Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-ATTACHMENT J-ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS`,. Rabe, Erica From: Swiontek, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:53 PM To: Rabe, Erica Subject: FW: Cell Tower Nancy Smith please. From: Swiontek, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:23 AM To: Rabe, Erica; Estrella, Patty Subject: FW: Cell Tower From: Willkom, Justina Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20119:50 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Fwd: Cell Tower Justina Willkom Begin forwarded message: From: "Binsack, Elizabeth" <EBinsack(a~tustinca.org> Date: October 18, 2011 9:37:35 AM PDT To: "Justina/Ken Willkom" <JWillkom(a,tustinca.org> Subject: Fwd: FW: Cell Tower FYI From: nancy smith [mailto:~ghscoach@cox.netl Sent: Monday, October 17, 20113:52 PM To: mrharleyd@cox.net Subject: Re: Cell Tower You might have heard this, but today~the Environmental Health Trust Researchers released a study that states children absorb radiation from cell phones, consequently, cell towers at a much higher rate than adults. In fact, 150% his~her. The report stated that the radiation penetrates their brains, organs, eyes and bone marrow. This report was headline news on the major television channels this morning. Early studies that are being conducted around the world are equally alarming. c. 1' To put a cell tower in a neighborhood park next to an elementary school where children would be exposed to radiation 24/7 would be almost criminal. We have been told that there is a site available for a cell tower at the Irvine Fire Authority on Jamboree which is not in a park or near a school. We, in Tustin Ranch, implore you to vote "no" on this totally unnecessary and potentially dangerous project. Rosemarie Smith 10898 Dishman Place Tustin Ranch, 92782 Rabe, Erica From: Swiontek, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:23 AM To: Rabe, Erica; Estrella, Patty Subject: FW: Environmental Health Trust Study From: Willkom, Jusana Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 20119:49 AM To: Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Fwd: Environmental Health Trust Study Justina Willkom Begin forwarded message: From: "Binsack, Elizabeth" <EBinsack(a,tustinca.org> Date: October 18, 2011 9:37:02 AM PDT To: "Justina/Ken Willkom" <JWillkom(c~tustinca.org> Subject: Fwd: FW: Environmental Health Trust Study FYI From: Sharon Komorous [mailto:skomo@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 12:46 PM To: ferry@amantelaw.com; jnie11225@aol.com; rebgomez@aol.com; daavello@hotmail.com; deborah@deborahfortustin.com; mrharleyd@cox.net Subject: Environmental Health Trust Study Dear Council Members, An alarming new study has been released today by the Environmental Health Trust (see article below), and is further evidence for concern on placing a wireless communication tower in Cedar Grove Park where our children gather to play and adjacent to their schools. The study below is a brief press release. I would encourage you to visit www.environmentalhealthtrust.orQ for a more detailed version of the study. The study has revealed that the current industry-designed standard for measuring the levels of radiation absorbed by humans has been based on using a plastic mannequin head equivalent to that of a 6" 2" man at a weight of 220 pounds. Using these standards, this study has determined that the industry-designed certification process under estimates the actual absorption of cellphone radiation by children. Children absorb radiation at much higher rate - 150% deeper into the brain and 10 times the rate of absorption to the bone marrow -compared to adults. Although I am familiar with the FCC's restrictions prohibiting the city from denying an application based on health concerns, at the July 19 staff did present information downplaying the FCC's findings saying the evidence is inconclusive. Additionally, attachment D "Information Pertaining to Wireless Facilities" of the October 19~' Agenda Report includes several reports relative to health concerns from both the FCC and WHO. Please note the information contained in T-Mobile's "Cell Sites and Your Health" is outdated as the World Health Organization has retracted their previous findings and have now taken a position of classifying RMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Press Release May 31, 2011). The demand for a wireless communication facilities should not take precedence over the health of our children. New studies continue to point to evidence that we MUST take a precautionary approach to RMF. I implore you to keep this study in the back of your mind when making your final decision regarding the placement of T-Mobile's wireless communication facility in Cedar grove Park. To dismiss the WHO's latest position on RMF as well as those from Environmental Health Trust's newly released findings is unconscionable. Sincerely, Sharon Komorous PRESS RELEASE: New study shows cell phones exceed FCC exposure limits by as much as double for children A scholarly article on cell phone safety published online October 17, 2011, in the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine reports the finding that cell phones used in the shirt or pants pocket exceed FCC exposure guidelines and that children absorb twice as much microwave radiation from phones as do adults. The paper titled "Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children," notes that the industry-designed process for evaluating microwave radiation from phones results in children absorbinL twice the cellphone radiation to their heads, up to triple in their brain's hippocampus and hypothalamus, greater absorption in their eves, and as much as 10 times more in their bone marrow when compared to adults. The paper's authors include three team members at Environmental Health Trust: Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Founder and President; L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Science Fellow; and Ronald B. Herbenman, MD, Chairman of the Board. The existing process is based on a large man whose 40 brain tissues are assumed to be exactly the same. A far better system relies on anatomically based models of people of various ages, including pregnant women, that can determine the absorbed radiation in all tissue types, and can account for the increased absorption in children. It allows for cell phones to be certified with the most vulnerable users in mind-children~onsistent with the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) approach taken in setting standards for using radiological devices. In the United States, the FCC determines maximum allowed exposures. Many countries, especially European Union members, use the "guidelines" of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), anon-governmental agency. Three additional authors contributed to the paper: Om P. Gandhi, ScD, of the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Utah; Alvaro Augusto de Salles, PhD, of the Electrical Engineering Department at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil; and Yueh-Ying Han, PhD, of the Department of Epidemiology and Community Health at New York Medical College. Drs. Gandhi and De Salles serve on EHT's Scientific Advisory Group. Rabe, Erica From: Swiontek, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:24 AM To: Rabe, Erica; Estrella, Patty Subject: FW: Cedar Grove 09-033 STaff Report comments From: Jennifer Wierks fmailto:jaws2@cox.netj Sent: Monday, October 17, 20119:26 AM To: ferry@amantelaw.com; jnie11225@aol.com; re omez@aol.com; daavello@hotmail.com; mrharleyd@cox.net Cc: CITY COUNCIL; Swiontek, Ryan Subject: Cedar Grove 09-033 STaff Report comments A few quick comments on the October 18th Staff Report and its ability to address your concerns articulated at the July 19 meeting: 1. Request 1: Site lines provided by Staff in Attachment A are incorrect. Actual site approved by OCFA is 432 feet away from the point identified by staff, near eucalyptus trees (to the right on the photo). OCFA Project site is 28.5 feet higher than Cedar Grove, not 20. OCFA site would give T-Mobile centerline height 25.2 feet higher than Cedar Grove site. 2. Request 4: Evaluate how proposed facility would meet needs of AT&T if merger approved: NOT PROVIDED. The request was to research whether AT&T could use the proposed equipment and configuration with its technology should merger occur. Staff merely identified closest AT&T tower in its response and noted that T-Mobile's technology does not reach. However, this provides no insight as T-Mobile's technology is self-admittedly very different and inferior in reach to AT&T's. 3. Request 5: Evaluate impact of tree growth. Staff indicates suggests it would be speculative, however T-Mobile acknowledged at an earlier hearing the tree growth would impact the cell signal. 4. Request 6: Again, just wanted to reiterate that the City in denying this application is by no means "effectively prohibiting" wireless service (violating TCA). It has been shown exhaustively throughout the hearing in this matter this application is not the only feasible means of closing the coverage gap and effective alternatives exist through joining other carriers at OCFA and that they have a nearby site at Salvation Army. 5. Request 8: Evaluate preference of co-location. Staff notes of the 40 current facilities in Tustin, only 9 offer colocation ability. Staff suggests colocation is perhaps unnecessary because of this precedent. The City has resolution 01-95 is in part BECAUSE it wants to prevent the proliferation of single location sites cluttering our landscape. It is of great importance and the goal of this City to MINIMIZE the number of sites through colocation. Staff s speculation that future technology may present an opportunity to collocate at a single location site is specious. 6. Request 10: Status of OCFA: Actually, the status is as follows: the City of Irvine expects the OCFA site to be in design review phase by November or December. They are only waiting on ONE photo sim and for a letter from the City of Tustin confirming its acceptance of additional trees along Jamboree Road. 7. Request 12: Number of T-Mobile customers. Obviously this data should be had by a quick phone call to applicant. In any event, resident Brandon Key was able to calculate ON HIS OWN the number of POTENTIAL homes affected based upon the number of homes in the area (1462) divided by T-Mobile's market share (12% to 17.8%). Using the high number, he calculated that up to 260 homes may be affected. The bottom line is, the identification of Cedar Grove as a potential cell site was in error. This is not an appropriate place for a cell site, and T-Mobile's application must be denied. It is regrettable that it has gone this far, however, it now must be stopped. Please don't approve this project out of guilt and empathy for the applicant at the permanent expense of our community park. Please do the right thing and stop this now. Thankyou- Jennifer Ann Wierks This e-matl message may corKain leplly prhdle`ed and/or confidential Informatbn. H you are not the Intended redpleM(s~, or the employee or a`eM responsible for delivery of this messa`e to the intended redpleM(s), you are hereby notMled that any dkseminstion, db~trlbutbn or copyln` of this e-mail message B strktly prohlbked. M you have received this messa`e In error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail messa`e from your computer. Rabe, Erica From: Swiontek, Ryan Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:24 AM To: Rabe, Erica; Estrella, Patty Subject: FW: Staff Report on Design Review 09-033 -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Key jmailto:dcpost(a,cox.net1 Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:26 AM To: jerry~a~amantelaw.com; jnie11225Cg~aol.com; reb og_mez(u~aol.com; d~avello ,-,hotmail.com; deborah~a,deborahfortustin.com; mrharleyd(u~cox.net Subject: Staff Report on Design Review 09-033 Dear Members of the City Council, I would like to point out some. serious errors and omissions in the Staff Report relating to Design Review 09-033 for the Council Meeting on October 18, 2011. At this time I do not believe that the City Council has all of the pertinent information required to make an informed decision on the T-Mobile Cell Tower installation proposed for Cedar Grove Park. 1) The photo referenced in the Staff Report showing the lines of sight to the OCFA tower installation shows that the city staff has a total lack of understanding of the OCFA project. The site shown in the photo is not the correct location of the proposed OCFA tower. 2) The drive test results conducted by T-Mobile at the OCFA location on January 18th, 2011 are still missing from the report. WHY ARE THE RESULTS OF THIS TEST BEING HIDDEN FROM THE COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC? 3) The elevation difference between the Cedar Grove site and the OCFA site is listed as 20 feet. It is actually 28.5 feet. 4) Both the 38 and 55 foot antenna positions are available at OCFA. If TMO took the 55 foot placement their antennas would be 43 feet higher than the Cedar Grove Park antennas. Even at 38 feet, the centerline of the T-Mobile antennas on the OCFA tower would be over 25 ft higher than the highest antenna at the Cedar Grove site. 5) Staff was asked to evaluate how the proposed Cedar Grove Park facility would meet the needs of AT&T if a merger with T-Mobile was approved. This question was totally ignored and instead only a listing of other AT&T sites was given. 6) Staff was asked to provide the current status of the proposed facility at OCFA. In the report it is listed as in the "entitlement application phase." While that is technically correct, a more accurate description is that the project is in the final stages of review and is very likely to go to hearing within the next 60 days according to the Irvine Planning Department. The last thing I would like you to consider is this, the Cedar Grove Park site will only accommodate one wireless carrier. The OCFA site will accommodate up to five. If the Cedar Grove site is approved we will still need the OCFA site to provide service • for the other carriers, but the opposite is not true. If OCFA is approved there will be no need for the Cedar Grove site. The Staff Report does an inadequate job of providing the information the City Council asked for at the July 19th council meeting, specifically, information relating to the viability of the OC Fire Authority location as an alternative to the proposed site. Based on this lack of information, I would respectfully ask that the Council deny the application, or, at the very least, continue the application for another 90 days until the City of Irvine has approved the OCFA site and T-Mobile has a viable alternative site to move to. I look forward to explaining these items in more detail at tonight's Council meeting. Sincerely, Brandon Key Tustin Ranch Resident CITY OF TUSTIN October 16, 2011 2011 OCt I l A 8~ 2 0 Lynnea S. Kull 10816 Churchill Place Tustin, CA 92782 Mayor Jerry Amante City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92782 CC: City Council Members: Nielson, Gavello, Gomez, Murray Elizabeth Binsack Ryan Swiontek Justina Willkom RE: Design Review 09-033 Dear Mayor Amante, I am writing you to request that you deny the T-Mobile proposal to install a cellular tower in Cedar Grove Park. As you are aware, this is a beautiful neighborhood park for residents to enjoy the natural beauty of the City of Tustin. On September 11, 2011, the community gathered at Cedar Grove Park to pay tribute to our country by planting two new trees in the park. This was a beautiful ceremony and venue for such a lovely tribute. I just can't imagine that such a ceremony would have the same effect with three large flagpole cell towers in the background. I know that the City Council has heard many arguments on both sides of this design review, however there has to be a better location for this T-Mobile tower. As a Tustin Resident, parent of young children and fellow cell phone user, I am asking that you REJECT the placement of a cell tower in Cedar Grove Park on October 18th. Thank you for your consideration, Lynnea S. Kull lpkull@aol.com 714-734-2369 Rabe, Erica From: Ipkull@aol.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 1:36 PM To: Amante, Jeny Cc: Willkom, Justina; Binsack, Elizabeth; Rabe, Erica; Swiontek, Ryan; Nielsen, John; Gavello, Deborah; Gomez, Rebecca; Murray, AI Subject: Design Review 09-033 -Cedar Grove Park Attachments: Design_Review 09-033.docx Dear Mayor Amante, Please see the attached letter concerning the Design Review 09-033. Thank you for your consideration with this matter, Lynnea Kull --Original Message--- From: Swiontek, Ryan <RSwiontek@tustinca.org> Cc: Willkom, Justina <JWillkom@tustinca.org>; Binsack, Elizabeth <EBinsack@tustinca.org>; Rabe, Erica <ERabe@tustinca.org> Sent: Thu, Oct 13, 2011 1:40 pm Subject: Design Review 09-033 -Cedar Grove Park Thank you for your continued interest in the application for Design Review 09-033 to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility within the parking lot of Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road. For your information, the staff report for the October 18, 2011, meeting before the City Council may be accessed tomorrow, October 14, 2011, on the City's website at: htta://www.tustinca.oro/citvcouncil/granicus.html Please click on the Agenda link next to the October 18, 2011, City Council meeting. You will find a link to the Agenda Report pertaining to the item. Should you have any questions regarding the matter please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-573-3123, rswiontekCa~tustinca.org or Justina Willkom at 714-573-3115, iwillkomCa~tustinca.ora 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