard Hyland states, "Existing safety guidelines for cell phone towers are completely inadequate ... Quite justifiably, the public remains skeptical of attempts by governments and industry to reassure them that all is well, particularly given the unethical way in which they often operate symbiotically so as to promote their own vested interests." His report (2002) titled "How exposure to Base -station Radiation can Adversely Affect Humans" highlights the way in which this radiation affects brain function — specifically, its electrical activity (EEG), its electrochemistry, and the blood/ brain barrier - and degrades the immune system. Excerpt from report (pg 2): "Quite apart from their weaker immune systems, children are particularly vulnerable because of the increased rate at which their cells divide (which makes them more susceptible to genetic damage) and their still developing nervous system - the size of their heads and the thinness of their skulls causing them to absorb more radiation than do adults. Particularly vulnerable to interference by the pulses of microwaves, is their electrical brain -wave activity, which does not settle into a stable pattern until about the age of 11 or 12 years. The use of mobile phones by pre- adolescent children is thus to be strongly discouraged, and the siting of Base -station masts in the vicinity of schools and nurseries resisted: financial gain must not be allowed to be the overriding consideration. It must be appreciated that whilst the intensity to which the Public is normally exposed in the vicinity of a Base -station is indeed very much lower than that encountered during use of a mobile phone, the information content of the signals is the same, so that they are equally potentially noxious. LINK: http:/I/www.notowersnearschools.com/docs/hyland.pdf (the 2002 report referenced above) LINK: http:, /www.thelancet.corn/journals/ lancet/article/P1ISO 140-6736(00)03243-8/full text; (2000 article in The Lancet: Physics and Biology of Mobil Telephony) Resource Summary Pathopysiology Volume 16 Issue 2-3August 2009 EMF Special Issue Electromagnetic Fields (EMF): Special Issue. Pathophysiology, Volume 16, Issue 2-3, Pages 67-250 (August 2009). Guest Editor: Martin Blank, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Preface to Special Issue by Martin Blank: "There is an old joke with a well-known punch line about a man who has just fallen from the 86th floor of the Empire State Building in New York. As he passes the 30th floor, he is heard saying to himself 'so far, so good'... Most of us laugh because we know where the man is headed, and that he must know too. But, our laughter usually has a guilty edge. We know that many of us are guilty of occasionally displaying a 'so far, so good' attitude in our own lives. We think of the smoker who says that about the possibility of getting lung cancer or heart disease and who counts on beating the odds because he feels healthy at the moment. That smoker will not find out if he won the bet until many years later, and by then it is often too late. The 'so far, so good' attitude to health is so common that people even kid themselves about it. One smoker told me that smoking would only cut a few years off his life, and that he did not mind losing the last few years because they are usually not much fun anyway. [next page) Unlike the optimist in the joke, whose end is virtually certain, many of us live like the smoker, playing the odds and reassuring ourselves 'so far, so good'. Diseases like cancer usually take many years to develop, and we try not to think how some of the things we do casually can affect the long-term odds by compromising the natural processes that protect us. We rely on our bodies to be strong and resilient all the time. Yet, we know there are limits to the body's natural ability to reverse damage to cells. We also know that there may be gaps in the ability of our genetic endowment to cope with damage. At some level, we all know it is just common sense to try to minimize damage to our bodies and maximize the ability to repair. These opening paragraphs provide a quick introduction to the theme of this issue of Pathophysiology and a summary of the point of view of its authors. The public is currently interested in possible hazards from radio frequency (RF) due to cell phones, towers, WiFi, etc. The concern is certainly warranted, but we are surrounded by electromagnetic fields (EMFs) of many frequencies, and there are also significant biological effects and known risks from low frequency EMF. The scientific problem is to determine the nature of EMF interaction with biological systems and develop ways of coping with harmful effects in all frequency ranges, as well as their cumulative effects. The practical problem is to minimize the harmful biological effects of all EMF. The technical papers in this issue are devoted to an examination and an evaluation of evidence gathered by scientists regarding the effects of EMF, especially RF radiation, on living cells and on the health of human populations. The laboratory studies point to significant interactions of both power frequency and RF with cellular components, especially DNA. The epidemiological studies point to increased risk of developing certain cancers associated with long-term exposure to RF. Overall, the scientific evidence shows that the risk to health is significant, and that to deny it is like being in free -fall and thinking 'so far, so good'. We must recognize that there is a potential health problem, and that we must begin to deal with it responsibly as individuals and as a society." LINK: http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com periodicalsi'patphy/issues/contents?issue .key= 50928-46804.628094•o29k0ru3 9 "Electromagnetic Radiation in the Human Head..." An article in Microwave Theory and Techniques (a journal of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) Electromagnetic Radiation in the Human Head... Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol 44 No. 10. P. Ghandi, Gianluca Lassi and Cynthia M. Furse. Children are more vulnerable to the effects of radiation because their skulls have not yet formed. A study by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) found that there was a significant difference in radiation absorbed by 5 year olds (skull thickness .5mm), 10 year olds (skull thickness Imm) and adults (skull thickness 2mm). Note that this study relates specifically to mobile phone radiation where the phone is placed next to the head, which is different to the radiation exposure from a base station — however, we can clearly see that skull thickness and therefore age play a factor in radiation penetration. LINK: http:/;mtt.org/publicatioris/index.htni "Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies" An article in Environmental Health Perspectives (a peer-reviewed journal of the National Institutes of Health) Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(1) Jan. 2007. Anke Huss, Matthias Egger, Kerstin Hug, Karin Huwiler-Muntener and Martin Rbosli "Conclusions: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account. Studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health." ` It should be noted that this study focused on cell phones and was limited to human laboratory studies - it did not include epidemiological studies. LINK: I)ttp://ehpO3. niehs. niti.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F I0.1289%2Fehp.9149 Resource Summary U.S. General Accounting Office Report 01-545: Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues. In 2001, the GAO issued Report 01-545 Research and Regulatory Efforts on Mobile Phone Health Issues One section of the GAO Report addresses "shortcomings" of the FDA and FCC. In particular it underscored a brochure produced by FCC's Consumer Information Bureau that "puts the statement 'Cell Phones Cause Medical Problems' into the category of 'fiction,' noting that'there is no scientific evidence that proves wireless phone usage can cause cancer, increased blood pressure, memory loss, or other health problems,' though research in continuing." Officials in the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology were asked to comment on that statement. They concurred with the GAO that "this characterization could be misleading, because it implies that the health issue is settled." GAO Report Conclusions — "Scientific research to date does not demonstrate that the radiofrequency energy emitted from mobile phones has adverse health effects, but the findings of some studies have raised questions indicating the need for further investigations ... Given the long-term nature of much of the research being conducted — particularly the epidemiological and animal studies — it will likely be many more years before a definitive conclusion can be reached on whether mobile phone emissions pose any risk to humans health ... Given the prominence of the mobile phone health issue, FDA and FCC need to provide the public with clear, accurate, and timely information so that they can make informed decisions." LINK: www.gao,gov/new.items/d01545.pdf "Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure" An article in Environmental Health Perspectives (a peer-reviewed journal of the National Institutes of Health) ICNIRT (International Commission for Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure (Environmental Medicine Review). ICNIRP (International Commission for Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology: Anders Ahlbom, Adele Green, Leeka Kheifets, David Savitz, and Anthony Swerdlow. Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 112, No. 17, Dec 2004 [NOTE: This article focuses on epidemiologic studies and not laboratory studies] Text from article's "General Conclusions and Recommendations": "Results of epidemiologic studies to date give no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF exposure and any adverse health effect. On the other hand, these studies have too many deficiencies to rule out an association. A key concern across all studies is the quality of assessment of RF exposure, including the question of whether such exposure was present at all. Communication sources have increased greatly in recent years, and there is continuing change in the frequencies used and the variety of applications. Despite the rapid growth of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from these and other RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Certain studies that are currently under way have made serious attempts to improve exposure assessment, based on attempts to learn more about determinants of RF exposure levels. A key element in improving future studies would be the use of a meter that monitors individual exposure. In the absence of information on what biologic mechanism is relevant, if any, it is unclear what aspect of exposure needs to be captured in epidemiologic studies. Ideally, the dose needs to be assessed not just as external field intensity but also as cumulative exposure, as well as SAR, for specific anatomical sites. The need for better exposure assessment is particularly strong in relation to transmitter studies, because the relation between distance and exposure is very weak. There is no point in conducting such studies unless it has been established that exposure levels vary substantially within the study area, and measurements of these RF levels are available. In the future, methods need to be developed to infer exposure based on some combination of knowledge regarding the sources of exposure, the levels of exposure, and location of people in relation to those sources, ideally informed by selective measurements. Although the likelihood is low that fields emanating from base stations would create a health hazard because of their weakness, this possibility is nevertheless a concern for many people. To date no acceptable study on any outcome has been published on this. On the one hand, results from valid studies would be of value in relation to a social concern; on the other hand, it would be difficult to design and conduct a valid study, and there is no scientific point in conducting an invalid one. Another general concern in mobile phone studies is that the lag periods that have been examined to date are necessarily short. The implication is that if a longer lag period is required for a health effect to occur, the effect could not be detected in these studies. Only in the few countries where mobile phones were introduced very early has it been possible to look at use 10 years ago. Much longer lag periods have been examined for occupational RF exposures, however. The published studies include some large occupational cohorts of good design and quality, except that there have been poor assessments of the degree of RF exposure, which render the results difficult to interpret. [Continued on next page] Resource Summary CONT'D: "Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure" ICNIRT (International Commission for Non -Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology Most research has focused on brain tumors and to some extent on leukemia. However, because the RF research questions are not driven by a specific biophysical hypothesis but rather by a general concern that there are unknown or misunderstood effects of RFs, studies on other health effects may be equally justified. Examples are eye diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and cognitive function. Given the increase in new mobile phone technologies, it is essential to follow various possible health effects from the very beginning and for long periods, because such effects may be detected only after a long duration, because of the prolonged latency period of many chronic diseases. Thus, research is needed to address long-term exposure, as well as diseases other than those included in the ongoing case—control studies. Another gap in the research is children. No study population to date has included children, with the exception of studies of people living near radio and TV antennas. Children are increasingly heavy users of mobile phones. They may be particularly susceptible to harmful effects (although there is no evidence of this), and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives." LINK: http://www.icnirp.de,,documents/epiRFreviewPublishedinEHPDec04.pdf American Cancer Society (ACS'S "Cell Phone Towers" fact sheet states that cell towers are unlikely to cause cancer. Look, however, at the last few statements on their fact sheet". The American Cancer Society provides a fact sheet on "Cell Phone Towers" on its website. On it's fact sheet, the ACS states that there are "several theoretical considerations suggest that cellular phone towers are unlikely to cause cancer". At the end of the fad sheet, ACS states: "The Bottom Line: Cellular phone towers, like cellular phones themselves, are a relatively new technology, and we do not yet have full information on health effects. In particular, not enough time has elapsed to permit epidemiologic studies. There are some theoretical reasons why cellular phone towers would not be expected to increase cancer risk, and animal studies of RF have not suggested a risk of cancer. People who are concerned can ask for measurements of RF near cellular phone towers to be sure exposures do not exceed recommended limits." LINK: http:/!www.cancer.org/docroot/ped/contentlped_1_3x _cellular phone _towers.asp Swiontek, Ryan From: BK fdcpost@cox.netj Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 9:56 PM To: Joe.thompson@t-mobile.com Cc: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Coverage Maps Hi Joe, You mentioned at the meeting tonight that your RF engineer has done a coverage analysis of the OCFA site and that you would forward that over to me. I look forward to seeing that data at your earliest convenience. Thanks for your time. Sincerely, -Brandon Key 1 Swiontek, Ryan From: Monica Moretta [monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 12:14 PM To: sschumann@encorepmc.com Cc: Pete Shubin; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: T -Mobile Community Meeting Inviation for the Project at Cedar Grove Park Attachments: X3e_7FDC28624.pdf Hi Stephanie: Please find attached the invitation for the community meeting regarding the T -Mobile project at Cedar Grove Park. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, h'onica Moretta I Land Use Planner Seq..D-a Depl,);rnen: Services, Inc. Jne ';4rntwe. S.:ite L00) Irvine. CA 92818 (049) 241-0175 (949) 753-7203 monlca.morettad sequoia-ds.com ASave a Tree - Please do not print this email unless necessary Swiontek, Ryan From: Monica Moretta [monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:16 AM To: brittany@crummackhuseby.com; ilemus@keystonepacific.com Cc: Pete Shubin; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: T -Mobile Community Meeting Inviation for the Project at Cedar Grove Park Attachments: X3e_7FDC28624.pdf Hello: Please find attached the invitation for the community meeting regarding the T -Mobile project at Cedar Grove Park. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, Monica Moretta I Land Use Planner Sequoia Deployment Services. Inc. One Venture, Suite 2001 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 241-0175 i -- (949) 753-7203 monica.moret!a@sequoia-ds.com ASave a Tree - Please ;io riot print this ernail unless necessary. E70m, 0a)a) c r > o—o, U C C fa M -- 0I E ° c o M U E f6 L C �— E ° ° o c o0 z as m d p >, a� 0ma�'o E n �o mo � t Y •C r; am C U�3= O Y a N C a c Y ,� Y Cm L m U O _O O T U y C Y � 0 O O > y O a 000 O CL — c E o ; H N T E 0 0 Ix 4i N 0 r d r a �o E �d �« �.�`.r- m U) N 0 v u W r 7 Ci in N m 41 U �E of a IC E o ° N t0 � U (O c .� 0cycy U d m a� U ° T E ami .� c O E a o oU')a� � �o Ev MN E� cm•U C Z fD ch y c y C 0 T O E c � d L Z 7 LL N• Swiontek, Ryan From: Monica Moretta [monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com] Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 11:13 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Pete Shubin Subject: T -Mobile's Community meeting Scheduled January 6 ( HOAs) Attachments: LA33842 Cedar Grove Park -Returned Notices-20101230.pdf Hi Ryan: T -Mobile's community meeting is scheduled January the 6`h between 6 pm and 8 pm. Notices went out to the property owners who received the notices for the ZA hearing. The attached are the notices that were returned to us, and unable to forward. These notices are the ones send to the Serrano Homeowners Association, Sedona Community Association, and Tustin Ranch Estates. Do you have an alternate address ? Monica Moretta I Land Use Planner Sequoia Deployment Services, Inc. One Venture, Suite 2001 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 241-0175 1 -- (949) 753-7203 monica.moretta@sequoia-ds.com ASave a Tree . Please do not print this ernail unless necessary. USA FlRST-CLASS-(ORIVU 'nor% T t 1 W') N Z a Q 0 Ti In' ^�^, IN L' NI _ IN N TI Z ri O S O 00 Ti —_ (L' z IY I -- a 3 h zFiY m = U00 O WZIL 4 _ pip W F- I- _ zww M -= m t- i ok o+ Uwz 0 - h CD Q Y1 0 ra W 01 H X -- H U Z M -a Moretta lenture Suite 200 , CA 92618 :)a ca Moretta Y,a%r ,lujf�_.T.i..-���?'�. „~�:�•,f��, _�,.r .S- •mss "1. .l• '.1:1:1. !-..l i. '��.. i.1 . .� �` t•'•�:J } ..� i 1-40.41.46.4 .48 A PN • S -sC 1 LSC 12J271� i4 r^cE'rL'rii�i -70 SENDER NOT DEL..I VERAMLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE: TO FORWARD DC : 9281074121-2.0 *0277— A S 1 1.2— 22— 29 llIII 1►►1►1►11►►►I►III,AT►h►II►II►IMI1►►1)111J►11►►►,1►1►1 ✓enture Suite 200, CA 92618 N APN: 502-634-15,16 -4It%27 '3E 1 OD 12/27/10 R'ETURN --TO SENDER NOT DEL IVERABL.E AS ADDRESSED UNAML.E TO FORWARD S P Swiontek, Ryan From: bob stevenson [blackkeysbob@yahoo.comj Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:18 AM To: savecedargrovepark@gmail.com Cc: Biggs, David; cbinsack®tustinca.org; Swiontek, Ryan; citycouncil@tustin.org Subject: 0.01 microwatts per centimeter squared cautionary target level (indoor) of RF emitted by the proposed cell phone tower Dear Residents and City officials of Tustin, I an a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The consensus of Science is that certain levels of chronic long-term RF exposure cause serious damage to the human body. The present federal safety limits for RF exposure have been found by scientists worldwide to be totally inadequate. Therefore, in deciding whether to install a cell phone tower or not, the safety limits that one has to adopt, if one's goal is to protect the health of children and adults, are those that Science has determined to be truly protective of the public health. This is because it may be years before the federal government gets around to revising its safety limits. Below is the link to an important scientific paper that was published last year in Pathophysiology. Pathophysiology is an Elsevier publication. As most practicing scientists know, Elsevier scientific journals constitute the GOLD STANDARD of scientific publications. Each paper published in an Elsevier scientific journal has undergone the strictest peer review process. So, a paper that is published in an Elsevier journal can he considered to reflect the consensus of Science. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/broadbandgrants/comments/6EO5.pdf This above paper, "Public Health Implications of Wireless Technologies," contains the recommended safety limits for RF exposure. I direct your attention to page 10. Here you see Sage and Carpenter, the scientist authors of the paper, present the following recommendation, which was derived from research findings of thousands of scientists worldwide: "The recommended cautionary target level is 0.1 microwatts per centimeter squared for pulsed RF where these exposures affect the general public. [This same] limit should be adopted for outdoor. cumulative RF exposure. This reflects the current RF science and public health response that would reasonably be set for pulsed RF (ambient) exposures where people live, work, and go to school. ...An outdoor precautionary limit of 0.1 microwatts per centimeter squared would mean an even lower exposure level inside buildings, perhaps as low as .01 microwatts per centimeter squared." These above target levels are what any cell phone tower erected in Tustin and nationwide should follow. Please keep in mind that what is (presently) legal with respect to RF exposure safety limits is not necessarily what is safe. Sincerely, Bob Stevenson 1 Swiontek, Ryan From: chen chen [cheninca1998@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 8:44 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Design Review 09-033 Dear Mr. Biggs, Ms Binsack and Mr. Swiontek, As a resident of Tustin City, I am writting to you to let you know that I DO NOT support installing a wireless telecommunications facility in a residential area and near a school. I would highly suggest you and other authorities to reexamming the design and select a better location for the tower. Should you have any concerns, feel free to contact me at this email address. Best, Chen Li City of Tustin Resident Swiontek, Ryan From: bobn@babaluba.com Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 1:00 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: I support the T -Mobile tower Hi - good speaking with you yesterday. This is just to confirm I support the Cedar tree style T -Mobile tower construction in Tustin to help improve the quality of service in the Tustin Area. Bob Nason 155 Pasadena Ave. Tustin, CA 92780 Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Brandon Key and I am a resident in the El Dorado neighborhood of Tustin Ranch. I am here tonight to protest T - Mobile's effort to deface our local park. Cell phone service in the Peters Canyon area of Tustin Ranch is terrible. There is no denying that. We understand that everyone in the community wants better coverage, and we are not trying to deny better service to anyone. What we are asking is, what is the BEST way to provide this service? Your staff suggests that the best way is to install a 65' cell tower in the middle of Cedar Grove Park, one of the most widely used parks in the area. This is a proposition that at least 470 individuals of the immediate community are opposed to, as evidenced by our petition. Your staff is relying on false information to come to that conclusion. As the Planning Commission, you are entrusted to make decisions on zoning and development issues that will benefit the community, or at least minimize the negative impact on it. On page 11 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission on this proposed tower it states that, "in determining whether to approve the Design Review for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility... within Cedar Grove Park, the Planning Commission must find that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed aboveground utilityfacility will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the community as a whole." Well, aren't we the community? Aren't the 470 Tustin residents who signed the petition opposing the installation of this tower the community? And you can bet that we feel this proposed installation is a disruption to the harmonious development of the area. But most importantly, the longer-term burden to the park is much greater than what is being considered in this initial installation. T -Mobile's proposed design for the Cedar Grove site is sized for only two wireless carriers' equipment in the block wall enclosure proposed (see figure 1.) There are six wireless carriers currently serving Orange County. What happens when those other carriers want space at the facility? You must recognize that the real estate required to support the additional carriers could triple the size of this installation. How much of the park do you plan to sell off? It baffles me that, despite the overwhelming opposition to this installation, the City would want to proceed with it when there is an alternative site just 450 yards away that would be an acceptable alternative to the community. That site is in a maintenance yard between Jamboree Road and the 261 toll road on the Orange PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 1 12/14/10 County Fire Authority property (see figures 2 and 3). The site has approval from the OC Fire Authority and is being designed with the capacity to handle up to six wireless carriers. It is located at an elevation 30' higher than the Cedar Grove Park site (see figure 4.) If an alternative site to Cedar Grove Park is available that serves the community equally well, why would the city choose to place this cell tower in the park against the wishes of the community it is meant to serve? It makes no sense to sell our park knowing the impact will be far greater when other carriers come to join. It makes no sense to start selling off the park in parcels, a park that is one of the best assets of our community and part of what makes this area special. It makes no sense to place this installation in one of the most widely used and cherished family environments, unless you are willing to believe that there are NO other reasonable alternatives. But there is a reasonable alternative. The OC Fire Authority has approved their maintenance yard for this use. And what is the proof that this location will not work? Oh, because T -Mobile said it wouldn't work. Your staff has failed to consider the OC Fire Authority site because T -Mobile claims it, "will not work for the intended coverage objective of this ring." If that's true, why did T -Mobile actively pursue the OC Fire Authority site as a viable location for three years before shifting focus to the Cedar Grove Park site? In fact, their original application for the Cedar Grove site clearly states that the reason for discounting the Fire Authority site was because the Fire Authority would not let them install an antenna in their communications tower - not that the site was not viable (see Attachment A, page 2). If the OC Fire Authority site would have worked for them before, why won't it work now? If fact, we know that the OC Fire Authority site will work perfectly fine to service the area because Verizon is currently operating a cell site from a light pole adjacent to jamboree Road just a few yards from the proposed OC Fire Authority site (see Figure 5.) This site is servicing the entire area around Cedar Grove Park with excellent coverage. We did our own survey of the neighborhood and found there to be no gaps in coverage (see Figure 6.) Verizon gets those results from a 15' high antenna. The OC Fire Authority towers will be 45' high so they would certainly give better results. T -Mobile's assertion that the OC Fire Authority site won't work for the area is blatantly false. But T -Mobile doesn't seem to have a problem spreading falsehoods. The coverage maps on their own website suggest that the coverage in the entire Peters Canyon area varies from "Excellent" to "Good" (see Figure 6), while the drive test they submitted to the Planning Commission (Figure 7) suggests that the coverage in the area is quite deficient. Well, which is it? You either have coverage or you don't. Or how about their attempts to build two towers in a Huntington Beach park in which they misrepresented the total cost of the construction in order to bypass PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 2 12/14/10 voter approval? That incident eventually resulted in Measure Q in which over 35,000 residents voted against the construction of those towers and won. But T - Mobile won't give up. They are suing Huntington Beach to get their way. Unfortunately, in our case, we do not have the right to vote on this issue. We are counting on you, the Planning Commission, to hear our voice and DO THE RIGHT THING! If the community prefers the OC Fire Authority site over the Cedar Grove Park site, the burden should be on T -Mobile to prove that the OC Fire Authority site doesn't work, rather than just saying so. The fact is that they can't. They know it is a viable site and that's why they tried to put a tower there for three years before pursuing the park site. In light of all these facts, if the Planning Commission decides to allow T -Mobile's application to proceed at the park, the only possible reason can be that the City of Tustin's primary interest is the revenue T -Mobile and the other carriers will pay to place their facilities there. Are the City's finances so strapped that we have to sell off our recreational facilities to the highest bidder? Is that the primary purpose of a city park - to generate revenue for the city? If the city is concerned about its finances, how about the potential cost of a lawsuit arising from a child climbing or playing on the cell tower equipment structure and becoming injured, or even killed? Doesn't it make more sense to have this installation located in a locked maintenance yard beyond the reach of our children? As a community that enjoys the use of its parks, and believes that they should be utilized for recreation and not to house large telecommunications installations or other heavy machinery, we ask the Planning Commission to deny T -Mobile's application to install the proposed cell tower site in Cedar Grove Park. At the very least, we ask the Planning Commission to grant a continuance on the project in order to: 1) determine the design modifications required to accommodate all six wireless carriers at the Cedar Grove Park location, and assess the long-term impact to the park of those modifications, 2) perform an independent, third -party analysis of the OC Fire Authority site to determine its viability, 3) allow T -Mobile to conduct a community outreach meeting with residents to help us understand their system and why they feel the Cedar Grove Park site is their only option. Please consider the will of your constituents when making decisions that will alter the quality of life in our neighborhood. Thank you. PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 3 12/14/10 Figure 1. Cedar Grove Park site plan showing current proposed design for only two wireless carriers. PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 4 12/14/10 St ( Proposed Cedar Grove tower opprox 450tyard 7►, ' r '' Proposed OCFA towers 44 AD ` _i= �, f? A Exisstting;Venton tow ir ` �„ . ` �� onI�ht p ; ost I i- I .\-tom. w/s�J' .■ �. . IL Y VJ� 4� Owl .Towel locafiorts ., ICU + I em �.. ... (�lk)Iti�l Ir ' XPi` IAST IMRM-' a aM[ s�MLp ..�.��. M' Figure 4.00FA site plan showing space required to support six wireless carriers PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 7 12/14/10 Figure S. Verizon light pole installation on Jamboree and Tustin Ranch Road. PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 8 12/14/10 10004 cuffq Z Figure 6. Verizon drive test map. Grove Fork site posed OCFA Site CMI 0 0009* - Ma a." Verizon site Signal Strength 111111111 5 bars 111111111 4 bars = 3 bars PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 9 12/14/10 41 % 10004 cuffq Z Figure 6. Verizon drive test map. Grove Fork site posed OCFA Site CMI 0 0009* - Ma a." Verizon site Signal Strength 111111111 5 bars 111111111 4 bars = 3 bars PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 9 12/14/10 Personal Coverage Check Search Vo co Coverago Map o• 0810 COVerage MOD Sheet; Tus: r Ranch Rd City Tus.'r giC.ega'!.,I n'.f4C Signal Strength EataNM very com Good `Aocaram Parer 3auo r 0.t "W cc-t*&W •coon enc - a :C.ev)e - a, -a•y - o Hare V -two :tur O'n+ Stade CA 'D Zip 92782 Cloar It Address LOC340n 0 New CON S -x • T Moo,b H0tS00t 10 Figure 7. T -Mobile advertised coverage. (source - www.tiiiobile.coni coverage check) PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 10 12/14/10 P-4 Figure 8. T -Mobile Drive Test Map (source - Staff Report to the Planning Commission pg. 41) PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 11 12/14/10 Attachment A LA33842D Cedar Grove Park Alternate Site Analysis PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 12 12/14/10 SEQUOIA City of Tustin Wireless Telecommunication Facility Alternate Site Analysis Location: 11385 Pioneer Road. Carrier: T•Mobile West Corporation Site No.: LA33842 D Cedar Grove Park T•Mobile West Corporation selected the proposed location for a needed wireless facility as it was the best location available for the facility when considering the needs of the network, land use patterns in the area, willingness of the landlord to enter into a lease for the facility, and the zoning code requirements of the City of Tustin. The facility is needed to improve coverage and provide better wireless services to the residential area created by the local demand on the existing network. As the number of users of the network increases the coverage area of existing sites decreases creating areas where it is difficult to make a call or keep a call connected. The area surrounding the proposed site and centered on the intersection of Tustin Ranch Rd. and Pioneer Road. This intersection became the target search area for the facility. The facility will increase signal strength and the network capacity in and around the area to better serve the communications needs of the residents and visitors to Tustin. The land use pattern in the target search area for the facility is predominately residential. The current location is best suited for the facility as it offers the highest antenna height available for the facility when considering zoning restrictions and architectural compatibility. As a licensee authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to provide wireless services in this region, T -Mobile must establish a network of wireless telecommunications facilities in the metropolitan area and beyond. Each wireless telecommunications facility, or base station, will consist of transmitting and receiving antennas mounted on a communication tower or other suitable structure and electronic equipment cabinets. It will also consist of radios for receiving and transmitting wireless communications and complex electronic equipment to operate Co -Location Efforts Evidence Statement Paye 1 of l PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 13 12/14/10 the radios, interface with other cellular sites, provide connections to the landline telephone network, and link the facility with the main switching center. T -Mobile will operate this facility in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the FCC, FAA, and CPUC as governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and other applicable laws. In order to meet the basic level of operational radio signal coverage, radio frequency (RF) engineers have designed a network of wireless telecommunications facilities for the Southern California area. The applicant's engineers choose specific sites after lengthy analysis. Selection criteria include: limitations imposed by surrounding topography, the intended service area of the site, and the ability of the new site to "see" other sites in the network from its proposed location. Other selection factors include suitable access, availability of electrical and telephone service, and a willing property lessor. Where the necessary design criteria can be met, co -location with existing telecommunication facilities is a preferred option. Be advised the antennas and equipment are screened or integrated with the building whenever possible. Only after careful analysis of many candidates and successful lease negotiations have been completed is a land use application such as this one submitted. The cellular site is a passive use and will have no impact on other properties in the surrounding area. The facility is unstaffed. After an initial construction period of 30 to 45 days, the only traffic generated will be for routine maintenance visits, typically once or twice a month. There are no activities that will produce airborne emissions, odor, vibration, heat, glare, or noxious and toxic materials. All equipment and materials needed to operate the site are located in the equipment cabinets. The cellular site does not require water or sanitary facilities and therefore will generate no wastewater. In compliance with the requirements of Irvine Municipal Code, co -location of this facility with other existing facilities was considered when identifying the location for this facility. The above -referenced installation was selected based on a variety of technical, practical, and scientific criteria. See the attached propagation study maps supplied by the radio frequency (RF) engineer involved in designing this portion of the network. A new facility is needed at the location to provide the service quality demanded by T-Mobite's customers. In our research, other locations were considered 1. Orange County Fire Authority: 1 Fire Authority Road. Irvine, CA 92602. This location was eliminated from consideration because OCFA would not allow T. Mobile antennas inside their exiting communications tower. Co Location Efforts EHdence Statement Pago 2 of 7 PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 14 12/14/10 Please note that many additional properties are examined on a preliminary basis and are rejected as inappropriate for a variety of technical, practical and scientific reasons. The site selection process involves many factors, many decision makers and up to six months or more of investigation and preparation prior to a zoning request filing. Co•Locatbn Efforts ErN*xe Statement Vale 3 of 3 PC Address 7.docx Brandon Key Page 15 12/14/10 I support the proposed wireless broadband facility to be located in Cedar Grove I'ark. I'lease let the Tustin Planning Commission and the Tustin City Council know I expect reliable coverage in Tustin and I wan( them to approve T -Mobile's plan. Sincerely. Name N a(�tu/h, w�. (ti Signature Address City u l State zip't=' E-mail JiQ ��DIUi.%dint Phone -U ! 7 ❑ Other members of my household support T -Mobile's Tustin Proposal. Comments: T -Mobile is carsnitled to protecting our customers' private inlorrnation. T -Mobile does no( set. rent or lease your personal Inlorrnetion to third parties for marketing purposes. I support the proposed wireless broadband facility to be located in Cedar Grove Paris. Please let the Tustin Planning Commission and the Tustin City Council know I expect reliable coverage in Tustin and 1 want them to approve T -Mobile's plan. Sincerely, Name Signature Y� Address �1���!!* r Pyeirh $ t.! vt: City State Zip y Z 7ev E-mail Phone ❑ Other members of my household support T -Mobile's Tustin Proposal. Comments: T -Moble Is commfaed to protecting ow euslortrers' private infom+atlon. T -Mobile does riot seg. rent or Wass your personal information to tf*d parties for marketing purposes. 1 support the proposed wireless broadband facility to be located in Cedar Grove Park. Please let the Tustin Planning Commission and the Tustin City Council know I expect reliable coverage in Tustin and 1 want them to approve T -Mobile's plan. Sincerely, t Name Signature , 4 — Address I city Tj � State C6 zip qZ7 E- E-mail�o,f C41 d�: Lf�1L �rPhone 73`�J�J�iQ/ Other members of my household support T -Mobile's Tustin Proposal. J Comments: % ave- �" �I I'P I Id kjo 1::h � c c� '�V^► � f tU s n T -Mobile Is committed to proledkq our uubrp/rs' private iniamstim. T -Mouse does not sell, rent or lease your personal inInrmalion to third parties for marketing purposes. I support the proposed wireless broadband facility to be located in Cedar Grove Park. Please let the Tustin Planning Commission and the Tustin City Council know I expect reliable coverage in Tustin and 1 want them to approve T -Mobile's plan. Sincerely, Name % �/9 / %vs f / �� �Sisnature.� � Address City Lys 7i '01� State �P zip o?,[ E-mail e1 • d C 60Phone Other members of my household support T -Mobile's Tustin Proposal, Comments: T -Mobile is Com mined to protecting our customers' private int -oration. T-MoWs does not sell, rent or lease Yom personal inlormatlon to Oft parties for marketing purposes. I support the proposed wireless broadband facility to be located in Cedar Grove Park. Please let the Tustin Planning Commission and the Tustin City Council know 1 expect reliable coverage in Tustin and 1 want them to approve T -Mobile's plan. Sincerely, 17 Name — n daji ' �jaj1a Signature Address Waw/.,1 iv_v _ City State e Zip 41�: IyjL E-mail Phone_ [4 Other members of my household support T -Mobile's Tustin Proposal. Comments: T -Mobile Is oommitled to protecting our customers' private inhxmafion. T -Mobile does not sell, rent or lease your personal information to third parties for nrrketing purposes. I support the proposed wireless broadband facility to be located in Cedar Grove Park. Please let the Tustin Planning Commission and the Tustin City Council know I expect reliable coverage in Tustin and 1 want them to approve T -Mobile's plan. Sincerely Name Address GREG Uhf G -TV . 4 signature c2 c c 610- City �(�u� state C A Zip cA2 Z fav E-mail Phone 714 - ';'t2_6—M5_7 FOther members of my household support T -Mobile's Tustin Proposal. Comments: T -Mobile Is commiged to protecting our ctutorrrere' prtvele Information. T -Mobile does not sag, reM or lease your personal Inhxmatlon to third parties for marketing purposes. I support the proposed wireless broadband facility to be located in Cedar Grove Park. Please let the Tustin Planning Commission and the Tustin City Council know I expect reliable coverage in Tustin and I want them to approve T -Mobile's plan. Sincerely, Name Address ti - ;� City E-mail Signature June van tLn..N(%)rt 17592 Oranoe Tree lanr Tustin, CA 92780 p ❑ Other members of my household support T -Mobile's Tustin Proposal. Comments: T-Moblle fa commIlUd to protecting our customers' private Infom Akxx.T-AAobne does not sell, rent or lease your personal Infomnallm to third parties for marketing purposes Transcript of video petitions for T -Mobile Wireless Facility Paul Rodriguez, 1861 Hampshire Rd, Tustin My name is Paul Rodriguez and I live in Tustin Meadows on Hampshire Road and I'm in favor for the T -Mobile tower to be built so we can have better coverage and because we all rely on cell phones these days for personal and business use and its important to have good coverage, especially for the money we pay and I'm in favor for it. Vince Camacho, 1064 Napa Street, Tustin My name is Vince Camacho. I live at 1064 Napa Street in Tustin. I support the T -Mobile Tustin cell tower. Its tough getting coverage around these neighborhoods and I think it would be an improvement. Ardelle Hill, 13662 Fairmont Way, Tustin My name is Ardelle Hill. I live at 13662 Fairmont Way. I am supportive of T -Mobile trying to get better service for our community. I use the T -Mobile cell phone for emergencies. Other than that I really don't use T -Mobile too much, but I think its very important to have good service. Thank you very much. Lisa Noujaim, 13692 Malena Drive, Tustin My name is Lisa Noujaim. I live on Malena Drive in Tustin and I support the new cell tower for T -Mobile because I am a T -Mobile customer and I would like better coverage. I support the proposed wireless broadband facility to be located in Cedar Grove Park. Please let the Tustin Planning Commission and the Tustin City Council know I expect reliable coverage in Tustin and I want them to approve T -Mobile's plan. Sincerely, Name J t' L ti41 (-1rJ Signature Address 7 }F (. City T., sTy ti State (1q Zip C E-mail �e (Lisy5 Lail-. net Phone (—lit() u 31 - [Other members of my household support T -Mobile's Tustin Proposal. Comments: T -Mobile is committed to protecting our customers' private Information. T -Mobile does not sell, rent or lease your personal Infortmttion to third parties for marketing purposes. Thompson, Joe From: Tony Ingegneri [Tony@atscomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:49 AM To: Dan Davenport; danny@wirelessdevelopmentpartners.com Cc: Thompson, Joe; Banks, Jay (Sequoia); Dao, Duan Subject: FW: letter in support of T -Mobile Cell Site at Cedar Grove Park. fyi -----Original Message ----- From: Buchanan, John [mailto:JBuchanan®tustinca.org) Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:19 AM To: Tony Ingegneri Subject: FW: Letter in support of T -Mobile Cell Site at Cedar Grove Park. FYI -----Original Message ----- From: Swiontek, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:49 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth; Ogdon, Dana; Buchanan, John Cc: willkom, Justina Subject: FW: Letter in support of T -Mobile Cell Site at Cedar Grove Park. -----original Message ----- From: Cathy Bardenstein [mailto:cjbardy@mac.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:32 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Jeffrey D. Scherzer Subject: Letter in support of T -Mobile Cell Site at Cedar Grove Park. Dear Mr. Swiontek, My husband and I live at 10908 Dishman Place in Tustin, CA. We just came home from vacation and found a note in our mailbox seeking our help in opposing the proposed T -Mobile Site. Instead, it spurred us to write a letter in support of this site because we are thrilled to know we will finally get cell coverage in our home. we would appreciate it if you would submit it to the Planning Commission as part of the record. We also note that there potentially will be AT&T antennas on the site as well. we are looking forward to that since we both own 3G ipads and have no service here except via wifi. For your information, my husband and I are both attorneys. My husband has also worked for many years as a paramedic responding to emergency calls. The letter that was circulated makes several points about the danger of cell towers. These points are without basis in fact, and because of ignorance, the proponents are doing nothing more than fear -mongering. Point #1 - Our children (and grown ups) will be subjected to cell tower radiation at school and at home. THE FACT IS, we are talking about radio frequencies, not "radiation" as that is commonly understood. The same radio frequencies that have been used in televisions for years, and in the baby monitors many of use next to our babies cribs. There has been extensive study about this issue and the government has found no evidence of danger to the public, but has issued safety guidelines that limit power levels to far less than what could possibly cause any harm to anyone, baby or adult. Because of the results of those studies, the Federal Government has felt it appropriate to preclude local governments from even considering health and safety of cell sites. Opponents of cell towers will point to some studies, especially from Europe, which conclude that there "may" be some risk to people from exposure to cell towers. Those results have not been duplicated and have not been peer reviewed, and are therefore not credible. Point #2 - Home Buyers will be afraid to buy our homes (Studies show homes near towers drop up to lot in value). THE FACT IS, there are no such studies that come to this conclusion, just anecdotal statements from owners or realtors (no appraisers, however) stating that this is so. We do know, for a fact, that some appraisals on the east coast which looked at the impact of cell towers on property values SHOWED NO IMPACT. There are certainly some people who like us, look at coverage maps as a consideration in where to rent or buy a home. All this is, is fear mongering arising out of Point #1, and is nothing more than a typical NIMBY reaction to anything new. People will notice a new tower, but after a while, it blends into the background. This one blends in pretty well according to the picture. The only people who are going to know it is there is those who will look for it because of the urgent notice that was distributed. We can tell you that the one downside to moving to Tustin Ranch was the fact that cell tower coverage near Peters Canyon is TERRIBLE. T-Mobile's, in particular, is very bad, and we are T-Mobile customers. Having good coverage in the area makes it more desirable for us. My husband and I have a 12 year old daughter, and we would be much more comfortable with her walking and biking around the neighborhood, if she had a reliable cell phone with her in the event of emergency. We would also like to be able to use our cell phones throughout our home and yard. Finally, the infrastructure of our nation is increasingly being based on mobile communications. We have cell phones, blackberries and iPads, and we rely on being able to get voice and data coverage wherever we are. Moreover, we are in a high fire risk and high earthquake risk area. We want to know that emergency communications will be available when we need it whether if be for a 911 emergency or another slightly lesser urgency. The standard that the planning commission needs to look at is, whether T-Mobile has shown a significant gap in service coverage and whether the design is the least intrusive solution. Although we have not seen their evidence, we have no doubt that there is a significant service coverage gap based upon our own experience since we moved to Tustin. With regard to the site design, it is located in a wooded area in the park, and not immediately adjacent to residential properties. As noted above, I doubt any casual observer would ever notice the site. I understand that a City Councilman actually filed the appeal on behalf of the neighborhood opponents of the site. We would like to go on record in support of the site, and ask that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision approving a T-Mobile cell site at Cedar Grove Park. Thank you for your consideration. Cathy J Bardenstein 2 Jeffrey D. Scherzer 10908 Dishman Place Tustin CA 92782 Cell phone: (585) 370-8020 The information below provides an accounting of the dropped calls from T -Mobile sites that surround Cedar Grove Park in the last 6 months: 2G: Period start time Market site id BSC Name Cell Name Insite Name TCH Traffic (Erlanql Number of Drops 06.22.2010 Los Angeles LA02920A LABSC501 CM211 B LA02211 A_B 2,290.00 840 06.22.2010 Los Angeles LA02338A LABSC501 CM317A LA02317A_A 1,711.79 1,208 06.22.2010 Los Angeles LA02338A LABSC501 CM317C LA02317A_C 4,589.51 5,398 06.22.2010 Los An eles LABSC501 CM320A LA02320A_A 6,705.00 2,290 06.22.2010 Los Angeles LA02320A LABSC501 CM320B ILA02320A _B 4,913.33 1,210 06.22.2010 Los Angeles LA02211 A LABSC501 CM320D I LA02320A_D 3,499.09 883 06.22.2010 Los An eles LABSC501 CM338A LA02338A_A 22,999.90 10,604 06.22.2010 Los Angeles LABSC501 CM338C LA02338A_C 5,412.24 1,551 06.22.2010 Los Angeles LABSC501 LA2920B LA02920A_B 1,867.50 1,129 06.22.2010 Los Angeles LABSC501 I LA2995B LA02995D_B 41.55 35 TOTAL 54 029.90 25,148 3G: Period start time RNC site id vendor UTRAN CELL voice Traff ic DL R99 Data Traft voice Drws 06.22.2010 LARNC504 LA02920A Ericsson ULA02920A21 465.34 103.39 48 06.22.2010 LARNC504 LA02338A Ericsson ULA02338A31 2,175.63 488.69 591 06.22.2010 LARNC504 LA02338A Ericsson ULA02338A11 3,340.10 794.17 1,292 06.22.2010 LARNC504 LA02320A Ericsson ULA02320A21 1,274.39 128.17 180 06.22.2010 LARNC504 LA02320A Ericsson ULA02320A41 1,131.98 157.28 208 06.22.2010 LARNC504 LA02211 A Ericsson ULA02211 A21 502.39 77.55 273 TOTAL 8,889.83 1,749 2,592 AntennaSearch - Search for Cell "Powers, Ccll Reception, I lidden Antennas and more. Page 1 of 3 3-5 Day Install Tol or �/MO L No t oop Clr:•rpw t�w�r. e Tower Structures - (Pioneer Rd, Tustin, CA 92782) Orange h' pa.+ �I ello+l Pat Orange ,%4' FWf Fsjrhaven nI '�, 1) •••• VortnLi Pat _v ^swan 1-eighM n aryl Re jow aI R `�► U. d_eta ►2010 Goo Tower(Registered) Tower(Not-Registered) Future Tower High structures (typically 1 ' Medium structures (100 Future site for registered over 200 ft in height) to 200 ft in height) tower • t Aleft! 74 Towers (8 Registered,66 Not Registered) found within 4.00 miles of �• Pioneer Rd, Tustin, CA 92782. Infol The NEAREST Tower is 1.17 miles away and is owned by Cox Communications Pea, L.p.fmhc Lbcd. ' Alert! One New Tower Application found within 4.00 miles of Pioneer Rd, Tustin, CA 92782. ower Type ID Num site Owner Height 0-451-7 ower Registered (1) Towarco AssetsLs 59 feet 1.93 miles (2) H-orv�lgymr4 LLL 55 feet 2.99 miles (3) TormEl:a-A setsl.lo 65 feet 3.13 miles (4) Los.Anwles SmsaLimi PadnershiR 60 feet 3.16 miles (5) Towerco Assets L 56 feet 3.48 miles I (6) TotKe Assets Llc 63 feet 3.67 miles (7) CeifforN8. State Of 80 feet 3.81 miles AntennaSearch - Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more. Page 2 of 3 (8) T -mobile West Corpgratig-n 115 feet 3.97 miles 1Not Registered (1) Cox CQmffwiicatigns Pm-L,p.fmhcLbcd 47 feet 1.17 miles (2) Cox Communications Inc 80 feet 1.34 miles (3) Airtouch C411 11 r 67 feet 1.43 miles (4) Southem Califomia Edison 68 feet 1.78 miles (5) Lq3Ajmsa Limited Ptsp 52 feet 1.85 miles (6) Cw&alilornia Pc 3 47 feet 1.86 miles (7) Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company 45 feet 1.89 miles (8) Pacific Ball -Mobile Services 51 feel 1.90 miles (9) CrgwAC1stle _WW Area -Deed"_$tout 110 feet 1.95 miles (10) CrQwn_Caaile 120 feet 2.10 miles (11) Ne)delCorrmunication3 39 feet 2.28 miles (12) Los An is Cellular Telwhone.Co 38 feet 2.33 miles (13) Cox California Pcs 53 feet 2.47 miles (14) fte[icap Tower Coro, 64 feet 2.52 miles (15) P$Ge1 Cellu r-aPa_rk Plaza 62 (eat 2.54 miles (16) Cingular Wireless - Dallas 62 feet 2.55 miles (17) Spectra Site Communications 64 feet 2.56 miles (18) Pactel Cellular 62 feet 2.56 miles (19) T� ill _y" 65 feet 2.61 miles (20) Cox Communicationa Pcs W 46 feet 2.62 miles (21) Lg5-Angc*a- Cellular Telephone Co 62 feet 2.66 miles (22) Pacific Bell Mobile Services 70 feet 2.66 miles (23) Pacific Bell Mobile Scrvicea 54 feet 2.71 miles (24) Cox -Communications Inc 60 feet 2.71 miles (25) Cox GQmmuniCatio03 Pca l p 33 feet 2.72 miles (26) Kieran Nolan 59 feet 2.75 miles (27) Nextel Cgmmunicaiong 35 feet 2.76 miles (28) Pacific Bell Mobile Services 40 feet 2.83 miles (29) Cox Communicatans Inc 47 feet 2.84 miles (30) C4X-CaliigmWPQS 47 feet 2.87 miles (31) Speclrwite Communications 64 feet 2.90 miles (32) Pacific Bell Mobile.SaNic as 41 feet 2.91 miles (33) Pacific Bell Mobile Services 80 feet 2.92 miles (34) Pacific Bell Mobile Servs 43 feet 2.93 miles (35) Cox Communications -1-m 79 feet 2.95 miles (36) Pacific Bell Mobile Services 50 feet 2.98 miles (37) Ws. Angeles CellullaLIehuft le Company 77 feet 2.98 miles (38) Los Ange ai Cellular Telephone C -g, 75 feet 2.99 miles (39) SmadSmr Califamin 74 feet 3.00 miles (40) Pack Bell Mobile -Services 65 feet 3.02 miles (41) Pacific Bgll_Mgbile �4rvices 50 feet 3.07 miles (42) Pacific 66 feet 3.08 miles (43) Pacific -Bell Mobile Sefvices 48 feet 3.12 miles (44) Pactel Cellular 60 feet 3.18 miles (45) Sox Celilg w&FQ 35 feet 3.24 miles (46) Pacific Bell VOroleaa. Llc 75 feel 3.25 miles (47) Pacific Telesis Video Services 30 feet 3.27 miles (48) Nextel Commyni ations 53 feet 3.44 miles (49) Dgs.telecommunications Divt$ign 60 feet 3.45 miles (50) Los --Angeles Cellular Telephone Cg 56 feet 3.50 miles (51) Nextel Communications 55 feet 3.51 miles (52) Pasifir-Bell Wireless Lk 41 feet 3.53 miles (53) Cirlgular Wireless - Lgenler 47 feet 3.54 miles (54) AW Wireless SkNim 45 feet 3.62 miles (55) Los Angeles Cel&r Telephone Co, 70 feet 3.66 miles (56) Los Angeles Cellular Telephone�q 32 feet 3.76 miles (57) Nextel Communications 65 feet 3.79 miles (58) American Tower-schaumby , Il 65 feet 3.79 miles (59) Pacific Bell Mgbft Services 61 feet 3.81 miles (60) Cox CalifomisPPcs 28 feet 3.82 miles (61) Pacific Bell Wireless Llc 61 feet 3.84 miles (62) Los Angeles SmPartner, 54 feet 3.93 miles (63) Cox Communications -P-cL L."m 32 feet 3.94 miles (64) Cox Communications Pcs Lo 57 feet 3.95 miles (65) AtiCdMar Holding Lk Dba At $ I 60 feet 3.98 miles (66) Cox Communications Inc 37 feet 3.99 miles Future (1) T -mobile West Corooralign 65 feet 2.63 miles AntennaSearch - Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more. Page 3 of 3 A 2004-2009 by General Data Resources, Inc AntennaSearch - Search for Cell "Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more. Page I of 4 L✓ 3-5 Day Install TI *w 99/mo L✓_ No Loop Cltarotus '�' tawv�rwt L� No TAxrs (46) 82! e Antenna Sites - (Pioneer Rd, Tustin, CA 92782) Orange %,.V�vv Orange Iry P -a. Regional PRO - ! llodn .0 rn Cnwan 31 HerrlhK E Fairhaven '1 rr11 pgxtotA Parr 281 na .•^��� �M {( µ� 7rcna.! Hills :green n op W (F) � •Jw � �t yn - � , 46 114 10 Single Antenna V Small (below 100ft) stand alone antenna on _ — top of buildings, poles, etc. 0 C4 U Reenral F 100or A**., _Map data 02010 Goo Multiple Antennas Multiple antennas sharing a high tower structure. 0! Alertl 214 Antennas found within 4.00 miles of Pioneer Rd, Tustin, CA 92782. 1 Infol The NEAREST Antenna is .32 miles away and is owned by Orange, County Of, Ca. Site Type Site Num Antenna Owner Height Dist Multiple (1) Lockheed Madi>limll 16 feet .46 miles Lgghfteed Martin Ims 16 feet .46 miles (2) Lt-MBrtin lms 16 feet .56 miles Ltd -Martin Ims 16 feet .56 miles _ _ (3) Lockheed Martin Ims - 16 feet .85 miles g9k Vd Martin Ims 16 feet .85 miles (4) Lmkhftd Madinlm8 16 feet 86 miles LQr.KhWMa 0 IM 16 feet 86 miles Lockheed Martin Ims 16 feet 86 miles (5) LQCkhW.!l Ad n lms --- - 16 feet 1.24 miles Lockheed Martin Itu 16 feet 1.24 miles AntennaSearch - Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, I lidden Antennas and more. Page 2 of 4 (6) (7) (8) (9) Eff (17) (18) 22hLOW Martin Ims 16 feet 1.25 miles Lockheed Martin_Ims 16 feet 1.25 miles 1-00heed Martin Ims 16 feet 1.25 miles _ L"Kh d-MaAin_.IM 16 feet 1 68 miles Uglkh=AMarlin Ims 16 feet 1.68 miles Lockheed Martin Ims 16 feet 1.73 miles Lockheed Martin Ims 16 feet 1.73 miles Calif0tnia.StatQ4 16 feet 1.77 miles Orsngc CounW Of. Cf NA 1.78 miles Qrange. County.Of 170 feet 1.77 miles IWO.COMIM" 26 feet 1.78 miles Southern California Regional Rail Authority 200 feet 1.78 miles Orange, County OffC,a 170 feet 1.77 miles Orange. County Of. Ca 170 feet 1.77 miles California. State Of 170 feet 1.77 miles Orange County Transportation Author! 170 feet 1.77 miles Orange. County Of. Ca 170 feet 1.78 miles Orange. County Of. Ca 20 feet 1.77 miles Oran9t: Aunty Of. Ca 79 feet 1.78 miles Orange. C4unb[Of 151 feet 1.77 miles Califofnia..State Of 171 feet 1.77 miles California. S1ate4f 161 feet 1.77 miles Orange. County Of. Ca 171 feet 1.77 miles Anaheim. City Of Sts 170 feet 1.77 miles Orange, County Of. Ca 170 feet 1.77 miles Orange. Coin Of NA 1.78 miles OraIIwcounlY Of Ca NA 1.78 miles Orange County Transt?ortatiortAwhQ[ib( 170 feet 1.77 miles Orange, County OL_Ca NA 1.77 miles Municipal WMff_DVrict Of 0_r@n_WC9unty 171 feet 1.77 miles Att3,t.Callfornla 170 feet 1.78 miles Orange. County OfCa NA 1.77 miles Qrange. County_ OfCa 170 feet 1.77 miles Oran ounty Of. Ce 170 feet 1.77 miles Orangr,-CQunly Of. Ca NA 1.77 miles ladne. Cdy 161 feet 1.77 miles Orange. County Of. Ca 170 feet 1.77 miles Lov Angeles. County Q 16 feet 1.77 miles QLauge.County Of. Ca 170 feet 1.77 miles Oranoe. County f cl 170 feet 1.77 miles California. State Of NA 1.77 miles Orange. County Of. Ca 171 feet 1.77 miles Ofane..County Of 171 feet 1.77 miles Orange. County Of. Ce 80 feet 1.78 miles AmenCan_hational Red Cross NA 1.77 miles California. State Of 150 feet 1.78 miles Orange Coin Trans or Authority 21 feet 1.78 miles Sovtb4►_n Califomia Edi 2n Company 68 feet 1.78 miles Irvine. c Of. Ca 171 feet 1.77 miles Orange. Ck2QAft.OLCA 151 feet 1.77 miles Orange. County -Of. Ca 171 feet 1 77 miles ClAi rma State -0 171 feet 1.77 miles Qranye. CouptXQf. Q 171 feet 1.77 miles Orange. City Of. Ca 151 feet 1.77 miles Ne2del 0f_CaldomigjM. 59 feet 1.93 miles _ Iii 59 feet 1.94 miles Nextel Of Celifomi*-[ , 13 feet 2.31 miles NeAtL-0-Californla_lm 13 feet 2.30 miles extol Of Califomla. Inc. 13 feet 2.31 miles _ Nextel Of Califomia Inc 75 feet 2.51 miles Nextel Of Califomia. Inc. 75 feet 2.51 miles I _ - Nextel Of Califomia. Inc. _ 74 feet 3.00 miles Njael Of Califomia. Inc, NA 3.00 miles Nextel Of Calffomia. Ing. 52 feet 3.48 miles _ . C_leanNir0 Spectrum Holdings hi. Llc 56 feet 3.48 miles Nextel Of Cllifarnk lnc, 66 feet 3.81 miles extol Of Calffomia. Inc. _ 66 feet 3.81 miles Metrocall Usa. InC NA 3 93 miles L)C` Debtor= in -possession 148 feet 3.91 miles Lockheed Martin Ims 16 feet 3.94 miles ockheed Martin Ims - 16 feet 3.9_4 miles I Orange. untyQL.Ca 77 feet 32 miles } Qrange_C At0IY-Qf_Sta 50 feet .32 miles AntennaSearch - Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, E lidden Antennas and more. Page 3 of 4 (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) Santa Anr nift4d Sc +sott Aird 69 feet .70 miles _ S_ nta Ana Unified School DistrictNA .70 miles Ifvine Aoertment_C iMmunities - _ 28 feet 1.51 miles Irvine ARartmghLC4mmwAm NA 1.51 miles Imine Ranch Land Reserve Tru3t NA 2.24 miles Iryine Ranch Land Reserve Trust 20 feet 2.24 miles , Orange County Of. Ca 39 feet 2.55 miies Orencte. County 39 feet 2.56 miles V@MArkimc8 Tum Lp-Dbe The District At __60 Los noln-Sorsa-Lunt ed Partnership 76 feet Tustin NA 2.56 miles Yesta*imco Tuasti-n, La Dba._The istriCTustin tA_t 3.78 miles Single (39) Nextel Of California, inc, 36 feet 2.56 miles Southland Litt Ambulance $e_rvicc NA 2.70 miles ArchWirel4ss_L&anse QQ__LLC NA 2.70 miles 19kWan 1 69 feet 2.69 miles ORSIsWStsLD4v414plSS� NA 2.84 miles The Snorts Club Company _ v 26 feet 2.85 miles Silicon Systems Inc 30 feet 2.87 miles SilkBn Systems Inc 30 feet 2.87 miles Silicon Systems Inc 36 feet 2.87 miles Ohm-Ramediawn-amical C_Qrp --- NA 2.94 miles ZmLWQlmne Lp _ NA 2.96 miles "r n2e.CoW2y_0L_Cj 49 feet 3.12 miles _ Tustin. City Of. Ca NA 3.12 miles _ _ Sikerado Senior Living 15 feet 3 28 miles Silverado Senior Living _ NA 3.28 miles Taco Bell Restaurant NA 3.48 miles SguiMl. Mark NA 3.48 miles Tustin Unified School District NA 3.66 miles Tustin Unified School District NA 3.66 miles _ Laine Apartment Management Co. 39 feet 3.79 miles _ tying Apartment Manaaement Co, NA 3.79 miles _ Tustin Hospital 52 feet _ 3.64 miles _Tuati HoU2daj 43 feet 3.85 miles Orange- CotmpLQf NA 3.86 miles Orange. Counter Of. CQ 49 feet 3.86 miles Tustin. Citv Of 4s feet I AR miioe (35) Trinity Broadcasting Network Lnc. 37 feet 2.59 miles _Trinity Broadwating Network. Inc._ 32 feet 2.59 miles (36) ClearvAre Sfmot_rum Holdings IjLUQ 70 feet 2.71 miles Los Angeles Smsa Limited Partnership 57 feet 2.73 miles (37) Met[4p4Iftan.Area twork , IM 64 feet 2.90 miles _ C128 Jre Spectrum Holdings Iii. Llc feet 2.91 miles (38) __60 Los noln-Sorsa-Lunt ed Partnership 76 feet 3.77 miles Clearw re Spectrum Holdinas Iii Llc 60 feet 3.78 miles Single (39) Nextel Of California, inc, 39 feet 2.27 miles 1 (40) Fci 900. Inc. 75 feet 2.53 miles ' (41) Ne2t4l QLQalifomia, Inc 35 feet 2.76 miles (42) NaMetOf Califdrni& Inc. 65 feet 3.14 miles (43) Nextel Of California. Inc. 53 feet 3.39 miles (44) Nextel Of California Inc. 60 feet 3.90 miles (45) Crown Golf Properties o NA .81 miles (46) Thfltrvina_Com2any 25 feet .93 miles (47) Irvine. Qb Of. Ca 23 feet .94 miles (48) Tustin Unified School District 35 feet .99 miles (49) Jade In The Box Inc Dba V!* In The 139x NA 1.49 miles (50) Irvine Unified School Dist NA 1.77 miles (51) Golden State Water Qgmpan , Ing. 35 feet 1.86 miles (52) Tustin Unified School District NA 2.03 miles (53) Red_ Hill Lutheran ChUro NA 2.04 miles (54) Qrange. County Of. Ca 37 feet 2.10 miles (55) Municif>el Wate[DW isd4=raJ»ge_County 98 feet 2.11 miles (56) lofin Ranch_Walar D4162 20 feet 2.11 miles (57) iming-Chy Of 31 feet 2.17 miles (58) Home Def o� t U.s.a.. Inn, NA 2.18 miles (59) Gap Inc NA 2.19 miles (60) Toys R U In NA 2.20 miles (61) Baker & Bake t NA 2.30 miles (62) NA 2.31 miles (63) Intin4.Qity Of. Qa 23 feet 2.40 miles (64) SaiQ ,f9t4eph Hospital Inc NA 2.43 miles (65) Neptune TechnQlm G wo Iftc. 85 feet 2.56 miles (66) The Qrms.HomeQwmrs.jm NA 2.60 miles AntennaSearch - Search for Cell Towers, Cell Reception, Hidden Antennas and more. Page 4 of 4 (67) (68) (69) (70) (71) (72) (73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (81) (82) (83) (84) (85) (86) (87) (88) (89) (90) (91) (92) (93) (94) (95) (96) (97) (98) (99) (100) (101) (102) (103) (104) (105) (106) (107) (108) (109) (110) (111) (112) (113) (114) (115) (116) (117) (118) (119) (120) (121) (122) (123) (124) T&4lingdoIlt<Intematl9nal NA 2.72 miles Rancho $ani o Community Collie Dl*,Gt NA 2.81 miles Rarlcllo Santiagg_Cgrrtmunity College District 50 feet 2.86 miles Adcon TQI4mgtry NA 2.93 miles AmericaaM-eterSale IM NA 3.05 miles Tq5 in A)nftdSchool ChI&A 47 feet 3.06 miles Doi TIOl.lr. NA 3.22 miles Abbas Moallen. Inc. NA 3.24 miles Tustin Unified 3chool DiaLrigt NA 3.28 miles TarW5t4rg11230 NA 3.37 miles 1PLn"gm9any 20 feet 3.43 miles Orange__CgUntyQL Ca 34 feet 3.44 miles Osumi. George 26 feet 3.55 miles QronSiq. County�Ca 39 feet 3.59 miles Aisciciahon_QiAmedcaf>_Radroads 36 feet 3.59 miles Jdc Fgod Services. Inc, NA 3.64 miles Saint C4ci1i IJ6d 441 NA 3.71 miles EnvwEnviranmentatRemarch NA 3.74 miles hvine Uniod,802otDistrict NA 3.77 miles Irvi0"ity.Of. Ca 23 feet 3.82 miles IrYine Unifzt-SchmWistrict 49 feet 3.86 miles S2uthQm Qaffornia-Regims.1 Rail Authority 23 feet 3.89 miles $V99mhuttle-ft 39 feet 3.90 miles Orono -c unfv 4f NA 3.91 miles @gwiers N-UnHa NA 3.92 miles Sistafa_QLSLioseph 49 feet 3.96 miles SAnd G Foods Inc NA 3.97 miles Qb=e County RejtQMia314n NA 3.99 miles C�rwire Sgectrum Holdi0gs Iii Llc 80 feet 1.32 miles wsAnQakm Smsa Limited PartnershYo 67 feet 1.42 miles Lg$_AflgalQs $msallf1111fld Partnership 20 feet 1.77 miles Los Anaeles Smsa Limited PaRnelshiD_ 85 feet 1.95 miles Cle r irg SpAdwm _Hg1dings 1ii,_Liq 80 feet 2.08 miles Los -Angeles Smsa L.i Ided-Partnta R 62 feet 2.56 miles N@Zb tzlnc 98 feet 2.60 miles Airband_Comm unecations. lnc 60 feet 2.74 miles Los Angeles Smsa Limited Partnership 48 feet 2.85 miles Ranch9_Santiayo College 35 feet 2.90 miles Nelt>� 34 feet 2.90 miles Los Aogeles_Smu-UM adP_ad0atship 63 feet 2.92 miles 01 -ARP -las Smsa Limited Partnership 77 feet 2.95 miles Lo;t Angelgs Smss Limited Partnership 60 feet 3.16 miles Los Angeles Smsa Limned Partnorship 75 feet 3.19 miles Nsac-1k 30 feet 3.34 miles Calitomia, StakV 55 feet 3.44 miles Clgarwirg Sgectrum Holding;t lii, Llc 47 feet 3.44 miles Clleanki e$pecimm_Hq nrw Iii, Llc 154 feet 3.52 miles CjNMire Swill Hgkfingaly, Llc 63 feet 3.68 miles Cbarwiry $ drum Holdirlgslii,l.lc 118 feet 3.72 miles Nextel Qf Califomia Inc 65 feet 3.79 miles Los Anale3 Smsa-Limited Partnership 42 feet 3.79 miles Califomia._;ztawQf 80 feet 3.82 miles C�arwir S�SrSQLH41�ings Iii, Llc 60 feet 3.85 miles Q*UWlm 59091 um Holding liL Uc 55 feet 3.85 miles C1Sarwire SpQdrum Holdings JiL Uc 67 feet 3.85 miles Aid)and Communications Inc. 138 feet 3.89 miles LosAngaks Smsa Limited Padnffahip 54 feet 3.93 miles LosAnggtgs_.Sml l MAod P&dnt h:lp 60 feet 3.94 miles Lo no les_ams Li it4d artne hip_ 30 feet 3.94 miles J m 2004-2009 by General Data Resources, Inc. N l< (D d c a ul O Cr m O 3 m y to [rL 3: M <0 (D — cli (n — Ul C� poll Cf) (D CA CL mn Swiontek, Ryan From: Home Dai [homedai@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Please stop the Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Dear Planning Commission and City Council: I am a Tustin resident who frequents Cedar Grove Park with children to play and enjoy the scenic beauty of the historic Cedar Grove. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a 65' Cell Phone Tower next to the Cedar Grove and yards away from the National Recreation Trail the Mountains to Sea trail. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our children. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. We meet other families there from Tustin as well as the surrounding areas including Santa Ana, Orange, and Irvine. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for mothers, kids, and families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. We were upset to recently learn that T -Mobile wants to construct 65 -foot (5 -story) Cell Phone Tower with large ground equipment in Cedar Grove Park, close to neighbors (within 300 feet), next to Peters Canyon Elementary (with some portable classroom just several yards away) and near Pioneer Middle School. A Tower at this location, fake tree or not, will compromise the scenic beauty and historic integrity of the tree grove and the park. These trees are over 100 years old and are one of the oldest landmarks left in Tustin Ranch. Tustin, is, after all "The City of Trees". I also understand that the tower equipment will be substantial and possibly produce noise - it will compromise the peacefulness and enjoyment of the park. It may further present a safety issue as an attractive nuisance to children in the park. In short, it will affect our quality of life. I am further concerned it will further lower the property values of the homes in the area. Studies indicate it can affect it anywhere from 2% to 10% or more. That, in turn, will affect your property tax revenues as homeowners seek re -assessment based upon the lower values. Just do a simple cost benefit analysis: the revenue the City would earn from this tower (I understand you are hoping for a revenue stream in the range of $21,600 to $28,000/year) is not enough to offset the lower property tax revenues the entire area would suffer as a result of the placement of the tower at this location. It is also not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this significant financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower. Cell Towers continuously emit RF/EMF 24 hrs/day. We do not want our children exposed to electromagnetic radiation, as these Cell Tower emissions are dangerous to human health. More and more facts are revealed about health dangers every year. we have learned that health studies - primarily in Europe - conclude that living near Cell Towers is especially hazardous to children. I am aware that you don't want to consider the health effects in your decision, but the perceived health effects are the very reason why property values will decline, and people 1 will refuse to frequent the park. In any event, you need not consider health effects as it is not necessary to get that far in the analysis. There are plenty of other reasons to deny the application of this tower at this location. Please don't put a Cell Tower here, next to all our kids. Abide by the City's motto to "Preserve Our History". Stop the Tower in Cedar Grove! Please keep it for kids. If not, we will no longer be able to use the Park. Thank you! Sincerely, Yujun S. 2 Lynnea & Lawrence Kull 10816 Churchill Place Presidio Community Tustin, CA 92782 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 December 13, 2010 RE: Design Review 09-033 (Cell Tower Proposal in Cedar Grove Park) To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to request that the City of Tustin to REJECT the Cell Tower Proposal of T -Mobil and AT&T to be located in Cedar Grove Park. As a member of the Tustin Ranch community and the parents of two children, we are completely opposed to the placement of a 65' faux tree cell tower to be placed in our historic Cedar Grove Park. This structure will take away from the beauty and historical preservation of this park. In addition, this location is too close to Peters Canyon Elementary and Pioneer Middle schools. There are acceptable alternate locations on Jamboree Road, the Orange County Fire Authority or the newly developed Orchard Hills community. Please understand the community concern and REJECT this location. Thank you, Lynnea & Lawrence Kull From: Ipkull@aol.com [mailto:lpkull@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:16 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Design Review 09-033 To Whom it May Concern, Please read the attached letter regarding Design Review 09-033. Please submit for the meeting tonight, December 14th at 7pm. Thank you, Lynnea & Lawrence Kull From: Karen Malloy [mailto:kajmalloy@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:15 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Cc: 'Brandon Key' Subject: No Cell Towers near schools in Tustin Importance: High To all, I'm very concerned about the recent proposal to install a cell tower to house multiple carriers in Cedar Grove Park or the OCFA. I feel this decision is being made based on strong financial motives and very little concern for the health of 625 children at Peters Canyon Elementary school, 1300-1400 children at Pioneer Middle School and 515 children at Ladera Elementary school, as well as the hundreds of homes housing mostly young families surrounding this area. It takes many, many years to get concrete evidence that proves environmental issues like this are detrimental to our health. There will not be studies that absolutely prove that cell towers near homes and children are harmful for probably 10+ years because of the long incubation time for symptoms of cancer to appear. Cell towers are just too new to have the kind of studies that would absolutely prove their danger at this time. But we do have lots of strong evidence leading to the fact that these towers can cause cancer and a variety of other health problems NOW and we need to make a good judgment call based on that information. How long did it take for the government to admit that cigarettes are harmful to our health? I'm sure that you all wore your seatbelt today, not knowing that you would be in an accident but because you wanted to be safe in case you were. You are all very important people to our community. Please make good decisions to protect Tustin's residents of all ages, especially those who are too young to have a voice on this important matter. Do not place a cell tower at Cedar Grove Park or at OCFA and choose another location away from schools and homes. Please forward this message to the Planning Commission Members: Steve Kozak, Marge Kasalek, Chuck Puckett, Jeff Thompson and Fred Moore And to the Community Services Commission: Ken Eckman, Erin Moore, Amy Nakamoto, Don Ropele and Ken Henderson Thank you! See you tonight, Karen Malloy 14 year Tustin resident From: Brandon Key [mailto:dcpost@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 7:30 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Statement to the Planning Commission Hi Ryan, Here is the statement I will be making at the meeting tonight. I will be bringing copies for the commission members, but if you want to get it in front of them before the meeting that would be great. Thanks. -- Brandon Key Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Brandon Key and I am a resident in the El Dorado neighborhood of Tustin Ranch. I am here tonight to protest T - Mobile's effort to deface our local park. Cell phone service in the Peters Canyon area of Tustin Ranch is terrible. There is no denying that. We understand that everyone in the community wants better coverage, and we are not trying to deny better service to anyone. What we are asking is, what is the BEST way to provide this service? Your staff suggests that the best way is to install a 65' cell tower in the middle of Cedar Grove Park, one of the most widely used parks in the area. This is a proposition that at least 470 individuals of the immediate community are opposed to, as evidenced by our petition. Your staff is relying on false information to come to that conclusion. As the Planning Commission, you are entrusted to make decisions on zoning and development issues that will benefit the community, or at least minimize the negative impact on it. On page 11 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission on this proposed tower it states that, "in determining whether to approve the Design Review for the proposed wireless telecommunications facility... within Cedar Grove Park, the Planning Commission must find that the location, size, architectural features, and general appearance of the proposed aboveground utilityfacility will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, or the community as a whole." Well, aren't we the community? Aren't the 470 Tustin residents who signed the petition opposing the installation of this tower the community? And you can bet that we feel this proposed installation is a disruption to the harmonious development of the area. But most importantly, the longer-term burden to the park is much greater than what is being considered in this initial installation. T -Mobile's proposed design for the Cedar Grove site is sized for only two wireless carriers' equipment in the block wall enclosure proposed (see figure 1.) There are six wireless carriers currently serving Orange County. What happens when those other carriers want space at the facility? You must recognize that the real estate required to support the additional carriers could triple the size of this installation. How much of the park do you plan to sell off? It baffles me that, despite the overwhelming opposition to this installation, the City would want to proceed with it when there is an alternative site just 450 yards away that would be an acceptable alternative to the community. That site is in a maintenance yard between jamboree Road and the 261 toll road on the Orange County Fire Authority property (see figures 2 and 3). The site has approval from the OC Fire Authority and is being designed with the capacity to handle up to six wireless carriers. It is located at an elevation 30' higher than the Cedar Grove Park site (see figure 4.) If an alternative site to Cedar Grove Park is available that serves the community equally well, why would the city choose to place this cell tower in the park against the wishes of the community it is meant to serve? It makes no sense to sell our park knowing the impact will be far greater when other carriers come to join. It makes no sense to start selling off the park in parcels, a park that is one of the best assets of our community and part of what makes this area special. It makes no sense to place this installation in one of the most widely used and cherished family environments, unless you are willing to believe that there are NO other reasonable alternatives. But there is a reasonable alternative. The OC Fire Authority has approved their maintenance yard for this use. And what is the proof that this location will not work? Oh, because T -Mobile said it wouldn't work. Your staff has failed to consider the OC Fire Authority site because T -Mobile claims it, "will not work for the intended coverage objective of this ring." If that's true, why did T -Mobile actively pursue the OC Fire Authority site as a viable location for three years before shifting focus to the Cedar Grove Park site? If the OC Fire Authority site would have worked for them before, why won't it work now? If fact, we know that the OC Fire Authority site will work perfectly fine to service the area because Verizon is currently operating a cell site from a light pole adjacent to Jamboree Road just a few yards from the proposed OC Fire Authority site (see Figure 5.) This site is servicing the entire area around Cedar Grove Park with excellent coverage. We did our own survey of the neighborhood and found there to be no gaps in coverage (see Figure 6.) Verizon gets those results from a 15' high antenna. The OC Fire Authority towers will be 45' high so they would certainly give better results. T -Mobile's assertion that the OC Fire Authority site won't work for the area is blatantly false. But T -Mobile doesn't seem to have a problem spreading falsehoods. The coverage maps on their own website suggest that the coverage in the entire Peters Canyon area varies from "Excellent" to "Good" (see Figure 6), while the drive test they submitted to the Planning Commission (Figure 7) suggests that the coverage in the area is quite deficient. Or how about their attempts to build two towers in a Huntington Beach park in which they misrepresented the total cost of the construction in order to bypass voter approval? That incident eventually resulted in Measure Q in which over 35,000 residents voted against the construction of those towers and won. But T - Mobile won't give up. They are suing Huntington Beach to get their way. Unfortunately, in our case, we do not have the right to vote on this issue. We are counting on you, the Planning Commission, to hear our voice and DO THE RIGHT THING! If the community prefers the OC Fire Authority site over the Cedar Grove Park site, the burden should be on T -Mobile to prove that the OC Fire Authority site doesn't work, rather than just saying so. The fact is that they can't. They know it is a viable site and that's why they tried to put a tower there for three years before pursuing the park site. In light of all these facts, if the Planning Commission decides to allow T -Mobile's application to proceed at the park, the only possible reason can be that the City of Tustin's primary interest is the revenue T -Mobile and the other carriers will pay to place their facilities there. Are the City's finances so strapped that we have to sell off our recreational facilities to the highest bidder? Is that the primary purpose of a city park - to generate revenue for the city? If the city is concerned about its finances, how about the potential cost of a lawsuit arising from a child climbing or playing on the cell tower equipment structure and becoming injured, or even killed? Doesn't it make more sense to have this installation located in a locked maintenance yard beyond the reach of our children? As a community that enjoys the use of its parks, and believes that they should be utilized for recreation and not to house large telecommunications installations or other heavy machinery, we ask the Planning Commission to deny T -Mobile's application to install the proposed cell tower site in Cedar Grove Park. At the very least, we ask the Planning Commission to grant a continuance on the project in order to: 1) determine the design modifications required to accommodate all six wireless carriers at the Cedar Grove Park location, and assess the long-term impact to the park of those modifications, 2) perform an independent, third -party analysis of the OC Fire Authority site to determine its viability, 3) allow T -Mobile to conduct a community outreach meeting with residents to help us understand their system and why they feel it is their only option. Please consider the will of your constituents when making decisions that will alter the quality of life in our neighborhood. Thank you. — � E ± — •r-- -- — ---err_ --�, — —,r—.-1 r—' ' L W O t� OV 1 a t u — I j - 1 1� Figure 1. Cedar Grove Park site plan showing current proposed design for only two wireless carriers. —t I 1 Ib f A a t u — I j - 1 1� Figure 1. Cedar Grove Park site plan showing current proposed design for only two wireless carriers. ol I Iq t Iry Proposr-d Coder Gfnr e tower opprot 450 yulds �. Pro , d OCFA towers ,_� � _�t.j"•�• ' .mow .. � •.� �; �'t:y �� i ' % ` ``�- �" ►Z3 ._:, 1f E><�stin �•V ent��n t�wPr �'1 •AL1^:e'r r , Tower loccllio►ff'. x' -LU::t I it 1 7 1 Figure 4.00FA site plan showing space required to support six wireless carriers \1 ME y r 111 ■ Figure 4.00FA site plan showing space required to support six wireless carriers Figure S. Verizon light pole installation on jamboree and Tustin Ranch Road. !P 4:� I L Pf s Grove Park site P j1powd OCFA Sft =10' -Mao"( cuff" Vofkon site 0 V, Signal Strength wool 11)11111 5 bars 4 bars -iA 3 bars Figure 6. Verizon drive test map. Personal Coverage Check I iq-) M -,p .,,- Data Cov.#rjo, Map SIrW Fla-cr PC City * .',I r 5!gna1 Strength E -cedent very COOC Good Moce'a'a 04--tf State -A Zip .' '132 var 4V A.0dress Loca!,or Now C61 Soto * T W61-0 HOISpO: Figure 7. T -Mobile advertised coverage. (source - www.tmobile.com coverage check) 71 I Figure B. T -Mobile Drive Test Map (source - Staff Report to the Planning Commission pg. 41) From: Home Dai [mailto:homedai@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:38 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Please stop the Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Dear Planning Commission and City Council: I am a Tustin resident who frequents Cedar Grove Park with children to play and enjoy the scenic beauty of the historic Cedar Grove. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a 65' Cell Phone Tower next to the Cedar Grove and yards away from the National Recreation Trail the Mountains to Sea trail. Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our children. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. we meet other families there from Tustin as well as the surrounding areas including Santa Ana, Orange, and Irvine. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for mothers, kids, and families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. We were upset to recently learn that T -Mobile wants to construct 65 -foot (5 -story) Cell Phone Tower with large ground equipment in Cedar Grove Park, close to neighbors (within 300 feet), next to Peters Canyon Elementary (with some portable classroom just several yards away) and near Pioneer Middle School. A Tower at this location, fake tree or not, will compromise the scenic beauty and historic integrity of the tree grove and the park. These trees are over 100 years old and are one of the oldest landmarks left in Tustin Ranch. Tustin, is, after all "The City of Trees". I also understand that the tower equipment will be substantial and possibly produce noise - it will compromise the peacefulness and enjoyment of the park. It may further present a safety issue as an attractive nuisance to children in the park. In short, it will affect our quality of life. I am further concerned it will further lower the property values of the homes in the area. Studies indicate it can affect it anywhere from 2% to 10% or more. That, in turn, will affect your property tax revenues as homeowners seek re -assessment based upon the lower values. lust do a simple cost benefit analysis: the revenue the City would earn from this tower (I understand you are hoping for a revenue stream in the range of $21,600 to $28,000/year) is not enough to offset the lower property tax revenues the entire area would suffer as a result of the placement of the tower at this location. It is also not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this significant financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower. Cell Towers continuously emit RF/EMF 24 hrs/day. We do not want our children exposed to electromagnetic radiation, as these Cell Tower emissions are dangerous to human health. More and more facts are revealed about health dangers every year. We have learned that health studies - primarily in Europe - conclude that living near Cell Towers is especially hazardous to children. I am aware that you don't want to consider the health effects in your decision, but the perceived health effects are the very reason why property values will decline, and people will refuse to frequent the park. In any event, you need not consider health effects as it is not necessary to get that far in the analysis. There are plenty of other reasons to deny the application of this tower at this location. Please don't put a Cell Tower here, next to all our kids. Abide by the City's motto to "Preserve Our History". Stop the Tower in Cedar Grove! Please keep it for kids. If not, we will no longer be able to use the Park. Thank you! Sincerely, Yujun S. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 1:08 PM To: Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Cc: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Letter of Alan and Stacy Owens re 09-033 ,attached is a note from Alan and Stacy Owens opposing Planning Commission matter 09-033 ,'0-- z4o_./p Al Q _�ti s T/N • C ,-- 7� 7// -sem --15' From: Hiesung Kim [mailto:hiesungk@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:47 PM To: Biggs, David; CITY COUNCIL; Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth Cc: Hiesung Kim Subject: Tmobile cell tower at Cedar Grove Park I'm a resident of Presidio in Tustin Ranch and I'm writing to show my disapproval of the cell tower at Cedar Grove Park and here are the reasons why: - I'm a current Tmobile customer and the service is great - I never experience poor service. -Tmobile acknowledges on their own website that the coverage in Tustin Ranch is good. -Over 400 Tustin residents have signed a petition opposing this cell tower in our beautiful park and for you all to ignore this is ridiculous. -The public in general has concerns over the safety of living/playing so close to cell towers. Erecting one in our residential area will lower our property values and result in lower tax revenue for the city. I would never buy a house in an area with a cell tower so close to my home, school and sitting directly in a park. It's almost like buying a house with a power line right outside. Whether or not cell towers truly cause health problems does not really matter because the general public believes they do and would not buy homes in our neighborhood. -There are other perfectly suitable locations for this tower ... OCFA, near the toll roads. Why anger the residents of this community by building it so close to schools and in a park??? Tustin Resident, Elle Kim 949-293-8639 From: Randy Zelko [mailto:randy.zelko@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 12:11 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: No cell tower in Cedar Grove park I live near the park and my daughter attends PCE. Please do not allow a cell tower to be built in the park so close to the school. Randy Zelko From: apples90l2@aol.com [mailto:apples90l2@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:57 PM To: Harris, Eloise; CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Cc: DBPIFEL@aol.com Subject: Cell Phone Tower - Cedar Grove Park, Tustin Dear Planning Commission, I urge you to deny the cell tower request from T -Mobile. Cell towers should never be considered for use in residential, school or park communities. Nobody knows the long-term consequences of constant exposure on the human body, especially children. And no one (including you) can guarantee us that no harm is being done or that it will ever affect the body. Furthermore, according to T -Mobile's own web site, they boast of complete cell coverage in the Tustin Ranch area. This means that another T - Mobile cell tower is unnecessary. Thank you for your consideration. Mimi Saenz Tustin Ranch resident From: furniturerep [mailto:furniturerep@cox.net] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:27 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Cc: CITY COUNCIL; City Clerk Subject: Re: Save Cedar Grove Park Letter Opposing Application under Design Review 09-033 David Bessen 10960 Hiskey Lane Tustin, CA 92782 714-313-3101 December 12, 2010 Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: Twelve years ago I was living in Fountain Valley, CA. As I was starting a family, I decided to embark on finding an area that would feel more like a community than a big city. I was so happy when I found Tustin. I felt like I hit pay dirt, my Telluride. Tustin was everything I wanted. It truly felt like a community. Being a big park lover I found an area surrounded by parks and settled in Tustin Ranch. Knowing we would be raising a family, a community park was especially important to me. We purchased a home within walking distance to Cedar Grove Park. This park needs to stay a park, with real trees. Not with a 65' fake tree surrounded by a 20' cement structure. Just as I was drawn to Tustin Ranch by the Park, other interested homeowners will be driven away by the large structure being proposed for this Park. As they are driven away my property values will decrease since less people will want to move into the area. When 1 found out about the T -Mobile project at my Park (the one I pay taxes for; wow I wonder does T -Mobile pay taxes to support my park), I was outraged. My historic park with 100 year old trees. My park that the general plan of my city says Athe opportunity exists in East Tustin to ensure hillside development protects the natural terrain, and that significant open space resources (such as the eucalyptus windrowns and stand of redwoods) are preserved. In a area as large as East Tustin, the provision of land uses which support the resident population to minimize travel distances to recreation use. Important viewsheds in East Tustin, including the Peters Canyon Ridgeline, the redwood/cedar grove, the knoll, and major tree stands, should be protected from intrusion.@ I was outraged because my park was about to be intruded upon. In June of 2009 Tustin received two distinguished awards from the National Arbor Day foundation and the National Association of Tree Foresters under the direction of the US Dept of Agriculture. These were awarded for environmental impact of our trees, parks and education of the environment. Should we contact the US Dept of Agriculture regarding this tower? Or, should you just give back the awards? Tustin=s arborist Pat Matson says the tree=s tell who we are. What does a 65' fake tree say about Tustin? He said the trees sense of community, historical groves and orchards show who we are. I would like to bring up one more point which I think will help resolve the issue. ATS was hired by the City of Tustin to find a suitable location for a tower. Since they are paid by Tustin and the carriers with a percentage of profits, are they really giving you the best possible location? It is in their interest to get as many as possible and recommend them. I think it would behoove the city to hire an independent professional who is paid a fee only to provide the best possible location. And, that is if another one is needed. When I go on T-Mobile=s website and type in my area it says they have excellent coverage. Well, either they are exaggerating to the general public or they are exaggerating here saying the coverage is bad. Which is it? And, why should we believe anything they say if we know they are exaggerating to one side or the other? I am not an engineer, I do not know if we need another site. I do not know which would be a good one. I just know that this site is a bad one and I will keep fighting it until it is dead. Thank you for not giving in to the corporate giants and following what our city council has asked for, to preserve our parks. David Bessen From: susan peterson [mailto:swpeterson23@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 7:18 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Cedar Grove Park To Whom It May Concern: My understanding is that the parks in our area were built for our children in the Tustin Ranch area. We pay taxes, mello roos, HOA and several other Tustin tax fees to be able to use these beautiful parks and know our children are safe when playing. The idea that it is even up for discussion to put a cell tower in the middle of the Cedar Grove Park is disgusting for many reasons. First, it would be in the middle of the park, second it DOES affect our children's health which I would think would make the city of Tustin nervous about future law suits should a child fall ill after the tower goes up, third the school is within yards of this tower once again affecting our children. Is this city that desperate for money that you would sell off pieces of our parks for commercial use'? I can guarantee you that the City of Tustin will be greatly impacted by this. These parks would no longer be used and people will eventually move out of this toxic area. I'm not sure if any of you have your own children, but I urge you to reconsider this move and look at the future of Tustin and the Tustin Ranch area and the children who live in this area. Susan Peterson 714-734-8110 From: nancy smith [mailto:bghscoach@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:35 AM To: Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: cell tower Please help protect property values in Tustin Ranch. My son lives in Huntington Beach and T -Mobile is planning a cell tower near his neighborhood and as soon as that became public knowledge, the property values in his neighborhood dropped 20%. His neighbor, has had to drop his listing price dramatically and he has to disclose the prospect of the cell tower and sure enought the buyers back out of the deal. Please save us from this. Robert Smith From: bonita mccarthy [mailto:bonita92660@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 12:22 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: opposed to cell tower near Peters Canyon elementary As a resident of this community - I never was asked if this was ok - now I am telling you that it IS NOT OK to place a cell tower in this neighborhood -particularly near the school and the eye sore that this would create is unacceptable - not only from an aesthetic, health poiint of view - but it reduces the property values - and we look like a commercial area. We DO NOT WANT THIS TOWER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD! I have sent my opposition prior - and feel like the governing parties of this community are not listening. What do we have to do to halt this when we had no say in the original proposal to begin with. Is it that once again large corporation can ask as they wish and citizens have to live with the consequences? This requires governing parties and government to step in and actually represent the PEOPLE. thank you Bonita McCarthy t From: nancy smith [mailto:bghscoach@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:37 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: cell tower It is an established fact that where ever they erect cell towers, the property values drop. In this economy we cannot afford this. Please stop this and protect the property values in Tustin Ranch. Robert Smith From: jm_knight@msn.com [mailto:jm_knight@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:13 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Cell Tower PLEASE do not place a cell tower at Cedar Grove Park. Our children's health and well-being is at stake. Please consider an alternative site that will not negatively impact the lives of our children and our community. Sincerely, Jason Knight, :MD :Medical Director CHOC Emergency Transport Services Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone From: Allan F. Brooks [mailto:allan@allanbrooks.com] Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 2:29 PM To: Gavello, Deborah; Amante, Jerry; Nielsen, John; Gomez, Rebecca; Murray, Al; CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Please do NOT turn Cedar Grove Park into an Industrial Zone to benefit the City and to the detriment of Tustin residents. There is a better alternative. Please listen. Importance: High Dear members of the Tustin Planning Commission and City Council, This is in follow-up to my email of October 25, 2010 to the then current membership of the Tustin City Council, which apparently fell upon deaf ears. I am writing again to state my opposition to the proposed cell tower installation in Cedar Grove Park. I am a big fan of cell phones and wireless technology. In fact, I use my cell phone several times every day and would enjoy better coverage in the area near the park — but I am not willing to sacrifice the park to get it. Cedar Grove Park is an oasis of nature with recognized historical significance within the planned development of Tustin Ranch. The community should be allowed to enjoy it without the eyesore a 65' fake cell tree would produce. There is an alternate cell site being considered by other cell providers that would serve the community equally as well. This site is at the OC Fire Authority complex at the intersection of Tustin Ranch road and Jamboree. However, in the "Staff Report to the Planning Commission" released December 9, 2010, it states that T -Mobile's RF engineers have determined that: The OC Fire Authority site won't "work for the intended coverage objective of this ring." I find that hard to believe, given that the OCFA site is only 460 yards East of the Cedar Grove Park location and at a higher elevation. Is T -Mobile's technology so inferior that moving the site'/4 mile would render it useless? And although T -Mobile says its goal for this tower is to improve the "In -Building" coverage in the neighborhood, half of the area to be serviced by the proposed Cedar Grove Park site is within the park itself, where there are no homes. Two other carriers are interested in the OCFA towers so why will that location work fine for them and not for T -Mobile? The disturbing conclusion I come up with when I try to answer all of these questions is MONEY. T -Mobile wants the revenue from leases it can charge to other carriers for co - location on its tower, and the City of Tustin wants the $25,000+ annual revenue from its lease with T - Mobile. What further distresses me is the fact that the Cedar Grove Park location was selected by ATS Communications, the company hired by the City to develop a wireless master plan and market city property to the wireless carriers for cellular installations. ATS receives 25% of the revenue from all cell site leases negotiated for the City. With an arrangement like that, where is the incentive to find a cell location that best serves the community and its residents? The incentive is to find as many city properties as possible "suitable" for development and to develop them as quickly as possible. In closing, please do not be under the mistaken conclusion that you, as members of the Planning Commission and City Council, are prevented from rejecting a cell site application because of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act. Under Section 47 of the United States Code which embodies the Telecommunications Act, its clear language states that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority" of a local government "over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification" of wireless facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 includes several limitations to prohibit municipalities from denying a cell tower based on health and environmental concerns, the authors of the Act wanted to ensure that our parks be preserved and protected. In this regard, the City still has authority to deny an application to preserve both history and natural surroundings. "The Committee recognizes, for example, that the use of Washington Monument, Yellowstone National Park, or a pristine wildlife sanctuary, while perhaps prime sites for an antenna and other facilities, are not appropriate and use of them would be contrary to environmental, conservation, and public safety laws." Original authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see 104th Congress, 1 st Session, House of Representatives, Report 104-204, Communications Act of 1995, Commerce Committee, July 24, 1995; p. 95.) Over 450 residents have signed the petition to oppose installation of this tower and only a handful have come forward to support it. Clearly it is not wanted by the residents it is purported to serve. Cedar Grove Park is the closest thing we have in Tustin Ranch to anything historical or of natural significance. I implore you not to defile it with this abominable tower. Sincerely, A0Za* Allan F. Brooks 10929 Dishman Place Tustin, CA 92782 Allan@AllanBrooks.com Home: 714-389-5875 Mobile: 949-510-3801 eFax: 714-908-8686 From: Jun Dai [mailto:jdai@broadcom.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:31 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Ryan Swiontek Dear Mr. Swiontek I'm a long time (10 yr) resident of Tustin and have voted in every election. I am deeply concerned about the plan to setup a cell tower in Cedar Grove park. I was working in the Mobile phone business for 5 years . As love to have good cell coverage in the area, I am concerned about the safety of the cell tower in close proximity of Peters Canyon elementary school and the potential negative impact on the home values in the surrounding neighborhoods. As we all know the long term effect of high power radio waves on people's health is remains still unknown and being researched. And there have been lots of conflicting reports and claims that supports either side of the argument. There are always concerns about the negative health effect for a cell tower and that is why usually homes that is close to the tower has less values on the market. I just think it is unwise to put a cell tower so close (literally feet from) to an elementary school and in a densely populated area. There are other locations that are farther away from children and populated area. I hate to see you rush to judgment now only to find out 10-20 years later that children and people's health has been negatively impacted. Sincerely Jun Dai Resident of Tustin Ranch. From: Xiaoming Yu[mailto:xiaoming.yu@mscsoftware.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 10:15 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: NO NO No CELL TOWER IN CEDAR GROVE PARK!!! Dear City Council Members: Our family, like many families in Tustin Ranch, OPPOSE STRONGLY and FIRMLY CELL TOWER IN CEDAR GROVE PARK! Happy Holiday Season, Xiaoming Yu From: Lisa Deneen [mailto:deneens5@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:08 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: vote NO on the cell tower at Cedar Grove Park Dear Mr. Swiontek, I am writing to respectfully request that you vote NO on the proposed cell tower at Cedar Grove Park. Cedar Grove Park was designed to include a grove of trees with a path running through them which allows people, young and old, to walk through the park and off onto the paths and get the feeling that they are out of the city. Parents and children play hide and go seek in those woods, kids play capture the flag in those woods, and often playing among the trees is the only time many of the children get to run in the "woods". Putting a cell tower, AND don't forget all the other equipment that will be installed along with it, will change this feeling for all those who enjoy it. Cedar Grove Park is used by wedding parties for photos, high school students on their way to dances stop there for photos, and families use the park as a spot for their family portraits. Placing a cell tower and the other items in Cedar Grove Park will forever change the photo backdrop; who wants a photo with a cell tower in it? Given the fact that there are other possible locations for this cell tower and the great negative impact this cell tower will have on all those who frequent Cedar Grove Park I truly believe it would be perverse to put a cell tower here. If you have been watching all the ways Cedar Grove Park is used by hundreds of people every week as I have for over 5 years it would be impossible to come to the conclusion that a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park is the right thing for our community. Sincerely, Lisa Deneen 2574 Newman Ave. Tustin, CA 92782 From: Tracy Powell [mailto:tracylpowell@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 12:16 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Fw: Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park is NOT WANTED! Dear members of the Tustin Planning Commission and City Council, I am also very opposed to the installation of a 65' fake tree cell tower in Cedar Grove Park. As you can read below, Brandon Key states my feelings and opposition to the location of a cell tower quite well. I believe the alternate site at the OC Fire Authority complex at the intersection of Tustin Ranch road and Jamboree would be a more suitable location for the city and it's residents. The information below really makes me wonder whose interests your trying to serve. Best Regards, J uw* .C. J auwu ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Brandon Key <dcpost@cox.net> To: citycouncil@tustinca.org; rswiontek@tustinca.org; ebinsack@tustinca.org; dbiggs@tustinca.org Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 9:50:18 AM Subject: Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park is NOT WANTED! Dear members of the Tustin Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing you to state my opposition to the proposed cell tower installation in Cedar Grove Park. I am a big fan of cell phones and wireless technology. In fact, I use my cell phone several times everyday and would enjoy better coverage in the area near the park — but I am not willing to sacrifice the park to get it. Cedar Grove Park is an oasis of nature with recognized historical significance within the planned development of Tustin Ranch. The community should be allowed to enjoy it without the eyesore a 65' fake cell tree would produce. There is an alternate cell site being considered by other cell providers that would serve the community equally as well. This site is at the OC Fire Authority complex at the intersection of Tustin Ranch road and Jamboree. However, in the "Staff Report to the Planning Commission" released December 9, 2010, it states that T -Mobile's RF engineers have determined that: the OC Fire Authority site won't "work for the intended coverage objective of this ring. " I find that hard to believe, given that the OCFA site is only 460 yards East of the Cedar Grove Park location and at a higher elevation. Is T -':Mobile's technology so inferior that moving the site 14 mile would render it useless? And although T -Mobile says its goal for this tower is to improve the "In -Building" coverage in the neighborhood, half of the area to be serviced by the proposed Cedar Grove Park site is within the park itself, where there are no homes. Two other carriers are interested in the OCFA towers so why will that location work fine for them and not for T -Mobile? The disturbing conclusion I come up with when I try to answer all of these questions is MONEY. T -Mobile wants the revenue from leases it can charge to other carriers for co -location on its tower, and the City of Tustin wants the $25,000+ annual revenue from its lease with T - Mobile. What further distresses me is the fact that the Cedar Grove Park location was selected by ATS Communications, the company hired by the City to develop a wireless master plan and market city property to the wireless carriers for cellular installations. ATS receives 25% of the revenue from all cell site leases negotiated for the City. With an arrangement like that, where is the incentive to find a cell location that best serves the community and it's residents? The incentive is to find as many city properties as possible "suitable" for development and to develop them as quickly as possible. In closing, please do not be under the mistaken conclusion that you, as members of the Planning Commission and City Council, are prevented from rejecting a cell site application because of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act. Under Section 47 of the United States Code which embodies the Telecommunications Act, its clear language states that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority" of a local government "over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification" of wireless facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 includes several limitations to prohibit municipalities from denying a cell tower based on health and environmental concerns, the authors of the Act wanted to ensure that our parks be preserved and protected. In this regard, the City still has authority to deny an application to preserve both history and natural surroundings. "The Committee recognizes, for example, that the use of Washington Monument, Yellowstone National Park, or a pristine wildlife sanctuary, while perhaps prime sites for an antenna and other facilities, are not appropriate ... and use of thein would be contrary to environmental, conservation, and public safety laws. " [Original authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see 104th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Report 104-204, Communications Act of 1995, Commerce Committee, July 24, 1995; p. 95.1 Over 450 residents have signed the petition to oppose installation of this tower and only a handful have come forward to support it. Clearly it is not wanted by the residents it is purported to serve. Cedar Grove Park is the closest thing we have in Tustin Ranch to anything historical or of natural significance. I implore you not to defile it with this abominable tower. Sincerely, Brandon Key Tustin Resident From: Lisa Kormos (mailto:lskormos@cox.net] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:54 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Brandon Key Subject: Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Dear members of the Tustin Planning Commission and City Council, I, too, am writing you to state my opposition to the proposed cell tower installation in Cedar Grove Park. These days, everyone uses cell phones and coverage is indeed needed. Our reception locally here in the Tustin Ranch area is abysmal (I am a Verizon customer). HOWEVER, as we all know, the cell phone towers are a blight on the landscape even with their attempts to beautify them (their effort falls quite short). Putting this cell tower in Cedar Grove Park will significantly diminish the natural beauty of this historic park. As I understand it, there is an alternate cell site being considered by other cell providers that would serve the community equally as well. This site is at the OC Fire Authority complex at the intersection of Tustin Ranch road and Jamboree. Apparently, there is some concern that this location which is almost within throwing distance is inferior somehow. Is their technology that poor'? If so, we certainly don't need that in our park either. Additionally, I understand that two other carriers are interested in the OCFA tower location. It would seem to me that it should work just as well for T -Mobile. I'll quote another Tustin resident below who already wrote to you stating: "The disturbing conclusion I come up with when I try to answer all of these questions is MONEY. T -Mobile wants the revenue from leases it can charge to other carriers for co -location on its tower, and the City of Tustin wants the $25,000+ annual revenue from its lease with T - Mobile. What further distresses me is the fact that the Cedar Grove Park location was selected by ATS Communications, the company hired by the City to develop a wireless master plan and market city property to the wireless carriers for cellular installations. ATS receives 25°I� of the revenue from all cell site leases negotiated for the City. With an arrangement like that, where is the incentive to find a cell location that best serves the community and it's residents? The incentive is to find as many city properties as possible "suitable" for development and to develop them as quickly as possible. In closing, please do not be under the mistaken conclusion that you, as members of the Planning Commission and City Council, are prevented from rejecting a cell site application because of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act. Under Section 47 of the United States Code which embodies the Telecommunications Act, its clear language states that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority" of a local government "over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification" of wireless facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 includes several limitations to prohibit municipalities from denying a cell tower based on health and environmental concerns, the authors of the Act wanted to ensure that our parks be preserved and protected. In this regard, the City still has authority to deny an application to preserve both history and natural surroundings. "The Committee recognizes, for example, that the use of Washington Monument, Yellowstone National Park, or a pristine wildlife sanctuary, while perhaps prime sites for ant antenna and other facilities, are not appropriate ... and use of them would be contrary to environmental, conservation, and public safety laws. " [Original authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see 104th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Report 104-204, Communications Act of 1995, Commerce Committee, July 24. 1995; p. 95.1" I am one of the over 450 residents have signed the petition to oppose installation of this cell tower and very few have opposed it. It is not wanted by the residents it is purported to serve. Do not put it up. Sincerely, Lisa Kormos Tustin Resident From: Brandon Key [mailto:dcpost@cox.net] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 9:50 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Subject: Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park is NOT WANTED! Dear members of the Tustin Planning Commission and City Council, I am writing you to state my opposition to the proposed cell tower installation in Cedar Grove Park. I am a big fan of cell phones and wireless technology. In fact, I use my cell phone several times everyday and would enjoy better coverage in the area near the park — but I am not willing to sacrifice the park to get it. Cedar Grove Park is an oasis of nature with recognized historical significance within the planned development of Tustin Ranch. The community should be allowed to enjoy it without the eyesore a 65' fake cell tree would produce. There is an alternate cell site being considered by other cell providers that would serve the community equally as well. This site is at the OC Fire Authority complex at the intersection of Tustin Ranch road and Jamboree. However, in the "Staff Report to the Planning Commission" released December 9, 2010, it states that T - Mobile's RF engineers have determined that: the OC Fire Authority site won't "work -for the intended coverage objective o/this ring. " I find that hard to believe. given that the OCFA site is only 460 yards East of the Cedar Grove Park location and at a higher elevation. Is T -Mobile's technology so inferior that moving the site '/� mile would render it useless'? And although T -Mobile says its goal for this tower is to improve the "In -Building" coverage in the neighborhood, half of the area to be serviced by the proposed Cedar Grove Park site is within the park itself, where there are no homes. Two other carriers are interested in the OCFA towers so why will that location work fine for them and not for T -Mobile'? The disturbing conclusion I come up with when I try to answer all of these questions is MONEY. T -Mobile wants the revenue from leases it can charge to other carriers for co -location on its tower, and the City of Tustin wants the $25,000+ annual revenue from its lease with T -Mobile. What further distresses me is the fact that the Cedar Grove Park location was selected by ATS Communications. the company hired by the City to develop a wireless master plan and market city property to the wireless camers for cellular installations. ATS receives 25% of the revenue from all cell site leases negotiated for the City. With an arrangement like that, where is the incentive to find a cell location that best serves the community and it's residents'? The incentive is to find as many city properties as possible "suitable" for development and to develop them as quickly as possible. In closing, please do not be under the mistaken conclusion that you, as members of the Planning Commission and City Council, are prevented from rejecting a cell site application because of the 1996 Federal Telecommunications Act. Under Section 47 of the United States Code which embodies the Telecommunications Act, its clear language states that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority" of a local government "over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification" of \kireless facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 includes several limitations to prohibit municipalities from denying a cell tower based on health and environmental concerns, the authors of the Act wanted to ensure that our parks be preserved and protected. In this regard, the City still has authority to deny an application to preserve both history and natural surroundings. "The Committee recognizes, for example, that the use of Washington Monument, Yellowstone National Park, or a pristine wildlife sanctuary, while perhaps prime sites for an antenna and other jacilities, are not appropriate ... and use of them would be contrary to environmental, conservation, and public .safety laws. " [Original authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see 104th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives, Report 104-204, Communications Act of 1995, Commerce Committee, July 24, 1995; p. 95.1 Over 450 residents have signed the petition to oppose installation of this tower and only a handful have come forward to support it. Clearly it is not wanted by the residents it is purported to serve. Cedar Grove Park is the closest thing we have in Tustin Ranch to anything historical or of natural significance. I implore you not to defile it with this abominable tower. Sincerely, Brandon Key Tustin Resident From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 9:57 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Cc: CITY COUNCIL Subject: My Additional Comments on 09-033 Cedar Grove Please forward on to the Planning Commission. Thank you. Dear Planning Commission: 481. That is how many members of the community have spoken on this issue. The signatures of 481 people don't mean anything? A marketing tool supersedes our City General Plan and preserving the historical integrity of the area? ATS developed the Wireless Master Plan Study as a MARKETING TOOL for the City to solicit carriers to build their towers and generate revenue. (ATS's own website explains a Wireless Master Plan Study is "a marketing tool that maximizes the potential revenue that can be generated from new cell sites on a property".) It is not based in science, or upon community needs, or the community's best interests. It is based upon the most financial bang for a buck for the City and ATS. Our City's General Plan should have more significance than a marketing tool. Our City's history should mean more to us. LISTEN TO OUR GENERAL PLAN! Our 500 page General Plan sets forth goals and policies that were specifically written to preserve the historic integrity of these cedar and redwood trees and the park itself. The General Plan is supposed to be a blueprint for future growth and development. It must be abided by when making these kinds of decisions. It specifically states that the Cedar Grove "should be protected from intrusion". It implores the City to "encourage the preservation and enhancement of public vistas". It requires the City to "assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents". It tells us the City must "preserve historically significant sites, and encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older sites that contribute to the City's historic character." At page 9 of the Land Use Element, it specifically states: DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER IN EAST TUSTIN o The opportunity exists in East Tustin to ensure hillside development protects the natural terrain, and that significant open space resources (such as the eucalyptus windrows and stand of redwoods) are preserved. o Important viewsheds in East Tustin, including the Peters Canyon ridgeline, the redwood/cedar grove, the knoll, and major tree stands, should be protected from intrusion." Building a cell tower right next to these trees with ground equipment marring the scenic beauty of this grove is not what you would call "protecting" or "preserving". Let's not forget that this is not just next to the Cedars and Redwoods, but also next to the NATIONAL RECREATION TRAIL — the Mountains to Sea Trail. Traveling along this nationally recognized trail, you can admire all the beauty Orange County has to offer, and, oh yes, here is a giant fake tree cell tower and all of its associated ground equipment right in the middle of this beautiful vista. Sad. Don't be fooled by T -Mobile. They are either making misrepresentations to the City or to the buying public about their coverage abilities and needs. On the one hand, they tell the public they have good voice coverage and even better data coverage in this area, but then they tell the City there is a significant gap in coverage necessitating the tower. More recently, they tell the city that the OCFA Vista Towers site won't fill that gap because of its location. The OCFA site is just 450 yards away. And, it is at a significantly higher elevation! It is a good enough location for its direct competitors, Verizon and AT&T. Oh yes, T -Mobile will probably tell us that their "technology" is different. Is it really that inferior that a few hundred yards at a more advantageous elevation will make or break it for them? Then boy do they have some serious problems. I don't think we should have to be held responsible for making up for their inferiorities. T -Mobile and the City told us at the October 20, 2010 ZA meeting that OCFA was "not interested" in a tower. Again, an obvious misrepresentation. Days later we are invited to tour the proposed site with OCFA and the carriers including a representative for T -Mobile. We are told that it is a colocation facility for at least Verizon, AT&T and T -Mobile and it has been in the works for many months and has preliminary approval. And let us not forget that at the October 20, 2010 meeting, T -Mobile and the City insisted despite our protests that at worst the proposed tower was at least "350 feet away from Peters Canyon Elementary". Now the Planning Commission report stands corrected, stating that it is only 230 feet away. Oh, you all measured, you assured us. Well, you were all wrong again. Let's stop all of these misrepresentations and tell it like it is. This is all about money. T -Mobile just wants this tower so they can maximize their profits and not have to lease space from Vista Towers. The City just wants the money within the City limits, instead of conceding that superior locations exist outside the City limits. They have it all figured out. All for a measly $25 grand a year. A drop in the bucket. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to pay for it, by lowering our property values, desecrating our area's history, blemishing the natural scenic beauty of our park, and bearing the additional anxiety and worry of an additional safety risk. Don't let the message of 481 people fall on deaf ears. Installation of this facility will lead to a deterioration in the quality of the life that we have come to treasure here in Tustin. It has no place in this particular park. Allowing this would mean the City of Tustin will fail to live up to its commitment and pledge to us. The "City of Trees" must listen. "Honor Our Past." Don't put a cell tower next to our revered Cedar and Redwood trees. Sincerely — Jennifer Wierks, Esq. 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 (714)505-9236 Jaws2@cox.net From: Qiang Ye [mailto:qiangye@broadcom.com] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 9:53 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park Dear Mr. Swiontek I am a long time (15 yr) resident of Tustin and have voted in every election. I am deeply concerned about the plan to setup a cell tower in Cedar Grove park. I work in the electronic engineering business. While I would love to have good cell coverage in the area, I am concerned about the safety of the cell tower in close proximity of Peters Canyon elementary school and the potential negative impact on the home values in the surrounding neighborhoods. As we all know the long term effect of high power radio waves on people's health is remains still unknown and being researched. And there have been lots of conflicting reports and claims that supports either side of the argument. There are always concerns about the negative health effect for a cell tower and that is why usually homes that is close to the tower has less values on the market. I just think It is unwise to put a cell tower so close (literally feet from) to an elementary school and in a densely populated area. There are other locations that are farther away from children and populated area. I hate to see you rush to judgment now only to find out 10-20 years later that children and people's health has been negatively impacted. Sincerely Qiang Ye Resident of Sedona, Tustin Ranch. From: Jennifer Wierks [mailto:jaws2@cox.net] Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 9:26 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Cc: Brandon Key Subject: Facebook comments FYI - I copied some posts on your Facebook page about the Cedar Grove Tower issue so that you can include these comments in the PC record as well. Jennifer IL Jennifer Wierks Dear City: The proposed Cell Tower at Cedar Grove Park is just wrong - it is right next to Peters Canyon Elementary and near Pioneer Middle School and the middle of residential communities. It will affect our property values (and your tax revenue), present a potential fire hazard (remember the source of the Malibu fi... res?), present noise and nuisance issues, and take away from the beauty and history of the Cedar Grove. By the way, it also DIRECTLY CONFLICTS WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN (Check your Land Use Element Section!!!!) There are better alternative locations. You are remiss if you think the recommendation of your "third party" (ha) wireless communications report is absolute. LISTEN TO US AND STOP THIS STUPIDITY! see More October 26 at 1:42om -LikeUnlike - Comment - View Feedback (1)Hide Feedback (1) • Kendra Ferrell Pragngll likes this. • Mark as Spam • Report as Abuse Kristoloher Casey Dear City of Tustin, since there seems so many people are against the sprint cell tower idea, may I suggest that you petition for an AT&T tower on the corner of Portola and Jamboree... October 25 at 2:35om -LikeUnlike • Comment • View Feedback (1)Hide Feedback (1) Kristooher Casey oops not sprint but t -mobile.., either way does me no good. October 25 at 2:41pm • LikeUnlike Jill Myers Munro City of Tustin officials, 1 am so dissappointed that you think putting a cell phone tower in a park where children play, right next to an elementary school where children are sitting all day, in a neighborhood where our citizens live, is a good idea. Are you telling me there is NO WHERE ELSE this tower can go that is ...not right next to our children and neighbors? These towers are not only bad for your citizens health, but lower our property values and look ugly. Cedar Grove Park is a beatiful park!!! Please reconsider and move this thing to a location that doesnt ruin our neighborhood!!! see More Top of Form October 25 at 12:45pm •LikeUnlike - Comment Bottom of Form hk • Mark as Spam • Rewd as Abuse Jennifer Imus It is sad that the elected officials in our city care so little for its citizens. There are dozens of sites where new cell towers can be located, yet our city leaders choose to put one in a children's PARK overlooking the playground of an elementary SCHOOL. I have read the city's position on new cell towers - however, ...our city SHOULD be taking the stance that the safety its citizens is its #1 priority. It appears that our elected officials have completely lost all sense of what is right. See More Top of Form October 25 at 10:39am •LikeUnllke • Comment Bottom of Form • Mark as Spam Report as Abuse Jason Anderson More cell towers in Tustin will only bring down property values further. Irvine continually rejects new cell tower sites and their home values keep going up. Tustin needs more parks and more schools. October 10 at 10:5712m •UkeUnlike • Comment • View Feedback (1)1-111de Feedback (1) December 6, 2010 Planning Commission City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Irvine Historical Society 5 San Joaquin Irvine, CA 92612 949.786.4112 RE: Proposed Cellular Tower Application T -Mobile Communications; Design Review 09-033 Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: R&CE/VED )EC ') 2010 ^��MUN1Tv r.E,,ELOpVENT DEF,; I am president of the Irvine Historical Society and I am concerned about the application by T -Mobile to install a 65 -foot high cellular tower with associated ground equipment in Cedar Grove Park. This park, next to the Deodar Cedars and Redwoods and the National Recreation Trail, has an historic link to the Irvine Ranch that goes back more than 100 years and should not be subject to an intrusive cellular tower such as that requested by the applicant. I have been involved with the history of the Irvine Ranch, of which Tustin was an important part, since the early 1980s. I have been involved with almost every aspect of trying to save the history of this area, which played an important role in the development of the State of California. James Irvine directed the planting of the Cedar Grove area in the early 1900s as part of his experiment to find a suitable tree for windbreaks to protect crops from the intrusive Santa Ana winds. Those winds, which would burn oranges right off the trees, required taming, and it was exceedingly important to find the right type of tree. Ultimately the eucalyptus tree was planted throughout the ranch, 600 to a mile, to protect the most valuable crop grown on the ranch. The Cedar Grove has historical significance not only to Tustin, but also to Irvine and the County. In addition to offering respite for hikers and splendor to all who see it, its history and its link to one of the most important people in the development of California make it a site well worth protecting. No one dared to cut down a tree on the Irvine Ranch. It was tantamount to giving up your livelihood as a farmer. Look to the history of Orange County's first park, the Irvine Historical Society 5 San Joaquin Irvine, CA 92612 949.786.4112 gateway of which is at the end of Jamboree. Conditions of the park donation included not destroying any tree. Using the amazingly ugly tree design in or anywhere near a grove of trees as magnificent as Cedar Grove would be, in the opinion of the Irvine Historical Society, a travesty. The area's integrity would be destroyed if that were to be planted in the vicinity. Any tower that would be required would compromise the entire grove. Surely there must be an alternative to destroying our area's history for a cell tower. A cell tower was recently installed at the La Quinta Inn in Irvine's historic East Irvine development. It was installed in such a manner to minimize the impact on the historic district. I urge you to look to alternatives before you allow business to destroy your remaining heritage. I urge you to deny this application as it is currently presented, and I request that this letter be part of the public record at the Planning Commission meeting reviewing this matter. Sincerely, _ Gail Daniels President, Irvine Historical Society Judy Gauntt 12 Manor Terrace Mount Holly, NJ 08060 609.261.2570 December 6, 2010 Planning Commission City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Proposed 65' "Fake Tree" Cellular Tower Application by T -Mobile Communications; Design Review 09-033 Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: 1�c 0Fc O 11%'Cj, F� 40 I am writing to you both as a private citizen and as a representative of the Irvine Historical Society regarding the application of T -Mobile to install a 65' cellular tower with associated ground equipment in Cedar Grove Park, next to the Deodar Cedars and Redwoods and the National Recreation Trail – the Mountains to Sea trail. I am the author of the book Irvine: A History of Innovation and Growth ((1990) Pioneer Publications) a study of the history of the lands owned by the Irvine Family, which encompassed Tustin Ranch land at Cedar Grove. I was also involved in the opening of the Irvine Historical Museum in 1980 and have been active in the Irvine Historical Society since that time, including serving as historical curator. I was an Orange County Historical Commission member for nine years, the chair of the Irvine's Blue Ribbon Committee to save the Irvine Ranch agricultural headquarters area for future use by the citizens of Orange County, the historian for the City of Irvine's Historical Archaeological, and Paleontological Committee, and an advisor to the Irvine Historical Society Board of Directors. I currently serve on the Mount Holly Historic Commission in New Jersey where we recently denied a cellular tower application in our historic township. Tustin Ranch's history is inextricably linked to that of the Irvine Ranch. As I am sure you are aware, the Irvine family caused the Cedar Grove trees to be planted in the early 1900s as an experiment to determine if they would make an adequate windbreak as an alternative to the eucalyptus trees that were ultimately used throughout the Irvine Ranch area. This grove has historical significance — not only to the City of Tustin — but also to the City of Irvine and Orange County as a whole. Its scenic beauty needs no introduction. It is one of the oldest preserved sites within Tustin Ranch. James Irvine loved trees. Cutting down even one tree was cause for dismissal on the Irvine Ranch. For example, when he dedicated the land for Orange County's first regional park (initially called Orange County Park and later Irvine Park), he placed several conditions on his donation, including that there be absolutely no harvesting of trees. It was mandated that the trees were to receive good care, and the park was to be kept as natural as possible. One can liken Tustin Ranch's Cedar Grove to the majestic oaks of Irvine Regional Park — it is one of the last vestiges of Tustin Ranch history that must be preserved, protected and kept natural. I believe it is safe to say James Irvine would share my position on this issue. The placement of a cellular tower next to the Cedar Grove trees will greatly compromise its aesthetics and historic integrity. I urge Tustin to look to their own motto: "Building Our Future, Honoring Our Past" and stand by that promise of integrity. Honor the past in this instance in protecting the Cedar Grove from a such a significant visual intrusion. The "fake tree" concept is one of the most unattractive and obtrusive designs ever to see the light of day — it is a mockery of design that is now being offered as a "solution". But whatever cellular tower shape is used, the tower will be a monument as a visual blight to the community. I urge the City to deny this application, and, if necessary, look for alternative options for placement of this and any future proposed towers for this area. I ask that this letter be part of the public record at the Planning Commission meeting reviewing this matter. Thank you for careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, dy Lie ec tt Irvine historian From: Laurie Ayers [mailto:laurieayers@cox.net] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 11:39 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Proposed Cell Tower - Cedar Grove Park Dear Mr. Swiontek, We are writing to express our disappointment in the proposal to place a cell phone tower in Cedar Grove Park. This park was planned as a beautiful sanctuary for families and to preserve the historic Cedar Tree grove which is within the park. A cell tower in this location will greatly compromise the original plan for the park. A cell tower at this location will have a great affect on children, not only those visiting the park, but also on all of the students attending Peters Canyon Elementary now and in the future. Additionally the proposed location will affect the residences in the area. There have been studies that a cell phone tower lowers the property values of the homes in the area from 2% to 10%. This will be even more of an issue as these homes are near schools and families with small children that make up a large part of the demographic of the area. Prospective buyers will not want to purchase homes in an area near a cell tower and send their children to an elementary school which is close to the cell tower. The decrease in property values not only affects the property owners, but also the city's revenues from property taxes as homeowners will have their homes re -assessed. The homeowners in the area purchased their homes knowing the plan for the area included a beautiful park, an elementary school and middle school all in close proximity. Many homeowners, such as ourselves, chose this area as a safe and beautiful place to raise our children. Please strive to maintain the original integrity of the area by considering another location for the cell phone tower that is not close to an elementary school, a middle school and the residences of so many families. Thank you. David and Laurie Ayers From: Yan Ye [mailto:yanye99@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 11:06 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan; rdotson@t- mobile.com Subject: No Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park! Dear Planning Commission and City Council: I'm a Tustin resident and just moved to this area last year. We picked this place to be our permanent residents due to the excellent schools around, kids friendly Cedar Grove park, and the natural beauty of Peters Canyon park. Our children enjoy the new city, new environment, beautiful park and the great school dearly everyday. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a 65' Cell Phone Tower next to the Cedar Grove and yards away from Peters Canyon Elementary School. If my voice is not enough loud, please visit http://www.savecedargrovepark.org/, to see over 460 signatures signed petition to oppose this cell tower! Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our children. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for mothers, kids, and families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. We were upset to learn that T -Mobile wants to construct 65 -foot (5 -story) Cell Phone Tower with large ground equipment in Cedar Grove Park, close to neighbors (within 300 feet), next to Peters Canyon Elementary (with some portable classroom just several yards away) and near Pioneer Middle School. Cell Towers continuously emit RF/EMF 24 hrs/day. We do not want our children exposed to electromagnetic radiation, as these.Cell Tower emissions are dangerous to human health. More and more facts are revealed about health dangers every year. We have learned that health studies - primarily in Europe - conclude that living near Cell Towers is especially hazardous to children. There are other alternative locations available that need to be studied, and/or identified. The surrounding community has plenty of potentially more desirable higher elevation locations that could better serve the need in the area. Some may be within City limits, some may be in the areas just outside the City's borders. Please don't put a Cell Tower here, next to all our kids. Stop the Tower in Cedar Grove! Please keep it for kids. If not, we will no longer be able to use the Park. Thank you! Sincerely Yan Ye Tustin Resident From: Thompson, Joe [mailto:]oe.Thompson@T-Mobile.com] Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:54 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Shubin, Pete (Sequoia); Moretta, Monica (Sequoia) Subject: PC Continuance Request Ryan, In order to do further public outreach regarding our proposed site at Cedar Grove Park, we request a continuance from the December 14th Planning Commission hearing to the next available hearing on January 11th, 2011. As discussed during our phone conversation this morning, I would greatly appreciate an HOA contact list for those HOA's located within the 300 -foot public noticing area surrounding the park. Please send this information to our representative, Monica Moretta with Sequoia Deployment Services. If you have any questions, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Thanks Joe Thompson Zoning and Government Affairs Manager T -Mobile USA (949) 350-5376 Making sure your mobile phone works where you need it to is one of our primary concerns. T Mobile is constantly making improvements to our coverage areas in an effort to provide you with the best service possible. We have proposed to build a new wireless facility in Tustin, and we are writing to ask for your support as we work to improve coverage in your community. For the past few months, we have been working cooperatively with the City of Tustin to develop the project and ensure the best fit for the community's aesthetic preferences and address safety concerns. Based on comments and feedback from city staff and neighbors, the wireless facility has been designed to resemble a cedar tree, and we have also increased the setbacks from nearby residences to exceed the city's requirements. Improved wireless coverage will benefit Tustin residents in many positive ways. Approximately 40% (and growing) of all households are mobile phone only - no land lines. This increases the customer demand for a fast and reliable network. The new wireless facility will allow residents to make and receive calls, emails, and text messages where it counts most—close to home. Our customers rely on dependable coverage for personal and business use, and also in case of emergencies. Roughly 50% of 911 calls made in the U.S. every day come from a cell phone. Safety, productivity and convenience are some of the main reasons our customers support the plan to build a wireless facility at Cedar Grove Park in Tustin. Your Voice is Needed Right Away On December 14th, the Tustin Planning Commission will review our application and vote to recommend or deny it. Shortly thereafter, the Tustin City Council will take final action on the matter. These decision makers need to see and hear from residents and customers like you who want better coverage and support the proposed wireless facility. Here are two ways you can help: 1. Attend the public hearing being held by the Tustin Planning Commission on December 14th. 2. Call the Planning Commission and tell them you support the plan at (714) 573-3106. mark your calendar PUBLIC HEARING Tustin Planning Commission December 14th, 7:00 pm Council Chambers .300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 be sure to arrive early in order to ensure seating and be able to speak. T • -Mobile s stick together Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Daws2@cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:39 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan; Binsack, Elizabeth; Biggs, David Cc: CITY COUNCIL; City Clerk Subject: Save Cedar Grove Park Letter Opposing Application under Design Review 09-033 Attachments: Position Letter of Save Cedar Grove Park.pdf; Exhibits to Save Cedar Grove Park Position Letter.pdf Dear Planning Commission, City Council, Mr. Biggs, Ms. Binsack and Mr. Swiontek: Attached please find our position letter in opposition to the application under Design Review 09-033 regarding the proposed wireless telecommunication tower and facilities at Cedar Grove Park. The Exhibits to this letter are also attached as a separate file. This letter was prepared in anticipation of the December 14, 2010 public hearing. Please ensure that the Planning Commission has received it in advance of the hearing and that it is made part of the record of the hearing. We request an acknowledgment by email that you have received the attachments and that the files are able to open for you. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely — Jennifer Ann Wierks, Esq. 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 (714) 505-9236 Jaws2@cox.net Brandon Key 10950 Hiskey Lane Tustin, CA 92782 (714) 544-9133 dcpost@cox.net Sharon Michael 11615 Goetting Tustin, CA 92782 (714) 505-6200 Sharon@sharonmichael.com David Bessen 10960 Hiskey Lane Tustin, CA 92782 (714) 505-4545 furniturerep@cox.net Tracy Powell 2875 Pankey Tustin, CA 92782 Tracylpowell@yahoo.com Sharon Komorous 10875 Kimball Place Tustin, CA 92782 (715) 573-9938 skomo@cox.net Rita Semaan 10880 Tantlinger Drive Tustin, CA 92782 (714)838-0592 ritasemaan@aol.com Erik Tran 11675 Leihy Avenue Tustin, CA 92782 (714) 389-2524 erikntran@yahoo.com Nancy Kuwada 2701 Timmons Tustin, CA 92782 (714)832-7259 nkuwada@cox.net SAVE CEDAR GROVE PARK JENNIFER ANN WIERKS, ESQ. INDIVIDUALLY AND TOGETHER WITH THE COMMITTEE TO SAVE CEDAR GROVE PARK 714-505.9236 jaws2@cox.net 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 December 7, 2010 Planning Commission City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Position Paper of Save Cedar Grove Park Proposed 65' "Fake Tree" Cellular Tower Application by T -Mobile Communications; Design Review 09-033 Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: We are residents. We are parents. We are students. We appreciate nature. We frequent our park. We love our community. We want to preserve our history. We are land owners. We pay taxes. We are cell phone users. We oppose the application of T -Mobile to install a 65' cellular tower and associated ground equipment in our Cedar Grove Park, next to the Deodar Cedars, Redwoods, National Recreation Trail (the Mountains to Sea trail), and too near Peters Canyon Elementary School and residences. We have signed an online Petition opposing this application. As of November 30, 2010, the online Petition contained 481 signatures, which accompanies this letter for your review as Exhibit 1. Should this application be granted, T -Mobile would install one of the largest cellular phone towers in our City with 9 panel antennas, 1 parabolic antenna and associated ground -mounted equipment. Eventually, under the City's Wireless Master Plan, 4 additional carriers would join them with all of their own antennas and equipment. 1. Introduction This location is just a little over 300 feet from Peters Canyon Elementary School. Bungalow style portable classrooms are just on the other side of the fence. Children play at recess at the playground just on the other side of the fence. Residential homes including the bordering neighborhoods known as Tustin Ranch Estates and Sedona are just a few hundred feet away. ' Tustin Wireless Master Plan, p. 5 P 12 Playground equipment and picnic areas at the park are even closer. The sports field is right in front of it. The nationally recognized Mountains to Sea Trail is a few yards behind it. The picnic area for the trail is right next to it. The historic Cedar and Redwood grove housing hundred year old Cedars planted by the Irvine Family on the former Irvine Ranch land is just a few feet away. The very patch of land in question is used by families to take pictures for family portraits, to lounge around on, play games and enjoy the scenery of all that surrounds it. Those traveling on Pioneer Road will have an unobstructed view of the 65 foot fake tree cell tower with 10+ antennas and its associated equipment sheds. Simply put, this spot is the center of our recreational, educational, and residential community and is an extremely undesirable location to place a giant cell tower. Fake tree or not, these towers are unattractive and it would be a visual blight in this community at this location. Our property values will be affected by the proximity of the tower. Studies indicate they can be affected anywhere from 2% to 10% or more. In these neighborhoods, even at just 2% we could be talking anywhere from $15,000 to $70,000 or more per home. Our pool of prospective buyers will shrink, as people steer clear from our area because of the perceived risks of living next to a cell tower. Safety risks will increase from fire and injury of curious children and others. Our overall enjoyment of the park will be compromised. We urge the City to deny this application, and, if necessary, look for alternative options for placement of this and any future proposed towers. 2. The Players a. The City The City of Tustin has actively been pursuing the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities within the City limits to improve coverage and to generate additional revenue. This effort has been spearheaded in substantial part by first term Councilwoman Deborah Gavello, who ran for office in large part on the campaign promise to improve cellular service in the East Tustin area. The City has estimated that it can collect between $21,600 and $28,000 per year for each site it allows to be installed. There are currently 39 active cell sites within the City's limits. 11 of those facilities are currently operated by T -Mobile . T -Mobile has the largest number of wireless installations in the City.2 The City has an existing General Plan which recognizes and encourages the preservation of its history and the specific preservation of the Cedar Grove located at Cedar Grove Park. The City is known as the "City of Trees" and its motto is "Building Our Future, Honoring Our Past". b. ATS Communications T -Mobile filed this application ostensibly as a result of the identification of this spot as a possible wireless tower location by the Tustin Wireless Master Plan Study. Do not let the word "study" fool you. This Wireless Master Plan is "a marketing tool that maximizes the potential revenue 2 August 4, 2009 Agenda Report from Redevelopment Agency to City Manager; Tustin Wireless Master Plan, p. 5. Page 13 that can be generated from new cell sites on a property".3 This "study" was performed not by the City, but by a third party wireless vendor/consultant ATS Communications contracted by the City. This Lake Forest based company partners with the wireless telecommunication companies to identify and locate potential wireless cellular antenna sites. It then proactively markets these locations to the wireless carriers in an attempt to create a revenue stream for that location. This vendor/consultant is paid by the wireless providers indirectly in that it will receive its compensation by netting a significant percentage of the revenues the City will receive from the land use leases for these towers. Indeed, although its dba is ATS Communications, it is registered and operates in the State of California as Telecom Partners Group Corp.4 Thus, it is in ATS's financial interest to get as many towers installed as possible. ATS is not a neutral party. c. T -Mobile T -Mobile has the largest number of towers in the City of Tustin already (eleven in all). T - Mobile has filed this application based upon a claim that there is a purportedly a gap in coverage in this East Tustin area necessitating the tower. The truth of this representation, however, is cast into doubt by T -Mobile's own data on its website, where a consumer can check his/her coverage in their area. According to T -Mobile's Personal Coverage Check, found at http://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/pcc.aspx, the area in and around Cedar Grove Park ranges from "Good" to "Very Good", with the Park itself being in the "Very Good" range. Data coverage is even better. (The entire range spans from "No Coverage", "Partner", "Good", "Very Good", and "Excellent".) Copies of these results can be found with this letter as Exhibit Number 2 and incorporated by this reference. s These maps indicate that there is in -car or better coverage for virtually all of this area without the proposed Cedar Grove tower. It appears that what T -Mobile portrays to the City to obtain approval for the cell phone tower is in direct conflict with what they maintain to the buying public on their website, putting its representations to the City into question. Moreover, T -Mobile's effort to explore alternative locations in this area also may be a bit disingenuous based upon the representations made at the October 20, 2010 zoning administrator hearing. Indeed, little if any effort has been made to identify or secure the numerous other higher elevation alternative locations in this area. 3. History of the Cedar Grove Tustin Ranch's history is inextricably entwined with the story of the Irvine Ranch. What is now known as Tustin Ranch was annexed just a little over twenty years ago in 1986. It is deeply rooted in the Irvine Family history. The Irvine Family planted the Cedar Grove trees in the early 1900's as an experiment to determine if it would make an adequate windrow as an alternative to ATS Communications literature found on its website at http://atscomm.conVservices/wireless-master-plan.htmi 4 However, according to the Orange County Clerk/Recorder's office, ATS Communications' dba registration expired on July 29, 2007. s For purposes of this exercise, we used the Sedona neighborhood address of 11615 Goetting Avenue, which is owned and occupied by Thomas and Sharon Michael. 14 the costly and imported eucalyptus trees that they ultimately used throughout the Irvine Ranch area. The experiment ultimately failed, but the grove has been preserved as a mark of the history of the area. Few if any other historical markers exist in Tustin Ranch. Simply put, this grove has historical significance not only to the City of Tustin, but also to Irvine and the County as a whole. Its scenic beauty needs no mention. It is probably the oldest preserved site within Tustin Ranch. James Irvine's love of trees is evidenced in his gift of the county's first regional park (now Irvine Regional Park). He placed several conditions on his land donation, including that there be absolutely no harvesting of trees, which instead were to receive good care, and the park was to be kept as natural as possible.b One can liken Tustin Ranch's Cedar Grove to the majestic oaks of Irvine Regional Park — it is one of the last vestiges of Tustin Ranch history that must be preserved, protected and kept natural. No one would think of putting up a tower next to Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park, or upon Mount Rushmore, or next to the General Grant or General Sherman trees in Sequoia National Park. Our Cedar Grove is our own little piece of Tustin Ranch history. It should not be desecrated by a 65' modern fake tree tower. 4. Conflict with City General Plan and Purpose The proposed placement of this tower is in direct conflict with the City General Plan and is inconsistent, contrary, and out of character with the nature, beauty, landscape, scenery, charm, and historical nature of the park and surrounding neighborhoods. The City of Tustin published an updated General Plan in 2008 as a "blueprint for future growth and development" in the city.7 It addresses issues in relation to land use, circulation, housing, the conservation of natural resources, the preservation of open space, the noise environment and the protection of public safety as required under Section 65302 of the Government Code. An approval of T -Mobile's application for a wireless telecommunication facility at Cedar Grove Park would be in direct conflict with the goals, objectives and strategies described in the City's General Plan. The preservation of the Cedar Grove is of paramount importance in the General Plan and is alluded to numerous times both directly and indirectly throughout. To this end, the City's Wireless Master Plan, prepared by financially interested party ATS Communications is also in direct conflict with the General Plan. For example, within the General Plan is the Land Use Element ("LUE"), a guide for allocation of land use in the City. It provides in pertinent part: "DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER IN EAST TUSTIN Liebeck, Judith. Irvine: A History of Innovation and Growth (1990) Pioneer Publications. City of Tustin General Plan ("TGP"), June 17, 2008, page 6 15 o The opportunity exists in East Tustin to ensure hillside development protects the natural terrain, and that significant open space resources (such as the eucalyptus windrows and stand of redwoods) are preserved. o In an area as large as East Tustin, the provision of land uses which support the resident population to minimize travel distances to shopping, recreation and service uses. o Important viewsheds in East Tustin, including the Peters Canyon ridgeline, the redwood/cedar grove, the knoll, and major tree stands, should be protected from intrusion."8 The Land Use Element warns at page 7 that "[n]ew development, if not regulated, can interfere with public vistas and views of the surrounding hillsides, public monuments, and other important viewsheds." Many of the Goals contained in the Land Use Element apply in this instance. Policy 3.7 implores the City to "[e]ncourage the preservation and enhancement of public vistas, particularly those seen from public places."9 Goal 4 states "[assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses."10 Policy 6.5: Preserve historically significant structures and sites, and encourage the conservation and rehabilitation of older buildings, sites and neighborhoods that contribute to the City's historic character." 11 In the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element of the General Plan ("COSRE"), it is noted that the Cedar grove has been preserved and its continued protection will require biological assessment of any new development to ensure the local ecosystem and the "City's aesthetic environment". 12 The interpretation of the General Plan is clear: Cedar Grove Park is a recognized location of natural and historical significance that must be protected and preserved. Moreover, no biological assessments were performed prior to approval of this application. Simply stated, a wireless telecommunications facility has no place in this park. We have substantial evidence. Installation of this facility will lead to a deterioration in the quality of the life that we have come to treasure here in Tustin. The cell tower disguised as a fake tree is a visual blight, and sets an unwelcome precedent for our East Tustin hillside neighborhood. ° Land Use Element, p. 9 (Emphasis added). v LUE, p. 16. 10 LUE, p. 16. LUE, p. 19. �Z COSRE, pp. 3435 16 5. The City Retains Power to Deny the Application Despite the Limitations of the Federal Telecommunications Act It appeared from the previous the Zoning Administrator meeting held on October 20, 2010 that the City is mistakenly under the assumption that its hands are tied in this matter in that it lacks authority to deny an application under federal law in that its authority is limited and preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("TCA"). This City is misguided. The City retains power to deny this application. Under Section 47 of the United States Code which embodies the Telecommunications Act, its clear language states that "nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority" of a local government "over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification" of wireless facilities. (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(A).) In short, local governments do have the authority to deny wireless tower applications. Reasonable discrimination is allowed under federal law. Moreover, the City has authority to regulate the place and manner of cell phone tower facilities including the location, number, and appearance of wireless facilities. a. Authority to Deny based upon History and Nature Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 includes several limitations to prohibit municipalities from denying a cell tower based on health and environmental concerns, the authors of the Act wanted to ensure that our parks be preserved and protected. In this regard, the City still has authority to deny an application to preserve both history and natural surroundings. "The Committee recognizes, for example, that the use of Washington Monument, Yellowstone National Park, or a pristine wildlife sanctuary, while perhaps prime sites for an antenna and other facilities, are not appropriate ... and use of them would be contrary to environmental, conservation, and public safety laws."' 3 As stated above, allowing this installation of a giant 65 foot fake tree would mean the City of Tustin will fail to live up to its commitment and pledge in the General Plan if it is allowed to be located in this park location. The placement of a cellular tower next to this grove will greatly compromise its aesthetics and the historic integrity of the Cedar Grove trees. "Fake tree" or not, these towers are unattractive and a visual blight to the community and a desecration of the honor of our past. We urge the City to stand by the promise of its City motto, honoring the past in this instance in protecting the Cedar Grove from a such a significant visual intrusion. This living history must continue to be preserved and protected. b. Authority to Deny Based Upon Protecting the Public Interests of Its Residents Moreover, recent Ninth Circuit Court and U.S. District Court decisions — citing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA)1 and California state laws — have acknowledged and 13 Original authors of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, see 100 Congress, 1" Session, House of Representatives, Report 104-204, Communications Act of 1995, Commerce Committee, July 24, 1995; p. 95. P a g c 17 affirmed the rights and authority of local governments to regulate the placement and appearance of wireless facilities. 14 There have been two recent U.S. District Court decisions, NewPath Networks v City of Irvine and NewPath Networks v City of Davis, explaining how local authorities have rights that do not conflict with Federal and California State laws and regulations concerning wireless facility installations on poles in PROW, including authority to protect the public interests of its residents. 15 In case there is further doubt, look to the explanation and assurances that Thomas Bliley, chairman of the Commerce Committee at the time of the TCA's enactment. In addressing the concerns of his fellow representatives that the proposed TCA would strip local governments of their regulatory powers, he stated for the record that: "Nothing is in this bill that prevents a locality, and I will do everything in conference to make sure this is absolutely clear, prevents a local subdivision from determining where a cellular pole should be located, but we do want to make sure that this technology is available across the country, that we do not allow a community to say we are not going to have any cellular pole in our locality. That is wrong. Nor are we going to siy they can delay these people forever. But the location will be determined by the local governing body. The second point you raise, about the charges for right-of-way, the councils, the supervisors and the mayor can make any charge they want provided they do not charge the cable company one fee and they charge a telephone company a lower fee for the same right-of-way. They should not discriminate, and that is all we say. Charge what you will, but make it equitable between the parties. Do not discriminate in favor of one or the other." 16 c. Reasonable Discrimination is Permitted Local governments are authorized to regulate wireless facilities with aesthetic and public safety standards, requirements and ordinances, as long as these requirements are not unreasonable, and do not violate the specific limitations of the TCA. For example, in MetroPCS v the City and County of San Francisco (9a' Cir. 2005) 400 F. 3d 715, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited AT&T Wireless v City Council of Virginia Beach, 155 F.3d at 427, and other court cases that have affirmed that "some discrimination among providers of functionally equivalent services is allowed: Any discrimination need only be "reasonable." 14 Telecommunications Act of 1996; Source: FCC, p 117,http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom]996.pdf) 15 You can read the decision denying NewPath's motion for summary judgment, dated Dec 23, 2009, here: http://citvofdavis.orp/cmo/Vdfs/ncwpath/Preliminary-Injunction/02-23- 10/Exhibit-A-to-Citys-Rcguest-for-Judicial- Notice-%28 Doc- 24-2%29.pdf . You can read the City of Davis' Feb. 24, 2010, response to NewPath's complaint here: http://citvofdavis.oriz/cmo/pdfs/newpath/NewPath-v.-City-of-Davis Answer-to-Complaimpdf, and the March 19, 2010 U.S. District Court final Decision favoring the City of Davis here: http://www.tclecomiawfirm.con/articles/pof/newpath v davis deny prelim ini 20100319 pdf 16 141 Cong. Rec. H8274 (daily ed. Aug. 2, 1995) Is In AT&T Wireless PCS v City Council of Virginia Beach (4`h Cir. 1998) 155 F.3d 423, at issue was a denial for a wireless facility proposed on church property in an area that was residential and had no commercial towers. In this case, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that a city can favor one competitor over another, as long as it does not unreasonably favor one over another, and then addressed what is "unreasonable" and "reasonable" (bold-faced emphasis below is this Report's): even assuming that the City Council discriminated, it did not do so "unreasonably," under any possible interpretation of that word as used in subsection (B)(i)(I). We begin by emphasizing the obvious point that the Act explicitly contemplates that some discrimination "among providers of functionally equivalent services" is allowed. Any discrimination need only be reasonable. There is no evidence that the City Council had any intent to favor one company or form of service over another. In addition, the evidence shows that opposition to the application rested on traditional bases of zoning regulation: preserving the character of the neighborhood and avoiding aesthetic blight. If such behavior is unreasonable, then nearly every denial of an application such as this will violate the Act, an obviously absurd result. Both the Fourth and Ninth Circuit Courts referred to the original Congressional Conference Report, or legislative history behind this particular limitation of the TCA, that supports this view: It condemns decisions that "unreasonably favor one competitor over another" but emphasizes the conferees' intent that the discrimination clause "will provide localities with the flexibility to treat facilities that create different visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the extent permitted under generally applicable zoning requirements even If those facilities provide functionally equivalent services."4 Most importantly, the Fourth Circuit Court also noted about the intent of the authors of the TCA of 1996: For example, the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor's 50 - foot tower In a residential districts The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed similarly, citing previous court cases: see also Omnipoint, 331 F.3d at 395 ("Permitting the erection of a communications tower in a business district does not compel the [zoning board] to permit a similar tower at a later date in a residential district."); Unity Township, 282 F.3d at 267 (discrimination claim " `require[s] a showing that the other provider is similarly situated' ") (quoting Penn Township, 196 F.3d at 480 n.8). In fact, the sole district court case from the Ninth Circuit on this issue holds that a mere increase in the number of wireless antennas in a given area over time can justify differential treatment of providers. Airtouch Cellular v. City of EI Cajon, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1166 (S.D. Cal. 2000). 1'a¢c 19 Other recent court decisions also affirm that requirements for installations in one part of town can differ for another part of town, and take into account aesthetics, design, and public safety. Numerous municipalities have also decided against towers based upon aesthetics and other factors. 18 6. Surrounding Residential Property Values Will be Significantly Affected by an Installation at this Site Various studies and reports are available on the Internet that indicate that the presence of a cell tower in a residential neighborhood affects home values. The diminution in value ranges from 2% to 20% by some sources. Even the financially interested ATS Communications representative present at the Zoning Administrator meeting on October 20, 2010 conceded that property values may be affected by as much as 2%, taking the most conservative approach. In the neighborhoods surrounding Cedar Grove, even this meager 2% can have an impact of $15,000.00 — $70,000.00 on a home's value. The value of the home, in turn, dictates the amount of property tax that municipalities may collect for that residence. 19 17 Please see Sprint PCS v Palos Verdes, MetroPCS v San Francisco, and T -Mobile v City ojAnacortes (Id.) 18 Examples of recent local municipal decisions, resolutions and motions denying a cell tower due to aesthetics include: • City of Los Angeles Planning Commission denies cell phone tower on condo complex (October 12, 2010) (news story here: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/10/los angeles residents tight ba php.) • City of Northridge rejects T -Mobile application (October 2010) near residential neighborhood (news story here: http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci 16260946.) • County of Los Angeles: Board of Supervisors denies T -Mobile cell tower proposed for Hacienda Heights upon appeal; see County of Los Angeles website for Motion of Intent to Deny by Supervisor Don Knabe, October 27, 2009, on-line at. http://filc.lacounty.pov;bos/supdocs/51925 pdf. Also see County of Los Angeles Counsel, Findings and order adopted March 9, 2010, 6 pages, on-line at: http://file.lacounty.yov/bos/supdocs/53564-pdf. • City of Los Angeles Associate Zoning Administrator Maya E. Zaitzevsky denies T -Mobile cell tower in Toluca Lake, CA (North Hollywood -Valley Village area): see CUP denial, Case No. ZA 2009-1873 (CUW), February 17, 2010; Los Angeles Planning Department website, on-line Summary at: http://pincts.lacity.orp/cts intgmct/index.cfm7urlCaseld=174190&caseNtimber 7A -2009 -1873 - CU W&fuseaction=casc.summary; final Decision on-line directly here: http://pdis.lacity.org/pdf/viewPDF.aspx'?Qucry--Fype=PDIS,Doc-I A86F. • City Council for Temple City, CA, denies monopine cell tower proposed for church location in residential neighborhood: passed, approved and adopted March 16, 2010. Source: City Clerk, Temple City, CA. • City Council for City of Irvine, CA, denies NewPath DAS installations for Turtle Rock community, resolution approved August 11, 2009. See on-line at City of Irvine website at: http://www.irvinequui_ckrecords.conVsire ub/cache,'2/smoxvovxO5vvie45kDeyvr)uo/957849405172010130 5652.PDF. 19 A number of organizations and studies have documented the detrimental effects of cell towers on property values. Page 110 Thus, residents are justifiably concerned about proposed cell towers reducing the value of their homes and properties. Who would want to live right next to one, or under one? And imagine what it's like for people who purchase or build their dream home or neighborhood, only to later have an unwanted cell tower installed just outside their window? This negative effect can also contribute to urban blight, and a deterioration of neighborhoods and school districts when residents want to move out or pull their children out because they don't want to live or have their children attend schools next to a cell tower. These points underscore why this wireless facility is a commercial facility that doesn't belong in this park near residences and two schools, and should be placed in an alternative, less obtrusive location. 20 1. The Appraisal Institute, the largest global professional membership organization for appraisers with 91 chapters throughout the world, spotlighted the issue of cell towers and the fair market value of a home and educated its members that a cell tower should, in fact, cause a decrease in home value. The definitive work on this subject was done by Dr. Sandy Bond, who concluded that "media attention to the potential health hazards of [cellular phone towers and antennas] has spread concerns among the public, resulting in increased resistance" to sites near those towers. Percentage decreases mentioned in the study range from 2 to 20% with the percentage moving toward the higher range the closer the property. These are a few of her studies: a. "The effect of distance to cell phone towers on house prices" by Sandy Bond, Appraisal Journal, Fall 2007, see attached. Source, Appraisal Journal, found on the Entrepreneur website, htip://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejoumals/articic/'l 71851340.html or http://www.prres.netipapers/Bond Squires Using (AS to Measure pdf b. Sandy Bond, Ph.D., Ko -Kang Wang, "The Impact of Cell Phone Towers on House Prices in Residential Neighborhoods," The Appraisal Journal, Summer 2005; see attached. Source: Goliath business content website, ht_tp://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi 0199-501 1857rrhe-impact-of-cell-phone html c. Sandy Bond also co-authored, "Cellular Phone Towers: Perceived impact on residents and property values" University of Auckland, paper presented at the Ninth Pacific -Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Brisbane, Australia, January 19-22, 2003; see attached. Source: Pacific Rim Real Estate Society website, http:;/www.prres.net/Papers/Bond Thc Impact Of Cellular Phone Base Station Towers On Property Values.pd f 2. Industry Canada (Canadian government department promoting Canadian economy), "Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review, Section D — The Six Policy Questions, Question 6. What evidence exists that property values are impacted by the placement of antenna towers?"; see attached. Source: Industry Canada httv://www.ic.m.c.ca/eic/site/smt-j4st.nsf/enp-/sf'08353.html website, 3. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, "Appendix 5: The Impact of Cellphone Towers on Property Values"; see attached. Source: New Zealand Ministry for the Environment website, http://www.mfe.govt.nrJpublications/rma/nes-telecommunications-section32-aux08/html/paKe12 html 20 A few other examples of evidence showing the decline in real estate value include 1. Glendale, CA: During the January 7, 2009 Glendale City Council public hearing about a proposed T -Mobile cell tower in a residential neighborhood, local real estate professional Addora Beall described how a Spanish home in the Verdugo Woodlands, listed for 1 million dollars, sold $25,000 less because of a power pole across the street. "Perception is everything," said Ms. Beall stated. "It the public perceives it to be a problem, then it is a problem. It really does affect property values." See Glendale City Council meeting, January 7, 2009, video of Addora Beall comments @ 2:35:24: http://Glendale.granicus.com/MediaPlayerphp?Liew id=12&clip id -1227 2. Windsor Hills/View Park, CA: residents who were fighting off a T -Mobile antenna in their neighborhood Page 111 received letters from real estate companies, homeowner associations and resident organizations in their community confirming that real estate values would decrease with a cell phone antenna in their neighborhood. To see copies of their letters to city officials, look at the. Report from Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission regarding CUP Case No. 200700020-(2), from L.A. County Board of Supervisors September 16, 2009, Meeting documents, Los Angeles County website, here at: http://file.lacounty.gov/bos/supdocs/48444.pdf a. See page 295, August 31, 2008 Letter from Donna Bohanna, President/Realtor of Solstice International Realty and resident of Baldwin Hills to Los Angeles Board of Supervisors explaining negative effect of cell tower on property values of surrounding properties. "As a realtor, I must disclose to potential buyers where there are any cell towers nearby. I have found in my own experience that there is a very real stigma and cellular facilities near homes are perceived as undesirable." b. See page 2%, March 26, 2008 Letter from real estate professional Beverly Clark, "Those who would otherwise purchase a home, now considered desirable, can be deterred by a facility like the one proposed and this significantly reduces sales prices and does so immediately ... I believe a facility such as the one proposed will diminish the buyer pool, significantly reduce homes sales prices, alter the character of the surrounding area and impair the use of the residential properties for their primary uses." c. See Page 298, The Appraiser Squad Comment Addendum, about the reduced value of a home of resident directly behind the proposed installation after the city had approved the CUP for a wireless facility there: "The property owner has listed the property ... and has had a potential buyer back out of the deal once this particular information of the satellite communication center was announced.... there has been a canceled potential sale therefore it is relevant and determined that this new planning decision can have some negative effect on the subject property." d. See Page 301, PowerPower presentation by residents about real estate values: "The California Association of Realtors maintains that 'sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of the property,' including `known conditions outside of and surrounding' it. This includes 'nuisances' and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses." e. See Pages 302-305 from the Baldwin Hills Estates Homeowners Association, the United Homeowners Association, and the Windsor Hills Block Club, opposing the proposed cell tower and addressing the effects on homes there: "Many residents are prepared to sell in an already depressed market or, in the case of one new resident with little to no equity, simply walk away if these antennas are installed. f. See Pages 362-363, September 17, 2008, Letter from resident Sally Hampton, of the Windsor Hills Homeowner's Assoc., Item K, addressing effects of the proposed facility on real estate values. 3. Santa Cruz, CA: Also attached is a story about how a preschool closed up because of a cell tower installed on its grounds; "Santa Cruz Preschool Closes Citing Cell Tower Radiation," Santa Cruz Sentinel, May 17, 2006; Source, EMFacts website: http://www.emfacts.com/wgblojz/'?I)-4L6. 4. Merrick, NY: For a graphic illustration of what we don't want happening here in Burbank, just look at Merrick, NY, where NextG wireless facilities are being installed, resulting in declining home real estate values. Look at this Best Buyers Brokers Realty website ad from this area, "Residents of Merrick, Seaford and Wantaugh Complain Over Perceived Declining Property Values: http://www.bestbuyerbroker.coM/bloiz/'?p=86. 5. Burbank, CA: At a City Council public hearing on December 8, 2009, hillside resident and a California licensed real estate professional Alex Safarian informed city officials that local real estate professionals he spoke with agree about the adverse effects the proposed cell tower would have on property values: "I've done research on the subject and as well as spoken to many real estate professionals in the area, and they all agree that there's no doubt that cell towers negatively affect real estate values. Steve Hovakimian, a resident near Brace park, and a California real estate broker, and the publisher of "Home by Design" monthly real estate magazine, stated that he has seen properties near cell towers lose up to 10% of their value due to proximity of the cell tower ... So even if they try to disguise them as tacky fake metal pine trees, as a real P a g c 112 On a local level, residents and real estate professionals have also informed city officials about the detrimental effects of cell towers on home property values. At Tustin's own zoning administrator meeting on October 20, 2010, realtor Sharon Michael testified that the presence of the cell tower would most certainly affect property values. She further testified that the question of the presence of nearby cell towers frequently arises during her conversations and real estate estate professional you're required by the California Association of Realtors: that sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the value or desirability of a property including conditions that are known outside and surrounding areas." (See City of Burbank Website, Video, Alex Safarian comments @ 6:24:28, http://burbank.granicus.com/McdiaPlayer.php?view id-°6&cliip id 848) Indeed, 27 Burbank real estate professionals in December 2009 signed a petition/statement offering their professional opinion that a proposed T -Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon Park would negatively impact the surrounding homes, stating: "It is our professional opinion that cell towers decrease the value of homes in the area tremendously. Peer reviewed research also concurs that cell sites do indeed cause a decrease in home value. We encourage you to respect the wishes of the residents and deny the proposed T -Mobile lease at this location. We also request that you strengthen your zoning ordinance regarding wireless facilities like the neighboring city of Glendale has done, to create preferred and non preferred zones that will protect the welfare of our residents and their properties as well as Burbank's real estate business professionals and the City of Burbank. Higher property values mean more tax revenue for the city, which helps improve our city." (Submitted to City Council, Planning Board, City Manager, City Clerk and other city officials via e-mail on June 18, 2010. To see a copy of this, scroll down to bottom of page and click "Subpages" or go here: http://sites.google.conVsite/nocel ltowerinoumeighborhood/homeidecreased-real-estate-valuc/burbank-real - estate professionals -statement ) Here is a list of additional articles on how cell towers negatively affect the property values of homes near them: • The Observer (U.K.), "Phone masts blight house sales: Health fears are alarming buyers as masts spread across Britain to meet rising demand for mobiles," Sunday May 25, 2003 or go here: httg://www.guardian.co.Uk/moncy/2003/may/25/housep wi q.uknews • "Cell Towers Are Sprouting in Unlikely Places," The New York Times, January 9, 2000 (fears that property values could drop between 5 and 40 percent because of neighboring cell towers) • "Quarrel over Phone Tower Now Court's Call," Chicago Tribune, January 18, 2000 (fear of lowered property values due to cell tower) • "The Future is Here, and It's Ugly: a Spreading of Techno-blight of Wires, Cables and Towers Sparks a Revolt," New York Times, September 7, 2000 • "Tower Opponents Ring Up a Victory," by Phil Brozynski, in the Barrington [Illinois] Courier -Review, February 15, 1999, 5, reporting how the Cuba Township assessor reduced the value of twelve homes following the construction of a cell tower in Lake County, IL. See attached story: http://spot.colorado.edu/—ma/ iara/appeal&attachments/Newton -43-LoweredPropertyVaI uation/ • In another case, a Houston jury awarded 1.2 million to a couple because a 100 -foot -tall cell tower was determined to have lessened the value of their property and caused them mental anguish: Nissimov, R., "GTE Wireless Loses Lawsuit over Cell -Phone Tower," Houston Chronicle, February 23, 1999, Section A, page 11. (Property values depreciate by about 10 percent because of the tower.) Page 113 transactions with real and prospective clients. Subsequent to the October 20, 2010 Zoning Administrator meeting, she was indeed professionally involved in a sales transaction in November 2010 where this very tower application for a facility in Cedar Grove put her client's sale transaction into jeopardy. She will be able to testify about that experience at the hearing on this matter. 7. There Is No Significant Gap in Coverage Necessitating this Tower Here There is a burden of proof which must be met by T -Mobile that proves a significant gap in coverage exists in the proposed location necessitating the tower in the area of the proposed location. 2 1 Just last year, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Sprint PCS Assets v. the City of Palos Verdes (9`h Cir. October 2009) 487 F.3d 684 and T -Mobile v the City of Anacortes (9`h Cir. July 20, 2009) 572 F.3d 987, explained that the "effective prohibition" inquiry involves a "two- pronged" analysis requiring: (1) the showing of a "significant gap" in service coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations. We contend that this application fails on both prongs: T -Mobile has failed to show a "significant gap" nor has an inquiry been conducted into the feasibility of alternative locations or facilities. In T -Mobile v the City of Anacortes, the City conceded a significant gap existed, so the Court stated that the provider then had the burden of showing the lack of available and technologically feasible alternatives to close the gap, for instance, exploring and researching reasonable and viable altemative locations (called the "least intrusive means" standard). The Ninth Circuit noted that this standard: allows for a meaningful comparison of alternative sites before the siting application process is needlessly repeated. It also gives providers an incentive to choose the least intrusive site in their first siting applications, and it promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the community, not merely the last one remaining after a series of application denials. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals further explained: A provider makes a prima facie showing of effective prohibition by submitting a comprehensive application, which includes consideration of alternatives, showing that the proposed WCF is the least intrusive means of filing a significant gap. A locality is not compelled to accept the provider's representations. Moreover, we need more rigorous alternative site analysis requirements of our wireless applicants. In our case, T -Mobile has presented some evidence that there is purportedly a gap in coverage. The truth of this representation, however, is cast into doubt by T -Mobile's own data on its website, where a consumer can check his/her coverage in their area. According to T -Mobile's Personal Coverage Check, found at http://www.t-mobile.com/coverag`//pcc.aspx, the area in and around Cedar Grove Park ranges from "Good" to "Very Good", with the Park itself being in the "Very Good" range. (The entire range spans from "No Coverage", "Partner", "Good", "Very 21 Sprint PCS Assets v. the City of Palos Verdes (9'" Cir. October 2009) 487 F.3d 684 and T -Mobile v the City of Anacortes (9"Cir. July 20, 2009) 572 F.3d 987 114 Good", and "Excellent".) Copies of these results can be found hereto attached as Exhibit Number 2 and incorporated by this reference. For purposes of this exercise, appellant used the Sedona neighborhood address of 11615 Goetting Avenue, which is owned and occupied by Thomas and Sharon Michael. These maps indicate that there is in car or better coverage for virtually all of this area without the proposed Cedar Grove tower. Data coverage is even better. It appears that what T -Mobile portrays to the City to obtain approval for the cell phone tower is in direct conflict with what they maintain to the buying public on their website. It is also important to note that while the placement of the cell tower at Cedar Grove may provide additional coverage to the immediate Sedona and Tustin Ranch Estates Communities, it will also cover in substantial part just parkland thereby limiting the number of residences that will benefit from this location. T -Mobile and the City conceded at the Zoning Administrator hearing that the benefit only extended to Sedona and Tustin Ranch Estates. The same remedy can be accomplished by installing antennas or a tower in another alternative location, providing coverage to a greater number of Tustin residences. 8. Alternative Locations Moreover, as to the second prong of the analysis discussed above pursuant to Sprint PCS Assets v. the City of Palos Verdes (9h Cir. October 2009) 487 F.3d 684 and T -Mobile v the City of Anacortes (9`" Cir. July 20, 2009) 572 F.3d 987, little evidence exists that this prong has been satisfied in exploring whether alternative and feasible site locations and facilities exist. In fact, the evidence indicates an opposite result. Again, the veracity of T -Mobile's application representations are put into question. For instance, in discussing the viability of the OCFA training center as an alternative and more desirable location, T -Mobile and the City contended at the October 20, 2010 hearing that the OCFA was "not interested" in a facility at their location. This is simply untrue. In November 2010, representatives of Save Cedar Grove Park were specifically invited to accompany OCFA, T - Mobile by and through its representative vendor, Coastal Business Group, and other carriers to tour the approved site that is in the works at the OCFA facility by third party tower builder Vista Towers. OCFA confirmed to us that the site and proposed two (2) 45' multicarrier towers meets their approval. Thus, it is difficult at best to believe that just a couple weeks earlier, OCFA was not interested'. zz We urge the City to explore more feasible alternative locations to serve this area. Many locations in this area may prove to be more desirable as they are at higher elevations, not adjacent to schools or displacing our parklands. As this is a border community, it may very well be that alternative locations can be found outside the City limits that can best serve this need. There has been much discussion about other locations, however, we feel it is incumbent upon the City to identify and study these locations as is deemed necessary by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 23 For instance, many communities (this area included!) have resolved the need for 2' It was further represented to us at the OCFA tour that the City of Irvine has given preliminary approval to the project at this higher elevation site. Such alternative locations that have been identified by various entities/persons include, but are not limited to, the OCFA facilities, the eastern hills by the toll roads, and Pioneer Park (identified by the City's Wireless Master Plan as a viable location). It is our further understanding the City has also been trying to find a tower builder to put one up in Citrus Ranch Park off of Portola and Tustin Ranch Road. In addition, we are told there are two sites already Page 115 modem telecommunications in fragile, historic, or natural areas with the installation of a distributed antenna system such as that on Jamboree Road which is less obtrusive and unsightly than a fake tree tower. T -Mobile has failed to consider the implementation of such technologies within our residential neighborhood and historical geographical area. Tree -like or not, the proposed 65 foot tower will be visually jarring to visitors and residents who are hoping to be enveloped by the historical and natural surroundings of Cedar Grove Park and do not expect to see (or hear) the modernity and intrusiveness of a 65 foot cell tower with significant ground facilities. 9. Quality of Life a. Until Potential Health Effects Issue is Resolved, Wireless Companies Should be Discouraged from Building Facilities in Close Proximity to Schools. This Should only be a "Last -Choice" Possibility Although the FCC has made it clear that local municipalities cannot deny an application based upon the adverse health effects of a cellular facility, it is still worth noting that the probability does exist. In fact, the California Public Utilities Commission formed a special committee to investigate the health effects of wireless facilities. The committee workshop occurred on July 21, 1993. (Studies since then have shown relationships between adverse health effects and RF radiation from cell towers, so these workshop conclusions are pretty much out of date). However, the State committee concluded that it had to defer to FCC standards and rules, and the committee said while it is difficult to conclude a health and safety problem exists, it is also unclear that health and safety problems do not exist. Relevant, however, the committee also acknowledged public perception of adverse health effects. Until it could find more conclusive evidence of harmful effects of cell tower radiation, it DID make this recommendation regarding locating cell towers near schools and hospitals: "Cellular companies can be encouraged to consider alternative siting, especially if projected cell sites are in close proximity to schools or hospitals. School and hospital sites can be designated only as last -choice possibilities." See Decision 91-11-017: http://www.cpuc.ca.p,ov/Environment/emf/emfopen.htm and http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/emf/emfopen.htm While the wireless industry will contend there are no known adverse health effects related to wireless towers and antennae, even a perceived health risk is enough to negatively affect the quality of life of Tustin residents near a cell tower. Whether perceived or real health risks, a cell tower installation at Cedar Grove park adversely impacts neighboring properties and schools. It approved by the City of Irvine on the other side of the toll roads near the Orchard Hills and High Grove areas which may or may not serve this community. Although we do not endorse any of these locations, we merely point out that alternatives do exist. In fact, the Save Cedar Grove Park committee has learned of an active pursuit of a multi carrier wireless telecommunications facility at the Orange County Fire Authority training Center at Jamboree and Pioneer Road. This proposed tower reportedly has been given preliminary approval by the OCFA and the City of Irvine. It has been represented to us that T -Mobile has been included in colocation at this site. This site is at a higher ground elevation than Cedar Grove Park and would purportedly serve the same general area. Page 116 will create anxiety, stress, worry, sadness, a need for moving out of the area, among other things. Parents will consider alternative educational options for their children rather than send their kids to PCE and possibly even Pioneer Middle School. This is a deterioration of the quality of life for Tustin residents, and our neighborhoods. b. Public Safety — Fire and Fall Hazard and Attracting Crime Residents, city officials, and the State of California, are also concerned about these pole installations from a public safety standpoint. There is great public concern over cellular towers and facilities in general. They have been said to attract crime, vandalism, vagrancy, suicide attempts, and are a leading cause of occupational falls. Routine maintenance has led to fires, and high winds have toppled poles. The recent Malibu fires, according to an ABC news report, were caused by utility poles overburdened by new cellular phone gear. "Power poles that should have withstood winds of 92 mph snapped in the 50mph hour winds due to the "heavy, wind -catching cables and antennas." We don't want to put this cell tower, which could entail more antennas adding onto it once it is installed, in a park next to an entire grove of trees adjacent to the elementary school and around homes. It's a potential fire hazard, especially in this hillside fire -sensitive area of Tustin. It would increase anxiety and worries about a potential fire here. There is the safety concern regarding cell towers and potential fire hazards. The California Public Utilities Commission is currently holding workshops to address the fire hazard risks posed by telecommunications equipment loaded onto utility poles. These types of installations have either started or contributed to several wildfires that resulted in loss of lives and/or serious destruction of homes and/or property/land. In addition, back-up batteries for wireless facilities can be made of hazardous substances. For instance, this June 2008 Board of Appeals Report addresses this serious concern residents raised in that instance about the dangers and hazards of lead back-up batteries: http://www.montgome cry ountymd.t;ov/content/council/zah/pdf/reports/s-2709.pdf. See also, http://www.city.waltham.ma.us/iepcweb/EPAinfo/FPA Lead -Acid Battery fax sheet.htm; http://www.calicorp.com/articies/batteries-hazards.htmi and http://www.calicorp.com/articles/batte[y-adviso[y.html. Combined, these public safety news stories underscore why these installations should be placed away from homes and schools, because knowing they could be installed near our homes, schools and parks negatively affects our quality of life. 9. Conclusion The City has the power to regulate the placement and appearance of cell towers, as long as such discrimination is not unreasonable. Keeping a cell tower out of Cedar Grove Park is a reasonable limitation. Cell coverage, albeit not perfect, does already exist in this area. Putting cell towers in Cedar Grove is just bad business. For residential owners, it means decreased property values. It will mean a smaller pool of prospective buyers of our properties when it comes time to sell. It means anxiety and concern 117 for perceived stigmas attached to the proximity of these towers to our homes and schools. It means the compromise of the area's natural beauty. It will signal a lack of appreciation and honor to our local history. It means bringing our treasured park down a few notches and creating potential safety risks. For local businesses (realtors and brokers) representing and listing these properties, it will create decreased income. And for city governments, it results in decreased revenue (property taxes). There are viable alternative solutions, including, but not limited to, higher elevation places outside the City limits of this border neighborhood which will effectively serve this area. The Wireless Master Cellular plan is not absolute, and may warrant further investigation. We encourage the City to explore these alternative options. In this instance, the tower and cellular facility as currently proposed directly conflicts with the City of Tustin's General Plan to preserve the historic nature of the cedar grove trees and the park. It will substantially affect the aesthetics of the park, and will significantly affect residential property values. Many homes bordering the park are multimillion dollar homes or near million dollar homes. This in turn will significantly affect the City's property taxes as residents seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. The facility will affect quality of life and can present a potential fire hazard to this community. "Good" to "Very Good" coverage already exists in this area by T -Mobile's own admission, and alternative locations and/or solutions exist or can be identified by the City or other municipalities in the area that will both serve its residents and comply with T -Mobile's interests in securing adequate coverage for the area. The installation of a cell facility in Cedar Grove is bad for the City, bad for the Park, bad for the residents, and bad for the legacy of the City of Tustin. For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested the Planning Commission deny the application of T -Mobile under Design Review 09-033 and do everything in its power to prevent the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities and towers in Cedar Grove Park. Respectfully, Jennifer Ann Wierks, Esq. Brandon Key Sharon Michael David Bessen Tracy Powell Sharon Komouros Rita Semaan Erik Tran Nancy Kuwada And nearly 500 others ... Save Cedar Grove Park enclosures Exhibit 1 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin Ranch are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, a non-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 3. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 4. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 5. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential area! Number Name Email Comments Address 1 Jennifer Wierks 2 Lynnea Kull There are other suitable locations than in a park located in a residential area between two schools (Peters Canyon Elem. and Pioneer Middle School). 3 David Haigh david.haighecox.net Put the cell tower up on the tall east hill 4 Jennifer Souter 2jsouter@cox.net 5 Natalie Griswold 6 Kurt Himler 7 Jane Zhou 8 sonja peterson sonjap®csu.fullerton.edu 9 thanh vo 10 Debra Plante debplante®cox.net 11 Dru Desai 12 Margaret Shen 13 Jennifer Van Iersel 14 Larry Kull 15 Karen Dey Would prefer cell tower not be be placed in community park and by schools 16 Kruti Khan 17 Lisa Osako lkosako®cox.net 18 Tilden Osako 19 Rita Semaan 20 michelle blum 21 Caroline Marchant caroline®marchanthockey.com Please do not put up this cell tower so close to our children. 22 Todd Marchant 23 Yan Ye 24 Michael S. Carter 25 Stephanie M. Fabbri Carter there are thousands of children who play at that park- why would we put all these children at risk 26 Annie & TJ Sun 28 Madeline Griswold 30 Cathy Sanders 31 Marcene Marcus 32 Jayne Chun jaynechunahotmail.com 33 Brandon Key dcpost®cox.net Wouldn't a location nearer the toll road, in a less populated area be a better option? 34 Stacey Muto staceymutoahotmail 35 Evette Smith 36 Kathy Piazzon 37 Sharon Komorous I oppose the construction of a cell phone tower next to Cedar Grove park and our schools. Let's find another solution. 38 Robert Allen 39 Valeria Pereiravppereira®aol.com 40 Scott Warner Griswold Let's find a better spot than a popular and beautiful park 41 Joyce Magsarili 42 Katherine Boutelle We don't want to expose our kids! 43 Debbie Bessen 44 Monica Nesbitt 45 Lisa Kormos 46 Coleen Fields 47 Mike Kormos Bad idea, other locations more suitable. 48 David Bessen 49 Jacinta Lamb jacinta.lambnegmail.com A 50 Kimberly Goh 51 Dawn Araki 52 Dean L. Groves 53 Robin King 54 Janet Allen jdallen®cox.net 55 Lei Xu shellyxu®cox.net shellyxu®cox.net 56 Lindsey Garrett I am vehemently opposed to a cell phone tower in Cedar Grove Park 57 Lisa Deneen 58 Anne Barring 59 Sharon Michael 60 Kristi Fuentes 61 Lisa Richardson 62 Thomas Michael 63 Patrick J. Garrett 64 Melanie Belger 65 Christina Dennis 66 Daralyn Nagle 67 Chen Li 68 Debra Lanning 69 Edward Perfetti 70 Kathleen Gambill kshg®cox.net 71 Suzie won-Speizer 72 David Baker I am opposed to a cell tower UNLESS it meets higher safety and aesthetics standards. 73 Elizabeth Tilford 74 Hop Pham Please don't put cell phone tower near our residential area. 75 Luke Nguyen It is not safe for our community. 76 Trish Nornhold Why in a park surrounded by schools and neighborhoods. Toll road seems like the perfect place. 77 Cheryl Alberola 78 Jennifer Lucci jennlucciecox.net This is completely irresponsible to have this so close to where children play and spend so much time 79 Erik Tran 80 Katie Head 81 Dale Head 82 Qiang Ye shellyxuacox.net 83 stacy mckellar there has to be a better place to put the cell tower. the park is clearly not an appropriate or safe choice. 84 Janis Nishimoto 85 Tracy Feldman 86 Jacqueline Hoppe 87 Blair Hoppe 88 alisa kopp 89 Carolyn Osborn 90 Sue Garland suegarland®yahoo.com 91 Salma Monica Greene 92 Lisa Hung 93 Susan Peterson 94 Jessica Chatterton 95 Timothy P. Duchene 96 Ingrid Hoblik 97 Lisa Bourbour 98 Mitch King kingimOyahoo.com 99 Sue Tobler 100 Alida Calvagna 101 Rebecca Gomez 102 Lisa guardado 103 Stacie L Reyes 104 Vicki Schaffer A 105 Chad Slumskie 106 Beth Pf lomm 107 Steve Irwin 108 Irina Todorov 109 Sara Stewart ' 110 Catherine Lambert 111 Jeff Sprosty 112 Candace Lee 113 Graham Lambert 114 Laurie Ayers 115 Gypsy M. Biller 116 Maggie Villegasmvillegasl516Oyahoo.com 117 Dan Villegas 118 Eric Sanders 119 David Ayers 120 Susie Teel 121 Natalie Banning 122 Jodi Sprosty 123 kim chi tran 124 Terese O'Dell 125 kimberly vu 126 Brad Bjorndahl 127 Kendra Bjorndahl 128 Joanna Sakaeda 129 Nancy Kuwada 130 Stephanie Crail A 131 Janet Beadle 132 Michael Beadle 133 Scott Crail We don't want it! There must be a safer place to put it! 134 Colleen Bell 135 Cheryl Bell 136 Shawna Esparza 10147 Albee Ave, Tustin 137 Hani Semaan Why is this issue being rushed when the community just found out about it the day before the city issues its decision? I also question the timing which is right before the November general election. 138 Nicole Swanson 139 Mary Partible 140 Nancy Mallory 141 Robin Steinmetz would love to see a cell tower, but not in this location Will impact our home values 142 Naushad Reshamwalla 143 Gita Aminloo 144 Lisa Beale 145 candice Kikuta 146 elisabeth mccutcheon 147 Ivan Todorov We neet to stop this tower !!! 148 john boots I'd rather not have it at the park, but maybe up along jamboree or by the peter's canyon sanitation structure. 149 Margaret Choe 150 Erle Petrie 151 Heidi Goldman 152 Quyen Urick 153 Traci L Henderson 154 Natalie Migirdichian 155 Kamer Migirdichian drkamerdceaol.com 156 Karen Daurio 157 Karen Malloy Please choose another location that is far away from schools, homes, retail and parks so that the readiation will not affect our children. Thank you! 158 John Wallace 159 Pina Mehta 160 Biren Mehta 161 Todd von Sprecken 162 Clark Le Done This tower has no place in a residencial neighborhood. 163 Gary D. Acker Place the cell tower at another location. 164 Gail Kamo kamokidsojuno.com NO Tower at Cedar Grove Park 165 Brian Sakaeda 166 Malena Deall I go to that park. 167 Tracy L. Powelltracylpowelle@yahoo.com 168 Rebecca Gallegos ntrgall®aim.com 169 Jun Dai 170 Sanjay Mehta 171 Joseph Teo 172 Sonja Key yecks@cox.net Keep cell towers out of Cedar Grove Park and away from our kids! 173 Cindy Koval 174 Jennifer Sutton 175 Mimi Saenz Listen to your constituents whom you represent 176 David Pifel Place the cell tower on private land, not public land. 177 Mieke small Protect our health 178 Tammy Stern-Thieriot 179 Yujun Si 180 Lisa Watson 181 Karen Sisson 182 Holly Love Why construct a tower such as this, when there is so much land going up Jamboree, which will not impact the well being of the community as a whole. 183 Mark Love 184 maria von sprecken mlloban®yahoo.com 185 Hendric Minassian 186 Hendric Minassian 187 Catherine Fortier-Minassian 188 Thomas L. Michael tmichaelabluepacificproperty.com 189 Evelyn Gerace 190 Geraldine Schwarz 191 Matthias Schwarz 192 Paolo Mazzucato Petition item #7 is of utmost concern. I would rather risk losing a call than risk losing even one child. 193 Arja Galentine 194 MARGARET BURNETT Completely NOT NECESSARY! TMobile? I don't think so. Switch to Verizon. Shame on you Tustin Commission 195 Christine Liekhus NO TOWER a Cedar Grove Park!! 196 Monica Myhr 197 Niklas Myhr 198 Christopher Liu christopher.livayahoo.com 199 Joan Liu joan_wu livayahoo.com 200 Kristin Leonard Move it away from our kids! 201 Utpala Bhalodia No tower at Cedar Grove Park 202 Anil Bhalodia 203 Caroline Brenninkmeyer 204 Oliver Brenninkmeyer 205 Daryl Holzberg 206 Dr. Cheng Donn Please recosider a suitable alternate site 207 Mrs. S. C. Donn 208 Dev Keshav devkeshavaeathlink.net very much opposed to this tower installation 209 Roshani Le Done 210 Kelly 211 Jamie Holzberg 212 Micheline Awad 213 Timothy Powell timcpowelloyahoo.com 214 Lawrence Kull 215 michelle vu 216 Ron Fields 217 Emmy Coats put it somewhere else. 218 Elaine Teo elainetathomeacox.net Cell tower should be away from homes and schools. Cedar Grove Park is too close to schools and residential area. 219 Charles Lin 220 Nancy Smith There are plenty of other places to put the tower, please research them. 221 Robert Smith Our property values have dropped enough, this is the last thing we need 222 Britt Kiley brittkileyasbcglobal.net Please consider an alternative location. 223 Karen Whittemore 224 Ruben Whittemore 225 Allan Brooks Put it the grounds of OC Fire Authority 226 Stacey Spector sjspector2aaol.com 227 Jane Seltzer jane2272ahotmail.com 228 kelly w pauls-Cummings 229 Silbana Uribe silbanamayahoo.com Not around our schools!!!!! Please!!!! Protect our children's health! 230 Susan Lee 231 D. Jack Tan 232 Angela Y. Tan 233 Bin Chu 234 Jihong Zhou 235 Sandra Stafford sandy_staffordacox.net 236 Gayle Demsher 237 Stephanie Holoubek 238 Carolina Chu i would rather go to the doctors for a yearly checkup than cancer 239 Norman Chu NO TOWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 240 Maricris Lee We don't need another cell tower in our neighborhood -- especially near a school where our children spend a huge amount of time. 241 Sharon Mexal 242 Erice Cheng 243 Tammy Wu I WILL NEVER LET THEM DO THIS!!!!!! 244 Tim Appleford 245 Michelle Isenberg 246 Helen Flechner 247 Tamara Schmidt 248 David Milligan 249 Ari Flechner 250 Yanni Tripolitis 251 Linda Brooks 252 Danny Bouimad 253 Cyrus Shahriary 254 Mantreh Farhadieh 255 Ricardo Silvestre 256 Rosana Silvestre 257 Diane Kanegae 258 Jeff Kanegae 259 Jinny Bender 260 Tom Bender 261 Winnie Leung 262 Eugene Chen 263 Jennifer Chen 264 James Wikle jimayoungwikle.com 265 kelvin vu 266 robert weinberg 267 ROBERT REA O'BRIEN JR I am always curious of what or who is getting "kickbacks" from something like this, when there is plenty of vacant land along the 261 and 241 that would serve the same purpose. 268 Debra Musco 269 Elle H. Kim 270 Christina hatch 271 Alvin Kwan 272 Pat McNeal pdmlawOgmail.com Tragic decision 273 Bonnie Foulkes 274 Daniel Demsher ddemsher®aol.com 275 Denise E Julian 276 Molly Brown 277 Jun Hong 278 Sherri Loveland Sherri-lovelandecox.net Cell towers should not be placed near schools where our children may be affected by radiation. Consider our children! 279 Timothy J Butler Simply a bad choice for locating a cell tower 280 Shelly Decker 281 Nick Schubert In a park next to an elementary school? What do they have against the children in this area? 282 Cary Vanraes Let's make the right choice for the future 283 Jennifer Imus 284 Junia Martinson 285 Ann Lew 286 Erik Martinson eman_nol®yahoo.com Place the tower a the fire department 287 Lilly Lin 288 Joanna Y Sakaeda Place the tower at the fire marshall's side of the hill. 289 Lisa Spencer 290 Craig Spencer 291 Jung Choi A 292 Sean Hwang A 293 Milton V. Fajardo, Esq. This is truly unconscionable and a blatant violation of the public's trust. 294 Jeff Chung A 295 Jane Gao gao_jane®yahoo.com gao_janeeyahoo.com 296 Yueying Ren yren_980yahoo.com Please do not allow the cell tower in the park within a residential area. 297 Ron Imus 298 Feng Wang fengwang300l@yahoo.com Protect our children. No cell tower at Cedar Grove park or any park in the residential and school neighborhood.. 299 Adelle Wang yren_980yahoo.com 300 Cindy Lynch Please use the the endless hills of the toll roads where there aren't hundreds of children playing. 301 Jose Lynch Toll road hills is a safer and better choice!!! 302 Lauren Townsend improved cell service is not a reason to destory our beautiful park and community. an alternative must be found. 303 Erin Solomon I oppose the cell tower at Cedar Grove Park 304 Debbie Balise we don't want our children exposed to this 305 Sue and David Wang wangsuelee®yahoo.com 306 Sean Solomon First show me the study that proves conclusively that 'cell waves' have NO adverse effects on children, and then let's address the aesthetics. Find a more appropriate location. 307 mei ling chen 308 Lin Chen 309 Cindy Qin -0„2 310 Dana Cooper ARE YOU CRAZY ! THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN IN 2 SCHOOLS ADJACENT TO THIS SITE !!!!! 311 Yihan Hong 312 Susan Shube 313 Lihua Peng 314 Jill Munro NO NO NO 315 Ruth Evans ImrevansOcox.net 316 Charles Hatch How can you put it in a park next to 2 schools? 317 Rick Balsiger rbalsiger®cox.net Clearly, there are other, far safer options than near a huge park, two schools and hundreds of homes 318 Connie Wang We don't need the cell tower to close to our kids. 319 penning k. I strongly against the tower placement in Cedar Grove Park!!! 320 poyun wu We DO NOT NEED ANY CELL TOWER IN OUR BACKYARD!!! 321 Bahman Anvari 322 Stella Syn 323 Gene Syn 324 Lei Zhu 325 Ray Rusandhy I live across from Cedar grove and strongly oppose this tower 326 Luny Saritoh Put the tower over the toll road hills 327 Brian Liekhus STOP THE MADDNESS!!!! 328 Angela Franco No Phones! Nature first!! 329 Elizabeth Stevens This is a horrible place to put this cell tower. Place it somewhere where the radiation will not harm people. 330 Heather Thompson In the middle of a park and right between two schools, surrounded by homes? What are you thinking! 331 Barbara Jensen -Scott 332 Adrienne Turner 333 Christine Chen 334 Sandy Jung sejunglahotmail.com A 335 Lee Jung 1_junglahotmail.com A 336 Kim Tolsma 337 Steve Tolsma 338 Irwin Vidal ividalayahoo.com please do not add this tower which radiates energy next to our kids at school!! 339 Leslie Kalasky 340 Richard Nassetta 341 Jenny Wang 342 Yan Ma We don't need a cell phone tower here! 343 Gina Vidal 344 Cameron Carlen The proposed cell phone tower would be a detriment to one of Tustin's best loved parks! Please stop it! 345 Randy Ruegger 346 Deborah Nassetta 347 Natalie Soo 348 bindu kansagra 349 Marianne Hales 350 jill perricone 351 Evelyn Aleccia They could have put this tower in many other locations. Why so close to school and homes 352 James Aleccia 353 Dennis Tase Protect our green space 354 Isabel Chen 355 Alex Williams While there is no conclusive evidence to prove that cell phone towers are a risk to human's health, especially children, the fact there there is a possibility is enough. A cell tower is, indeed, needed for the area. However, placing it in an area right next to two schools and in a heavy -residential area is not the best location. Please reconsider this. 356 jodi turk MOMS of Merrick NY support you! 357 Chunlai Zhong 358 Linda Miller It took the city long enough to build it, now don't destroy it. 359 Kelly Foley 360 Tim Foley 361 Chris Danielson 362 Pat Beerdsen 363 Al Beerdsen 364 Tanya Zaverl No cell phone towers in residential neighborhoods! Put it on the toll road!! 365 Mark Zaverl Seek an alternative site—not near homes and schools! 366 Cynthia Truman cindy2®busche.com Once again it's T-Mobile pushing around communities 367 Faith Lattomus 368 Bing Wu 369 Michael Vuu m_vuuoyahoo.com 370 Tim Denin tdenin®hotmail.com Stop the madness!!!!!! 371 Adrienne Kitson 372 Brian McMahon 373 Darren Kopp dkopp®shorelinemedia.org 374 Bryan Dell 375 Donald Kitson 376 Mylin Sun 377 Michael Sun 378 James Karns james.karns®ericsson.com We do not want this in our neighborhood. Verizon Wireless works fine at my house across from Cedar Grove Park. They have obviously found a way to cover this area with proper RF Engineering to make this happen without a cell site in our park. Other Wireless carriers can find other locations and Engineer it appropriately. 379 Kaila Karns Please put the cell tower away from Cedar Grove Park. Something like this should not be placed in areas where wildlife exists and many people and children come to enjoy. The cell tower should be placed elsewhere, like maybe the toll road. 380 Stephen G. Mangold 381 Mark Diaz Once again, corporate profits and city officials benefit and our children suffer. Are we in the City of Bell? 382 Jeff Olah Stop the Cell Tower at Cedar Grove Park! 383 Nancy Jones 384 Carlos Nuques 385 Sheila Sentner sheila33®sbcglobal.net 386 Tucker Morrison NO CELL PHONE TOWER IN OUR PARK! 387 Siriporn Kuanchai 388 Marie Van Raes 389 Shiao-Li Lau We do not need further exposure to health risks than we are already. 390 Jin Kam 391 Victoria Allen 392 Jonathan Verdi It is outrageous that this location is even being considered! Cell phone towers don't belong near schools and our homes! 393 Adam Key T-Mobile, tsk tsk tsk 394 Sang Lee 395 Payal Swami 396 Christine Ma-Schweich 397 Susana Daboub VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULD EVEN CONSIDER PLACING THESE TOWERS HERE. THEY NEED TO LOOK OUT FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS!! 398 Donna Kunz We need to protect our park and the surrounding homes in which we live 399 Ann Hoang and Duc Ngo atthoang®yahoo.com 400 Mark V Johnson johnsonof4®cox.net 401 Tzatzi Murphy 402 Rochelle Murphy re. info.asapagmail.com UNVELIEVABLE that our elected officials would allow a tower near school grounds?! 403 Zandra A. Diaz Why are we permitting a tower that is potentially hazardous to our children at Peters Canyon Elementary on PUBLIC property 404 Jane Ashpes 405 Ong Lay Chin 406 Lim Chee Leong 407 Brian Murphy bmurf6873Oyahoo.com This is a no-brainer, c'mon people-think of your own kids! If you knew how much radiation those things put out, would you do it to them so willingly? 408 Yeh Su yehsu®hotmail.com Please do not put ANY cel tower anywhere in Tustin Ranch area. 409 Holly Blumhardtnoshots4meegmail.com Please do not endanger our children, Tustin Ranch residents, family, and friends. Read this info from Dr. Mercola and see if you still think it's ok to put the tower up http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/2/7/the-cell- phone-quot-tower-of-doom-quot.aspx - It could increase cancer rates by 20\%, cause Alzheimer's, Autism, Parkinson's, Headaches, Sleep Interruption, altered memory function, poor concentration, etc. Do your research before you put 100s of families at risk! 410 Dr. Shannon Blumhardt Please do not endanger our children, Tustin Ranch residents, family, and friends. Read this info from Dr. Mercola and see if you still think it's ok to put the tower up http://articlea.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/2/7/the-cell- phone-quot-tower-of-doom-quot.aspx - It could increase cancer rates by 20\%, cause Alzheimer's, Autism, Parkinson's, Headaches, Sleep Interruption, altered memory function, poor concentration, etc. Do your research before you put 100s of families at risk! 411 Diana Bown Please protect my grandchildren from this dangerous idea. 412 Ronald Ashpes Health risks associated with erecting and operating this tower are significantly greater than any potential cellphone service benefits. Asthetically, a tower no matter how camouflaged will be an eyesore. 413 Kirsten Jessel kjeasel®earthlink.net 414 Wade and Helen Oshiro lhensyvcox.net Protect our kids and others 415 Bonita McCarthy there are plenty of open spaces across Jamborree near toll road where this can be placed, and not contaminate the children of Peters canyon, nor the residence. Someone needs to think of the residence and impact before corporate desires. We certainly don't need another contaminator and ugly sight in this lovely and healthy necighborhood. BTW when did residence get to vote on this?? where are the politicians when you need them to rprotect our community? Oh are they busy bashing other politicians or taking kickbacks? this is outrageous and If I have to call the President on this , I will. 416 Xin Wang xinwang98®hotmail.com I hope city council members can stand firmly on our side to protect our kids, our health, and our property value thanks! 417 Randi Mackowiak Please do not allow a cell tower to be erected in our neighborhood. 418 Daniel Donghun Kim 419 Stephanie Mijeong Kim 420 Kei C Huang 421 jim tsai 422 jacklyn huang stop the tower 423 ashley tsai 424 aaron tsai 425 li-ching tsai 426 Chu Eun Kim 427 Young J Kim 428 shereen afshari 429 Marsha Sorey NO TOWER!!!!!!!!!!!! 430 Tiffany Storm PLEASE for the safety of the children - DO NOT INSTALL THE CELL TOWER! 431 Lorenz Kull deny the cell tower 432 jennifer czinder No cell tower around school and resident area. 433 Shaun Storm PLEASE for the safety of the children - DO NOT INSTALL THE CELL TOWER! 434 James F. Beachler PLEASE PROTECT THE CHILDREN - DO NOT INSTALL THE CELL TOWER! 435 Len Piazzon 436 ken oelerich 437 Kristen Reeves 438 Sean Reeves 439 Melissa Minahan Save our kids' health! Who needs a T- Mobile tower there? They should share towers since we don't know the health implications! Don't put a tower in a residential neighborhood! 440 Daniel Minahan This should not be up to the city to decide! The people should have a voice in this. 441 Monica Rakunas put the tower in another location, don't take away a park for children! 442 Mark McLellan 443 Shellye McLellan 444 Sergio Avila 445 Diemkhanh Mary Dinhluu 446 Diemkhanh Mary Dinhluu 447 An H. Nguen 448 an nguyen 449 Mark Nguyen 450 Cecilia Bui 451 Margaret Russell Bereskin 452 Marcia Bohac 453 Jason Knight 454 Stuart Mathews 455 Carolyn Sagara 456 Christine Heyninck-Jantz 457 Fiona Lee 458 bob akbari 459 Darlene Grech 460 Douglas & Sandra Polett PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin and other Area Cities are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: 1. The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, a non-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 3. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 4. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 5. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential area! Number Name Email Comments Your Zip Code 1 Richard Holden rlbholdenesbcglobal.net keep the tower out of CedarGrove 90620 2 Casey King 92614 3 Jessica O'neill 92604 4 Nora Chen 92614 5 kathie Schultz 92614 6 Ana Gonzalez 79912 7 Ms. Kiku Lani Iwata, Burbank ACTION nocelltowerinourneighborhoodegmail.comResidents here in Burbank are opposing the proposed T -Mobile cell tower at Brace Canyon recrational park near our homes and schools. We are also working with local officials to update our outdated wireless ordinance to adopt stronger regulations to protect our homes, parks and schools, like so many other communiites are now doing. This proposed tower should not be allowed in your community park next to schools and homes, too. 91504 8 Catherine Abbott 11218 9 Dan Shah danshahacox.net 92705 10 Carol Smiley needs to be in a non-residential area -can be a potential health hazard 44092 11 caul martinez 92672 12 leigh anne webster 92610 13 Rusty Yunusov 92630 14 Kitty and Bob Stockton As former residents we know the park was designed as a healthy recreational area for families to gather... bottom line..it was paid for with Mello Roos tax money..in other words the residents of the area ... the city council should bow to the realistic concerns of the tax paying residents. 34481 15 J Maag 92675 16 Karen Webb 92663 17 Amy Piazzon 48073 18 Kathleen Piazzon 34135 19 Joe Piazzon 34135 20 Terry Andorfer 46815 21 Kevin Nguyen Keep Tustin Parks Natural & Beautiful -- Please do not a cell phone tower here192865 ('ibis shorter second Petition (21 signatures) was prepared for those out of area residents who wanted to sign a Petition specifying same). Exhibit 2 T -Mobile Coverage Map http://coverage.t-mobile.com/Default.aspx Close up view (Data Coverage is Red, Voice Coverage is Green) fi Y r� .rrrr Tb wy MOfbl• �+w.. n...w r• 1 •�+ Q• ®tw1uA . �rrrr • �►1mm•r. • YM.. Yrw• TA"ft Cwr7 rn..rcw«." cT.a� v.. cr ur. w+. r. r.s.• rrrw.�. rr r+r.r.r. r.++� rrrt NTayoor^, r.rc...rr. u.0 ,... 0 a �4 . � 4-0- + - PW- rn- %*- 9- 6. 1. • ALMS . Panned Out View (Data Coverage is Red, Voice Coverage is Green) MOIaI• ....r ..,.T.y • r •. Qt.w.,... .off ��� .-. • � .. V �nrRa ir/ b. M—G. ... -km - 1y..tr.. Voice Coverage Map (Green) and Data Coverage Map (Red) (12/6/2010 at 5:25 p.m.) 7- P6 w F" Tr ,V . ft -I 0- T T .. Mobile- COMOP sww Pwoonso cowage chwA Cw um, 0- 4)0.06L.P. - T T .. MMile, swowt Polso CovempChock dsllYl . , IM . •, . % ws - Swiontek, Ryan From: W illkom, Justina Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:08 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: FW: Design Review 09-033 FYI )rr,ln,11 ll illtiom CI! if of llt,liu 3 ! n iwillkom@tustinca.org From: Binsack, Elizabeth Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:08 PM To: Willkom, )ustina Subject: FW: Design Review 09-033 From: Gary Steinman [mailto:garys@broadcom.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:49 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Design Review 09-033 Please ALLOW the Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park to continue. When the parent group wishes to discuss or debate the Cell Tower placement near Peter's Canyon School, please also ask them if they have WiFi in their homes or if they ever let their children use the phone at home (probably a cordless phone) or do they have a microwave oven. In all of these cases there is RF radiation within their homes which these same parents can control and they do not. These same parents also talk on their cell phones in the car with their kids and probably take their kids to Starbucks while they get a coffee.... IT'S THE SAME RADIATION PEOPLE!!!!!! So why are they now debating this issue and making it someone else's fault? Please stop the madness and stop letting the minority waste public time and money! Please also ask them to stop wasting. my time! Gary Steinman Resident and Citizen, Tustin California Swiontek, Ryan From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: 11i �t+�, ii :�1,(LUflt 7 1 •! jwi ll ko►n © tris tincaxrrq Willkom, Justina Monday, December 06, 2010 5:09 PM Swiontek, Ryan FW: Cedar Grove Cell Tower image001.jpg From: Binsack, Elizabeth Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 5:08 PM To: Willkom, Justina Subject: FW: Cedar Grove Cell Tower From: John Reynolds [mailto:john@hkaconsulting.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 4:34 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth Subject: Cedar Grove Cell Tower We could use better cell service in the area. Thanks John Reynolds I Principal & President HKA evt+'jr Consult ig, Inc. 2;321 -tl UIfItC!'.ifl'lC IId i15. CA �-,26 3 Ci(' 9•t9.34°_97' ? Er:?. '�1 (✓I'@Ca. 949.33-1_`i'?: Swiontek, Ryan From: Lauralee McKay [lauraleemckay®sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 6:35 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; Biggs, David; Binsack, Elizabeth; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: No to Cell Tower at Cedar Grove Park! Dear Planning Commission and City Council: I am a Tustin resident who frequents Cedar Grove Park with children to play and enjoy the scenic beauty of the historic Cedar Grove. I am writing you to oppose the proposed construction of a 65' Cell Phone Tower next to the Cedar Grove and yards away from the National Recreation Trail the Mountains to Sea trail. If you were in my shoes, would you want a 65' cell tower down the street from your home???? Cedar Grove Park is one of our favorite places to take our children. I think it is one of the most beautiful and safe parks in Tustin, with wonderful trees, trails, and playground areas. We meet other families there from Tustin as well as the surrounding areas including Santa Ana, Orange, and Irvine. I value and love the Park because it is a safe and quiet place for mothers, kids, and families to play and spend time together. It is our home -away -from -home. We also see community sports groups, exercise groups, schools and day camps come to use the Park. Please don't change this. We were upset to recently learn that T -Mobile wants to construct 65 -foot (5 -story) Cell Phone Tower with large ground equipment in Cedar Grove Park, close to neighbors (within 300 feet), next to Peters Canyon Elementary (with some portable classroom just several yards away) and near Pioneer Middle School. A Tower at this location, fake tree or not, will compromise the scenic beauty and historic integrity of the tree grove and the park. These trees are over 100 years old and are one of the oldest landmarks left in Tustin Ranch. Tustin, is, after all "The City of Trees". I also understand that the tower equipment will be substantial and possibly produce noise - it will compromise the peacefulness and enjoyment of the park. It may further present a safety issue as an attractive nuisance to children in the park. In short, it will affect our quality of life. I am further concerned it will further lower the property values of the homes in the area. Studies indicate it can affect it anywhere from 2% to 10% or more. That, in turn, will affect your property tax revenues as homeowners seek re -assessment based upon the lower values. Just do a simple cost benefit analysis: the revenue the City would earn from this tower (I understand you are hoping for a revenue stream in the range of $21,600 to $28,000/year) is not enough to offset the lower property tax revenues the entire area would suffer as a result of the placement of the tower at this location. It is also not fair to allow the homeowners to suffer this significant financial loss, as well as the loss of prospective buyers who do not want to live next to a cell tower. 1 Cell Towers continuously emit RF/EMF 24 hrs/day. We do not want our children exposed to electromagnetic radiation, as these Cell Tower emissions are dangerous to human health. More and more facts are revealed about health dangers every year. We have learned that health studies - primarily in Europe - conclude that living near Cell Towers is especially hazardous to children. I am aware that you don't want to consider the health effects in your decision, but the perceived health effects are the very reason why property values will decline, and people will refuse to frequent the park. In any event, you need not consider health effects as it is not necessary to get that far in the analysis. There are plenty of other reasons to deny the application of this tower at this location. Cell Towers in undesirable locations have been rejected all over this country, and some jurisdictions have banned them on or near public schools. There are other alternative locations available that need to be studied, and/or identified. The surrounding community has plenty of potentially more desirable higher elevation locations that could better serve the need in the area. Some may be within City limits, some may be in the areas just outside the City's borders. Also, a word of caution. T -Mobile represents to the buying public on its own website that the voice coverage in this area is "good" to "very good" or better. Data coverage is even better. Either this public claim or their application claim of necessity due to a significant gap in coverage must be put in question. Please don't put a Cell Tower here, next to all our kids. Abide by the City's motto to "Preserve Our History". Stop the Tower in Cedar Grove! Please keep it for kids. If not, we will no longer be able to use the Park. Thank you! Sincerely, Lauralee McKay 2 Swiontek, Ryan To: Hutter, Edmelynne Subject: RE: Resident comment; in support of Cedar Grove cellsite From: Hutter, Edmelynne Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:20 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Resident comment; in support of Cedar Grove cellsite Hi Ryan, FYI and FY -use: Jeff Tansley (live on Arbolada) called to express his support of the cellsite on Cedar Grove Park. His points were: • It's on City property • Will improve service in Tustin • It's part of having better service, so residents should just deal with it • In general, towers don't look that bad. Edmelynne V. Flutter, Associate Planner City of Tustin Soo Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 T (714) 573-3174 F (714) 573-3113 ehutter@tustinca.org A Please consider the environment before printing this email. Swiontek, Ryan From: Jennifer Wierks Uaws2®cox.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:17 PM To: Biggs, David; City Clerk Cc: CITY COUNCIL; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Confirmation of Vacated 10/20 Zoning Admin Decision re Proposed Cell Tower in Cedar Grove Park Dear City of Tustin, Mr. Biggs, and City Council: This letter shall confirm my telephone conversation this morning with City Manager David Biggs in which he confirmed that the Zoning Administrator has vacated its 10/20 Decision in Design Review 09-033, approving the application of T - Mobile to install and operate 65 foot fake tree cell tower with 10 antennas and associated ground equipment along with future cc location in Cedar Grove Park. He further confirmed that there was no longer any active decision or action from which an appeal could be filed at this time. Instead, the matter has been referred to the Planning Commission and it will be put on the December 14, 2010 agenda where the applicant and the City will essentially start again from square one, so to speak. This will be a public hearing. If any of this information is incorrect, please notify me immediately. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today Mr. Biggs. Very truly yours, Jennifer Wierks 11070 Matthews Drive Tustin, CA 92782 714.505.9236 Swiontek, Ryan From: Cathy Bardenstein [cjbardy®mac.com] Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:32 PM To: Swiontek, Ryan Cc: Jeffrey D. Scherzer Subject: Letter in support of T -Mobile Cell Site at Cedar Grove Park. Dear Mr. Swiontek, My husband and I live at 10908 Dishman Place in Tustin, CA. We just came home from vacation and found a note in our mailbox seeking our help in opposing the proposed T -Mobile Site. Instead, it spurred us to write a letter in support of this site because we are thrilled to know we will finally get cell coverage in our home. We would appreciate it if you would submit it to the Planning Commission as part of the record. We also note that there potentially will be AT&T antennas on the site as well. We are looking forward to that since we both own 3G ipads and have no service here except via wifi. For your information, my husband and I are both attorneys. My husband has also worked for many years as a paramedic responding to emergency calls. The letter that was circulated makes several points about the danger of cell towers. These points are without basis in fact, and because of ignorance, the proponents are doing nothing more than fear -mongering. Point #1 - Our children (and grown ups) will be subjected to cell tower radiation at school and at home. THE FACT IS, we are talking about radio frequencies, not "radiation" as that is commonly understood. The same radio frequencies that have been used in televisions for years, and in the baby monitors many of use next to our babies cribs. There has been extensive study about this issue and the government has found no evidence of danger to the public, but has issued safety guidelines that limit power levels to far less than what could possibly cause any harm to anyone, baby or adult. Because of the results of those studies, the Federal Government has felt it appropriate to preclude local governments from even considering health and safety of cell sites. opponents of cell towers will point to some studies, especially from Europe, which conclude that there "may" be some risk to people from exposure to cell towers. Those results have not been duplicated and have not been peer reviewed, and are therefore not credible. Point #2 - Home Buyers will be afraid to buy our homes (Studies show homes near towers drop up to 10% in value). THE FACT IS, there are no such studies that come to this conclusion, just anecdotal statements from owners or realtors (no appraisers, however) stating that this is so. We do know, for a fact, that some appraisals on the east coast which looked at the impact of cell towers on property values SHOWED NO IMPACT. There are certainly some people who like us, look at coverage maps as a consideration in where to rent or buy a home. All this is, is fear mongering arising out of Point #1, and is nothing more than a typical NIMBY reaction to anything new. People will notice a new tower, but after a while, it blends into the background. This one blends in pretty well according to the picture. The only people who are going to know it is there is those who will look for it because of the urgent notice that was distributed. 1 We can tell you that the one downside to moving to Tustin Ranch was the fact that cell tower coverage near Peters Canyon is TERRIBLE. T -Mobile's, in particular, is very bad, and we are T -Mobile customers. Having good coverage in the area makes it more desirable for us. My husband and I have a 12 year old daughter, and we would be much more comfortable with her walking and biking around the neighborhood, if she had a reliable cell phone with her in the event of emergency. We would also like to be able to use our cell phones throughout our home and yard. Finally, the infrastructure of our nation is increasingly being based on mobile communications. We have cell phones, blackberries and iPads, and we rely on being able to get voice and data coverage wherever we are. Moreover, we are in a high fire risk and high earthquake risk area. We want to know that emergency communications will be available when we need it whether if be for a 911 emergency or another slightly lesser urgency. The standard that the planning commission needs to look at is, whether T -Mobile has shown a significant gap in service coverage and whether the design is the least intrusive solution. Although we have not seen their evidence, we have no doubt that there is a significant service coverage gap based upon our own experience since we moved to Tustin. With regard to the site design, it is located in a wooded area in the park, and not immediately adjacent to residential properties. As noted above, I doubt any casual observer would ever notice the site. I understand that a City Councilman actually filed the appeal on behalf of the neighborhood opponents of the site. We would like to go on record in support of the site, and ask that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision approving a T -Mobile cell site at Cedar Grove Park. Thank you for your consideration. Cathy I Bardenstein Jeffrey D. Scherzer 10908 Dishman Place Tustin CA 92782 Cell phone: (585) 370-8020 2 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition "lwV Nage l of 2 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park V10� ( urren: 1i:;naturea - Si ---ii the Fctilion To: City of Tustin PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin Ranch, California are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: 1. The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, a non-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. 3. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 4. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 5. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 6. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. 7. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition Page 2 of 2 potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential area! Sincerely, I he I 'ndcrsi need Click Here to Sign Petidonn V10% Current Signatures The Petition to Vtoico ( cdar ( inr\ e Part. Petition to Cita of Tustin wm created by and written by Jennifer Wierks (jaws2rucox.net). This petition is hosted here at \� �%\\ .Poitiono nlinc.com as a public sen ice. There is no endorsement of this petition. express or implied. by lrtilicc. Ing. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple 1' (iu m I L-11 form. shah: C] blogger gr del.ido us digg facebook © furt k j reddd /. slashdot ;'a send to a friend Send Petition to a Friend - Petition FAQ - Start a Petition - Contributions - Pnvacv - Media Kit PetitionOnline - DeslgnCommunity - Arch tectufeWeek Great Buildinqs - Archiplanel Search hitp:ll vw.PelitionOnline.eom/CedarGrv/petitioniuml C 1999-2007 In,. - All Rights RescrNed PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents of Tustin Ranch, California are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City of Tustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park. Our opposition is based upon the following considerations: The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature of the Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community. In this instance or any other similar situation, a non-residential area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower. 2. A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively. 3. A tower of 65 ft tall is completely out of scale with, and in great contrast to, the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area. The instruction of this structure to the landscape would be an eye -sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character of the community. Cedar Grove Park is important open space of historical and ecological significance. 4. It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower. There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced property values and cell phone towers. 5. If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area, a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods, perhaps next in your backyard. 6. The proposed tower will be within short distance of Peters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools. This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily. 7. The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks, especially for young kids. A growing number of scientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches, dizziness, depression, as well as cancer. We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach, strongly consider the potential physical and mental health effects, aesthetic impacts, and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower, and do everything in your power to prevent this tower (and future cell towers) from being built near this residential area!