Report - City of Tustin

ITEM 6 

Report 

to the 

Planning Commission 

TUSTli 1 

DATE DECEMBER 14 2010 

SUBJECT 

DESIGN REVIEW09 033 

APPLICANT 

TMOBILE WEST CORPORATION 

3 MACARTHUR PLACE SUITE 1100 

SANTA ANA CA 92707 

PROPERTY OWNER 

CITY OF TUSTIN 

LOCATION 

CEDAR GROVE PARK 

11385 PIONEER ROAD 

GENERAL PLAN 

PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL 

ZONING 

PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PCR 

EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

STATUS 

THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 15303 CLASS 3 OF THE CALIFORNIA 

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT 

REQUEST A REQUEST TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A WIRELESS 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY CONSISTING OF A SIXTY 

FIVE 65 FOOT TALL MONO CEDAR FAUX TREE AND 

ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND CO LOGATION OF A 

FUTURE FACILITY LOCATED WITHIN CEDAR GROVE PARK 

1

DR 09 033 

December 14 2010 

Page 2 

RECOMMENDATION 

That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No 4163 approving Design Review 

09 

five 65 foot tall mono cedar faux tree with nine 9 panel antennas one 1 parabolic 

antenna and associated equipment along with the futureco location of a facility located 

within Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road 

033 to install and operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a sixty 

BACKGROUND 

Section 7262 of the Tustin City Code requires approval of Design Review by the 

Community Development Director for new aboveground utility facilities and accessory 

equipment located on public property and in the publicright of way Although the Tustin 

City Code authorizes the Community Development Director to consider the proposed 

project the item was forwarded to the City Zoning Administrator to allow for a public 

meeting to accept comments from the public regarding the proposed project 

On October 20 2010 the City of Tustin Zoning Administrator held a public meeting and 

approved the proposed request At that meeting a number of residents in the vicinity of 

Cedar Grove Park and members of the public expressed concerns regarding the 

proposed project see Public Concerns section Due to overwhelming public interest in 

the project and various requests for appeal the Zoning Administrator vacated the 

decision on the project on October 27 2010 and forwarded the item to the Planning 

Commission for their consideration in accordance with Section 9299b of the Tustin City 

Code 

Public Noticing 

A public hearing notice identifying the time date and location of the public hearing for 

the proposal 

was 

published in the Tustin News on December 2 2010 Property owners 

within 300 feet of the site were notified of the meeting by mail a meeting sign was posted 

on the site and a public meeting notice was posted at City Hall on December 2 2010 In 

addition an email notification was sent to members of the public whom had provided their 

email address at the prior Zoning Administrator meeting Members of the public that 

provided written comments were also notified of the public hearing 

DISCUSSION 

This report provides discussion and analysis of the following topical areas 

Project Site Location and Surrounding Properties 

Proposed Design 

Design Review 

o Design Criteria 

Public Concerns 

o 

o Required Findings 

Other Related Information and Requirements

I 

r 

l 

DR09 033 


Page 3 

Project Site Location and Surrounding Properties 

The proposed wireless facility would be afaux cedar monopole that would be placed in the 

Cedar Grove Park located along Pioneer Road south of Peters Canyon Road The 

wireless facility is proposed to be located in the northern portion of the park in a remote 

and minimally used landscape area between two trails and screened by a grove of cedar 

trees Figure 1 

T 

Project Location 

i 

1F 

r 

Ry ry J 1 

Ark R 

V 

y 

A 

4l tip 

1 1 

y 

de 

ry e 

d 

t 

Figure 1 

Low density residential usesare located to the south east and west of Cedar Grove Park 

Residences to the south and east of the project site are located across Pioneer Road 

within a 

private gated community and are approximately 600 feet away from the project 

site Figure 2 There is an Orange County Fire Authority station at the intersection of 

Pioneer Road and Pioneer Way across the street from the south westerly corner of the 

park Tustin Ranch Estates residential properties are located to the west of the park and 

are buffered by open space and a hillside area The closest residence within Tustin 

Ranch Estates is approximately 350 feet away from the project site To the north of the 

project site is Peters Canyon Elementary School The location of the proposed facility 

within the park is approximately 230 feet from the northern property line of Cedar Grove 

Park which abuts the school Classrooms and the modular units within the school are 

further away See Figure 2 for distances

DR09 033 


Page 4 Figure 2 

Figures 3 4 5 and 6 provide existing views looking from the proposed project site to the 

east west north and south As mentioned the proposed wireless would be located 

within an area with minimal use and is surrounded by mature trees two trails and a slope 

area

l 

I 

i 

J 

I 

i 

I 

DR09 033 


Page 5 Figure 5 Project Site Looking North 

Figure 6 Project Site Looking South 

Proposed Design 

As proposed the wireless telecommunications facility would consist of a sixty five 65 foot 

tall faux cedar tree and its associated equipment and a futureco location facility Figure 8 

Attachment C The faux cedar tree would be constructed of a steel monopole and 

camouflaged with synthetic bark material branches and needles to resemble the existing 

cedar trees in the area The faux cedar tree will consist of 150 branches which will be 

constructed at a height of ten 10 feet above grade level and extend to the top of the faux 

tree ranging in length from four 4 feet to twelve 12 feet long The monopole diameter 

will be wider at the base and gradually decrease towards the top of the pole 

replicate a real tree 

in order to 

vxroavnoaanaT 

r I rr ir 

l rr nrarnruws 

rr 

R WLI I 

V 

rlr 

fVk1 W 1 VV 

If 

f 

r 1 

rI 

I 

fRCaO1Iu5xl7a paRN k 

J ni4t fOlO NiE1 W5 

frv UIHI ASi 

FutureCo location Facilit 

7 

Nf IAFU IiWI M 

tV VWWI x 

Y r 

nnanc 

I 

L 

I ru 

1Zn 

rxnrr 

ec 

y1 

a w 

Figure 7 

Figure 8

DR09 033 


Page 6 

The applicant is proposing to install nine 9 panel antennas one 1 parabolic antenna 

and associated ground mounted equipment which would be contained within a block wall 

enclosure The panel antennas would be mounted near the top of the faux cedar tree 

located at a 

height of sixty 60 feet The proposed block wall enclosure would be located 

adjacent to the faux cedar tree Figure 7 The block wall would be finished in a stucco 

exterior with a graffiti resistant finish painted to match other buildings existing in the park 

Landscaping consisting of shrubs and vines will be planted around the perimeter of the 

block wall enclosure 

Existing cedar trees would serve to screen the proposed facility from the public right of 

way and adjacent properties No trees on site will be removed as a result of the proposed 

project No trails or recreation areas of the park would be impacted due to the proposed 

location of the facility 

The pictures below show photo simulations of the proposed wireless facility from various 

views Full size pictures 

can be found in Attachment C 

Existing 

View from the Northwest tothe Southwest 

Proposed 

Existing 

View from the Southwest tothe Northeast 

Proposed

DR09 033 


Page 7 Existing Proposed 

View from the Southeast to the Northwest 

To avoid proliferation of wireless facilitiesco location is a preference in determining site 

selection for wireless communication facilities within the City of Tustin pursuant to Section 

5 of Resolution No 01 95 Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public 

Property and within the Public Right of Way Attachment G The proposed plans for the 

facility would accommodate antenna and equipment locations for futureco location If 

approved pursuant to state law future carriers would be able to place antennas below 

those being proposed on the faux cedar tree without additional discretionary action A 

block wall enclosure would be placed directly adjacent to the proposed block wall 

enclosure to cluster the additional utilities However prior to installation of future co 

location facilities appropriate permits and a separate license agreement would need to be 

reviewed and approved by the City Council Condition 27 of Resolution No 4163 requires 

the applicant to evaluate all requests for co location and determine the compatibility with 

the existing facility 

Design Review 

The pending action before the Planning Commission is a 

Design Review of the 

proposed wireless facility Unlike some actions that are before the Planning 

Commission such as Conditional Use Permits Use Determinations Variances etc that 

focus on the use of the land the pending action is whether the proposed improvement 

meets the design criteria approved by the City Council Generally there are two 

provisions of the Tustin City Code that apply to proposed action 

1 Design Review under Section 9272 of Tustin City Code and 

2 Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Property and in the Public 

Right of Way under Section 7260 and Resolution 01 95 Design Guidelines for 

Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment 

Design Review TCC 9272 

Within the provisions of Section 9272 et seq to ensure that the location size 

architectural features and general appearance of proposed new developments

DR09 033 


Page 8 

and or structures will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the 

area the present or future development therein the occupancy thereof or the 

community as a whole the City Council adopted a Design Review process and 

procedures In reviewing a proposed project the Design Review requires that the 

following items be considered 

o Height bulk and area of buildings structures 

o Site Planning 

o Exterior materials and colors 

o Towers and antennas 

o Landscaping 

o Exterior Illumination 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Physical relationship of the structure to existing structures 

Appearance and design relationship of proposed structure to existing and 

possible future structures 

Proposed Signing 

And other applicable development guidelines 

The draft findings contained in Resolution 4163 are provided for the Planning 

Commission sconsideration However more specific design criteria related to 

wireless facilities required by Tustin City Code 7260 and City Council Resolution No 

01 5 are discussed below 

Design Review ofAboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in 

the Public Right of Way TCC 7260 and Resolution 07 95 

As mentioned Section 7262 of the Tustin City Code requires approval of a Design 

Review for new 

aboveground utility facility located on public property The design 

criteria for these types of facilities are outlined within City Council Resolution No01 95 

Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their Accessory Equipment 

The criteria include items such as location stealth facility co location colors 

screening landscape signage accessory equipment removal of abandoned 

structures and undergrounding The following provides an analysis of the proposed 

improvement in relationship to the approved criteria 

1 Location The project site is located within a remote and minimally used 

landscape area between two walkways within the park Little to no interference 

with public use of the park is anticipated to result from the proposed facility The 

project site is also a considerable distance from adjoining properties 

2 Stealth Facility The proposed wireless facility is of a stealth design that 

replicates a cedar tree The branches bark needles and overall design of the 

monopole has been engineered to blend as closely as passible with the existing 

trees in the area Antenna socks may be used to further screen the individual 

antennas 

3 Co location The proposed facility can accommodate additional carrier to co 

locate onto the facility The additional carrier would place antennas on the mono 

cedar below those ofTMobile The additional accessory equipment of the carrier 

could be placed within a block wall enclosure adjacent to TMobile sand of the

DR09 033 


Page 9 same material and finishes Co location eliminates the need for other providers to 

establish additional facilities within the area 

4 Colors The colors of the facility would be non reflective and incorporate natural 

colors of greens and browns in order to replicate a tree The equipment enclosure 

would be coated with a graffiti resistant finish in the color of other public facilities 

within the park 

5 ScreeningThe proposed facility would be screened by agrove of trees and is not 

within a highly visible area ofthe park There is an existing mature redwood cedar 

grove which effectively screens the facility from the east and north There is a 

hillside with eucalyptus trees immediately to the west ofthe project site Views from 

Pioneer Road are limited due to the extensive distance to the project site from the 

street Younger trees surround the project site and will fill in to further screen the 

facility 

6 Landscape No trees would be removed as a result of the proposed facility and 

the equipment enclosure would be landscaped with shrubs and vines for screening 

purposes The vines and shrubs would serve to screen the block wall enclosure as 

well as soften its appearance in the park 

7 Signage Only signage related to certifications and warnings will be allowed at the 

facility in accordance with proposed Condition 25 No advertising would be 

permitted on the facility 

8 AccessoryEquipment A block wall enclosure would contain all ofthe accessary 

equipment for the facility The block wall enclosure would be partially below grade 

due to a sloping hillside condition of the site 

9 Required Removal Upon termination of the license agreement the proposed 

facilitywould be required to be removed 

10Undergrounding All of the utilities servicing the project site would be located 

underground Utilities are proposed to run along the western boundary of Cedar 

Grove Park adjacent to the park trail 

Public Concerns 

Members of the public attended the Zoning Administrator meeting and commented 

vn the project both verbally and in writing The majority of comments at the Zoning 

Administrator meeting were in opposition to the project Some comments have been 

provided in support of the project All comments regarding the proposed project 

which have been received in writing can be found in Attachment D Information 

regarding wireless facilities which addresses some of the general concerns can be 

found in Attachment E A general summary of the public concerns related to the 

proposed project is as follows 

Concern 

The proposed tower is inconsistent with the residential area 

Response The proposed wireless facility would be located within a City park and 

is of a design that would replicate existing trees within the immediate 

vicinity 

The closest residence to the proposed facility would be

DR09 033 


Page 10 approximately 350 feet away with the next closest residence 

approximately 500 feet away Requiring even greater distances than 

these from residences within an urban area such as the City of Tustin 

would restrict the placement of wireless facilities and limit the capability 

of wireless signals and use throughout the community 

Concern 

The proposed wireless facility will not improve wireless coverage 

effectively 

Response The applicantTMobile has provided mapping of their existing 

facilities within the area and coverage maps which demonstrate the 

improvement of coverage that would result from the installation of the 

facility Attachment C Furthermore there are substantial startup 

costs associated with a wireless facility such as the one being 

proposed which would encourage the provider to make sure they have 

chosen a beneficial location 

Concern 

At 65 feet tall the proposed tower is out of scale and in contrast with 

the area The proposed tower would be an eyesore to the community 

Response The mono pole associated with the proposed wireless facility is of a 

custom design which would replicate the existing trees within the 

vicinity The location of the proposed facility is within a remote part of 

Cedar Grove Park near a grove of cedar and redwood trees The faux 

cedar mono pole has been designed to blend in with these trees 

These trees also serve to screen the proposed facility 

The majority of the trees within the cedar redwood grove are between 

the heights of 50 to 60 feet The proposed facility has a faux tree top 

height of 65 feet to accommodate for future growth of the existing 

cedar and redwood trees The cedar redwood grove is noted as an 

important natural resource within the City s General Plan and no trees 

within Cedar Grove Park would be removed as a result ofthe project 

Concern 

Property values in the vicinity would be lowered as a result of the 

installation of the proposed facility 

Response 

Staff is not able to provide comment on the correlation between 

wireless telecommunication facilities and property values However it 

should be noted that the proposed facility would be located in a 

City 

owned park and the closest residence wou d be over 350 from the 

proposed facility with the majority of residences more than 600 away 

There are other wireless facilities within the City of Tustin that are 

closer to residences than the proposed facility would be The City has 

not received prior concerns regarding existing or proposed wireless 

facilities lowering property values

DR09 033 


Page 11 

Concern 

A precedent would be set by allowing the construction of wireless 

facilities in Tustin Ranch 

Response There are multiple wireless facilities existing within the Tustin Ranch 

Community and the broader community The proposed facility would 

not set a precedent 

Concern 

The proposed tower is close to schools and could present a danger to 

children 

Response 

Based on commentary from the prior Zoning Administrator hearing the 

concerns regarding proximity to schools and children were based on 

perceived health related illnesses and will be addressed in the next 

concern There are existing wireless facilities located on school 

facilities 

Concern Health related illnesses could result from the installation of the 

proposed facility which is close to residential and institutional uses 

Response The Federal Government in particular the Federal Communications 

Commission FCC is responsible for regulating wireless 

transmissions and radio frequency 

emissions The FCC has 

established guidelines and thresholds for radio frequency emissions to 

ensure the health and safety of humans All wireless facilities including 

the one 

being proposed are required to comply with the standards 

established by the FCC 

Humans are 

exposed to radio frequency emissions and other 

electromagnetic fields on a daily basis through the use of cell phones 

microwaves televisions cordless phones baby monitors and other 

wireless devices While cell phone use has been around since the 

1980s similar devices that emit radio frequencies have been around 

much longer and the technology of using radio frequency signals is not 

new 

Required Findings 

There are many reputable organizations such as the World Health 

Organization and the American Cancer Society as well as others that 

have performed and reviewed studies These organizations have 

come to the conclusion that there is no scientific evidence linking radio 

frequency signals from base stations and wireless networks to adverse 

health effects 

In general in determining whether to approve the Design Review for the proposed 

wireless telecommunications facility located at 11385 Pioneer Road within Cedar 

Grove Park the Planning Commission must find that the location size architectural 

features and general appearance of the proposed aboveground utility facility will not

DR09 033 


Page 12 

impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area the present or future 

development therein or the community as a whole The specific findings the Planning 

Commission must make as required by Tustin City Code Section and the enabling 

Resolution are included in Resolution No 4163 in Attachment F A decision to 

approve this request as conditioned may be supported by the following findings 

1 The project site Cedar Grove Park has been identified in the City s Wireless 

Master Plan as an optimal location for a wireless facility 

2 The proposed wireless facility complies with Tustin City Code Section 7260 related 

to Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities an Public Property and in the 

Public Right of Way and with City Council Resolution No 01 95 establishing 

Design Review guidelines for aboveground utility facilities on public property and in 

the publicright of way 

3 The location size and general appearance of the proposed project as conditioned 

is compatible with the surrounding area in that the faux cedar tree would be of a 

stealth design to blend in with the existing perimeter trees and all associated 

equipment would be screened within a stucco block wall enclosure 

site is also located within an area of Cedar Grove Park that has low visibility from 

The project 

the publicright of waydue to extensive tree screening ofthe proposed facility 

4 The proposed project has identified the potential forco location of additional 

carriers on the wireless facility 

5 The proposed facility will provide wireless coverage to an area that is currently 

deficient ofwireless reception 

OtherRelated Information Requirements 

Wireless Master Plan 

In November 2007 the City entered into an agreement with ATS Communications to 

develop and implement a Wireless Communications Master Plan WMP for the City 

and to act as the City s agent in procuring qualified wireless carriers wanting to locate 

facilities onCity owned property ATS Communications completed the Wireless Master 

Plan which was approved by the City Council on August 4 2009 

Through the use of ATS Communications optimal locations are identified for wireless 

facilities on City owned properties and properties within the publicright of way One ofthe 

potential wireless locations identified within the WMP by ATS Communications is the 

proposed project site of Cedar Grove Park ATS works with wireless carriers to improve 

cellular service and efficiency within the City while balancing site selection and aesthetics 

of proposed wireless facilities 

The project has been reviewed by the Community Development Department the City s 

Redevelopment Agency Parks and Recreation Department and the City s wireless 

communications consultant ATS Communications ATS has been authorized by the City

DR09 033 


Page 13 

Council to negotiate exclusively for wireless facilities within City owned properties and the 

public right of way ATS is responsible for procuring carriers processing carrier 

applications inspecting the installation of new facilities inspecting the maintenance of 

existing wireless facilities under the new licenses updating the WMP and related issues 

impacting the terms and conditions of the license agreements as directed by the City 

License Agreement 

Tustin City Code Section 7261 requires the applicant operator to enter into a license 

agreement with the City prior to installing or operating the aboveground utility facility on 

City property The license agreement is subject to the approval of the City Council City 

Attorney soffice and the City Manager soffice as to the specific terms and conditions 

required The license agreement is separate from the Design Review application and 

would beevaluated and require a separate action by the City Council 

Federal TelecommunicationsAct 

The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 

provides regulations for wireless 

telecommunication facilities and radio frequency emission standards The City and 

wireless providers are subject to these regulations Generally the regulation of the 

placement construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any State or 

local government 

1 Shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent 

services 

2 Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal 

wireless services 

3 Shall act on any request for authorization to place construct or modify personal 

wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time 

4 Any decision to deny a request to place construct or modify personal wireless 

service facilities shall be in writing 

5 Shall not regulate the placement construction and modification of personal 

wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio 

frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the 

Commission sFCC regulations concerning such emissions 

Swiontek 

Associate Planner 

Elizabeth A Binsack 

Community Development Director 

Attachments 

A Location Map 

B Land Use Fact Sheet 

C Submitted Plans and Photographs 

TMobile West Corporation Proposed Wireless Communication 

Site in the City of Tustin narrative

DR09 033 


Page 14 

Photo Simulations from various locations 

Improvement Plans 

Maps of Height of Existing TMO sites and Distance to Proposed 

Candidate Location 

Letter dated August 11 2010 from Larson Camouflage to Ms 

Monica Moretta regarding proposed camouflage of cell tower 

D Public Comments 

Letters of Support 

Letters of Opposition 

E Information Pertaining to Wireless Facilities 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Federal Communication Commission Consumer Facts Human 

Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields Guidelines for Cellular and 

PCS Sites 

World Health Organization Electromagnetic fields and public 

health Base stations and wireless technologies 

World Health Organization Electromagnetic fields and public 

health mobile phones 

F Resolution No 4163 

G Tustin City Code 7260 et al and Resolution No 01 95

ATTACHMENTA 

Location Map

CaTiON UTAP

ATTACHMENT B 

Land Use Fact Sheet

LANL7 USE APPLICATION FACT SHEET 

1 LAND USE APPLICA ION NUMBER S 


2 LOCATION CEDAR GROVE PARK 3 ADDRESS 11385 PIONEER ROAD 

4 APN S502 451 31 

5 PREVIOUS OR CONCURRENT APPLICATION RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY NONE 

6 SURROUNDING LAND USES 

NORTH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 

SOUTH RESIDENTIAL FIRESTATION 

EAST RESIDENTIAL 

WEST ESTATE RESIDENTIAL 

7 SURROUNDING ZONING DESIGNATION 

NORTH PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PCR 

SOUTH PCR 

EAST PCR 

WEST PCR 

8 SURROUNDING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 

NORTH PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL PCR 

EAST PCR 

SOUTH PCR 

WEST PCR 

9 SITE LAND USE 

A EXISTING PARK B PROPOSED PARK 

C GENERAL PLAN PCR D ZONING PCR 

PROPOSED GP SAME 

PROPOSED ZONING SAME 

10 LOT AREA 97ACRES 

DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 

11 LOCATION SITED IN A LIMITED USE AREA OF CEDAR GROVE PARK 

12 STEALTH FACILITY DESIGNED AS A FAUX CEDAR TREE TO BLEND WITH EXISTING TREES 

13 CO LOCATION 

FUTURE CARRIERS AT THE FACILITY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED 

14 COLORS BROWNS AND GREENS OF FAUX TREE TO MIIMIG EXISTING TREES 

15 SCREENING FACILITY SCREENED BY EXISTING CEDAR TREE GROVE 

16 LANDSCAPING SHRUBS AND VINES TO BE PROVIDED AROUND ENCLOSURE 

17 ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT TO BE LOCATED WITHIN A BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE 

FarmsLandUseApplicationFaciSheet

ATTACHMENT C 

Submitted Plans

TMobile West Corporation 

Proposed Wireless Communications Site in the City of Tustin 

Subject 

Reference 113 5 Pioneer Rd Tustin CA 927 

TMobile Reference LA33842D Cedar Grove Park 

Introduction 

The accompanying information is a general analysis prepared by TMobile s Engineering 

Department in reference to its proposed wireless communications site installation in 

Cedar Grove Park in the City of Tustin It includes information regarding TMobile cell 

sites and how various Engineering Design constraints play a part in effecting the 

performance ofTMobile existing network 

This information has been prepared by TMobile to briefly explain its alternate candidate 

uialysis and the reasons why the current 

proposed location at the Cedar Grave Park is 

still the best option to meet the design requirements and future network performance 

Background 

TMobile was issued a wireless license by the FCC to build out a wireless 

communications network to 

provide its customers with the best possible network 

performance The network performance goals include providing the best call quality the 

lowest number ofblocked calls easy access and continuousdrop free connections 

TMobile s network as for any other cell phone wireless provider requires numerous 

sites to 

provide customers with suitable signal strength to deliver voice and data services 

These sites are typically built on existing buildings lattice towers and monopoles in 

order to provide a grid ofsites that provide seamless coverage over an area 

The sites are built with a combination of antennas and electronic equipment The 

various 

electronic equipment includes radio receivers and transmitters that provide 

channels for customers to use for voice or data communication 

Sites being added to an existing network fall iota one of two categories 

Infill or 

Capacity Infill sites are required for areas that have poor signal strength or no coverage 

at all Anew site will reduce dropped calls reduce interference and provide improved 

indoor coverage Some infill sites are needed because it has been deternuned that the 

customers are using their phones indoors and are therefore consideredin building infill 

sites 

Capacity sites are typically needed in areas where there is a high cellphone usagead an 

additional site is required to carry more call traffic Capacity sites not only provide more 

radio capacity but also improve the performance of the area because they are offloading 

adjacent sites

Site Selection 

The proposed siteTMobile LA338 12D Cedar Grove Perk is considered an infill site 

that will improve coverage to the dense residential neighborhood surrounding Jamboree 

Rd and Tustin Ranch Rd in the City ofTustin This area has been identified as one with 

very low perforn ance in which existing sites cannot provide good signal strength due to 

the terrain elevation changes hills physical obstructions and dense vegetation 

A new cell site will improve indoor coverage in an area that is presently served at best 

with very weak signal strength levels that result in a high number of dropped calls 

excessive interference and at times the inability to connect a call 

TMobile Engineering guidelines 

described below 

used to deternne the best candidate for this area are 

1 Site Visit Visual assessment of the area to search for viable candidates based on 

location structure height topography lease area etc 

2 Propagation AnalysisTMobile uses a 

prediction tool known as Asset to predict the 

expected coverage of the new cell site and how it will perform with the existing 

the area 

sites in 

3 Drive Test Data TMobile uses real time data collected from the field to determine 

the need for an additional site 

Design Limitations 

Generally cell site coverage is affected by differentfactors described below 

Cell Site location in reference of coverage objective 

Cell Site antenna location and height available A very short site provides a very 

limited coverage pattern That s the case for existing TMobile site LA02317A 

Salvation Army 

Terrain elevations A very tall site causes interference over other existing cell sites 

Dense trees 

foliage or vegetation 

Physical obstructions buildings vertical elements etc 

Height Justification 

The proposed new facility 

at Cedar Grove Park has been analyzed using the 

computerized prediction tool known as Asset and has been found to have a 

good 

performance when interacting with existing TMobile sites at the proposed height of 60 

feet Top of the Antenna 

Wireless facilities should be tall enough to clear surrounding buildings and tree cover A 

line of sight to the coverage objective is always a top priority when designing a new cell 

site Antennas always point to the horizon and due to fact that low power transmitters are 

used on this type of facilities any obstruction would disrupt coverage pattern and result

in a quick signal loss even in close proximity 

bigger effect when closer to the antennas 

to the cell site Any 

obstruction has a 

At the same time the proposed height will allowco location of future carriers offering a 

functional antenna location iuinintizing the number ofcell sites needed for other carriers 

in the area 

Alternate location Analysis 

The table below shows RF Engilieering comments in regards to the alternate locations 

and the reasons why they won t work for the coverage needs in the referenced area 

Also refer to the attached exhibits at the end of this document Exhibit 1 shows a map 

with alternate locations Exhibit 2 shows a drive test map which consist of real time 

collected data 

Table 1 

e 

f I 

Handy Creek 1 1 

Monopole 

33 777399 

I I 1 

117 75531 

Monopole 

1 

1 

Existing TMobile s cell 

site at this location 

2 OC Emergency Facility s ground elevation 

Communications 33 764972 117 

Tower 

3 Verizon ROW 33 750518 117 76636 Street Light 

74635 Lattice Tower won twork for a cell site 

1300 ft 

Very low site street light 

with no collocation option 

tityfIrvine 

Jurisdic tiano Location ii 

approved will not work 

for the intended coverage 

Mono tree objective of this ring That 

4Vista Towers 

33 747584 117 76588 

OCFA Project proposed location may work better 

5 Cedar Grove Park 7520833 117 76976 Mono 

Tree 

forTMobile s toll road 

coverage and new 

residential area east of the 

toll road 

Current design proposal 

cedar will provide excellent 

coverage at Jamboree Rd 

and Tustin Rd intersection 

3

Exhibit 1 

Alternate locations map 

fi st 

i9t LAO 5U Zt Le t 

e1n 

1 HANDY CREEK MONOPOLES 

rcP 1 J y I Height h rte 1 

LA6PIAlA 

l 

Height 30 ft 

Dltt 0 2OC EMERGENCY COMM TOWER raotalsA 

fs 

1 

iCoveq lt 

a Heiyltt 0 h 

1 s y 5 CEDAR GROVE PARK 

ty gym a Pleneei Rd 3 IIERIZON ROW 

a qb 

ry 

iVISTA TOWERS OCFA PROJECT 

s 

a Q Aj I 

J 11 

3 

cr I 

Rls p Legend 

EsisnusT11IoLile Site 

lteyuarelo tioi

I 

l 

r 

1 

Exhibit 2 

Current Drive Test 

C6 cgs 1A03594D y 

II6lI 

r 

eZ AQ2995D 

b Qt h 1IIAl1 

r 

a o 

Y REEKMb110POLE 

il 

i l 

i N aYw 

L 

r I 

4 m C 

c 

j r rF r 

L a 3 C a 02317A 

a 

CY Alaxan Ier Ce 

r 

aip oy 

Qa rleim Dr 

4 

p I 

0 

2or EMERGEt1CYCOMM 7UWER 

Bran 

f 

m 

rCr 

14i 

an 

J6j has 1 

Y 

y 5CEDARGROVEPARkp 

4 a r 

os i 

Pioneer Rd t 

I M 

S 1 Na u iq 

VERIZON ROW 

f 9 

oi 

flt 4VISTA TOWERS OCFA PROJECT 

r1j 

per 1 

r 4 4 

Y 

mac 

O 

DRIVE TEST LEGEIID 

a m 76dBm In Building 

76dBm to 84d8mIn Vehicle 

84dBm to 91 dBm Outdoor 

91dBm to 102 dBm dutdoor Marginal to None 

102dBm to 110 dBm None 

5

0 

z 

W 

v 

o 

N 

w v c 

1 

R 

NN 

j 

t 

a 

Mr 

aj d1 

a 

n 

N 

W 

pa 

v 

J 7 P 

c 

m a E aw 

4J 

Z 

O 

m 

z 

o 

N 

t 

o a 

O 

W 

0 

0 

a 

4 

f 

Z 

C F 

aW 

5 

H 

N a 

MW 

M 

NN 

t y 

c H 

r 

W 

z 

N 

x 

W 

J

xW 

r1 

O 

z 

w 

d 

c 

yi 

C 

rv 

w v 3 c 

m 

j a n 

arv 

W i m 

ch CA N y 

m 

3 U P O 

n E n 

S 

Z 

S 

U 

O 

V 

z 

o 

V 

@ o 

N 

s 

O 

c 

0 

0 

a 

O 

c 

a 

e 

C 

a 

3 a 

a 

N 

F 

Q 

N a 

v 

N 

z 

M 

M d 

Q 

J 

W

I 

I 

I 

I 

W 

I 

o 

r 

J 

o Z 

W 

Q 

W 

e w 

y In 

Gi 

N 

@ 

3 

P 

gg 

N 

W 

d d T 

V 

v J 7 nP 

m nE aw 

t 

z 

S 

vw L 

S 

ll I 

JI11 

I 

I 

II III 

I 

VIIII I 1JIIIII 

III1Y I1I1 

II I11 I 

III 

m 

G 

4 4 

z 

g 

O 

t N 

r 

0 

w 

a 

O 

z 

a 

i 

W 

Q 

8 

D 

N 

a 

Q 

M L 

a N 

N 

n 

M 

u 

W 

l7 

Z 

F 

X 

W 

1 

C g

I 

r 

r 

l 

I 

Nt 

a O yfix C o 

O Q SI 

t3 yL 3 0 

r 

s 

s 

rlri 

N 

3n W 

V 

pip u H e 

r1 

c 

a 

c 

3 ali 

W sx1 r 

3 

3j3 

I 

n M r n n m o 

u o Y 8b w 

i o 

n u 

i 

H 

Z 

1 

1 

A 

WLqq 

W 

y f 

lf 

1 

c 

rY 

y 

y 

a 

3 C 

b tiy 7 

z v W 

W 

a 

O 

y 

r fr 

z 

V 

h 

b 

fir 

k 

y 

g 

J 

a gVW 

7P 

O 

firxy4 zcn 2 

bS oJWo 

g f r 

1 11 c8 g 

V V 

3 

z 

Y 

N 

Li 

Q 

W 

W 

r 

S 

s 

r 

as 

3 

dy 

8 

8i 

J 

oC W3 

5I 

L9 

ua 

e 

3 

tt 

Q 

N 

O 

i 

Q 

M V ZZ 

az 

Eayy 

SJ cz 

O 

K 

3 O cv 

y n T E 4 o aoN o 

J 

b 

m 

5W 5W W r i J 

Pca y 

3 

Z 

W 

Z 

W W 

a 

3 

s 

s 

f v R 

m 

5 

a 

S 

4 

p 

nP i 

irP x 

fv i r 

rl rrr Xr 

a ir i 

lin1

f 

i 

j 

t 

i 

r 

l 

r 

I 

f 

I 

I 

i 

l 

a 

3 

I j 0 

m 

D 

S H 

3 s 

M 

FH 

O 

S 

7 

y 

N 

cap 

a 

O 

q of @ 

1 1 

IC k if 

I S 

cF S 

yl d 

e 

r 

zl i 

i 

s L r R a 

l 1 J F 

s 

L 

E 

a 

a 

i4f KI CW 

E 

x 

a 

z 8 y 

Il 

w 

r 

a iF s 

rL 

m 

1 F 

k 

F 

d 

c 

5 k 5 gyp i 3 

j4 

y a3 t 

o 

q FS iYr 3oi Fc F 

z 

y r r 

r 7 e9 3Y a 

aS N1 

9rf 

I 7 p 

tt58 

3SM yl 3 J9 

Na I 8 5 EY 

k WF Iu s 

b p G9 Fh 

rsi 

7 

n 

J 4y 

3 

r yy rE 4 a ra t 

q 7 Ti pk 

a 

L 

6 p 

E 

Jy 

L 

kf h L 

d 

5 

y x 

I 

N 

5t 5 

r q 4 L yT I xx L4 C 

Y A 3 q 

j N C y 55 

Y k 3 7 3 i frt F 7i 

lY 

Y 3 14 F 

k h 

y 

y 1 K M1 3 a y4 

aR 

Es a a hs x u sdy p cIisl 

ap Nf 

6 5 

i 

cW 

7 el t 

Nh 

0 s i R i 3 

a 3x 3 yia T3 rt 

1q 

V S 

p 

w 1 

a 

1 i r 

1 

Y l 

s3 is g 

U 1 

114E 

rga f9 t 

nG 

I 

30 

K3 

kz I 

I 

e 

4 i ic 

rll I C r 

Kl 

7 

ai aY 

14 

I 

II J vxiT 

IF xa DES i r r i s I I I I ir s 

zt 

e I I E 

VIII ITV 

L l 

w 

tn 

i 

sl 

Y 

Iif il 1 tf3 Na 

3 

d 

iii

i 

t 

i 

c 

i 

y 11 vvJ C 

F 

ef 

0 

5n 5r i 

SV 

z 

b 

a 

4 

S 

X 

0 

iNY 

5 

1 

x n 

i 

y 

Q3J 

pS 

5 

sl 

j4 

Y z uM 

s 

i 4 

13k id 

J 

yyrx i i 

y 

si sc 

awyx 

T 

srJ 

z 

lt yy 

ZS YSz3 i5 

ti 

I 

e 

N

I 

t 

9 

i 

I 

i 

a 

O to 

f E1e F 

c y us 

1i Z 

H 

h 

N 

R i 

a J w Q 

oos 

yy 

3 Z 

u s r Q Wu phi y 1 

o 

i 

V 

TZ 

s 

a 

t 

E 

a 

z1 

I 

e 

s 

Y k p 

F 3 

33 

w5 

WB 

Q a 

9 

xsw 

a 4 i 6 

c 

a 

s 

QN 

O 

i 

i 

A 

I 

sal 

9 

l rt 

as T i 12 a 

L 

I J i 

7 r 

hbM 1i33NOld 

r i Z g

f 

i 

r 

I 

i 

I 

r 

r 

r 

yt 

WW 

P o N n 

F 

3 g 

p fin 

i 

res Sxx k ya N 

m 

I Q Gig w z 

E 

I2 

n 

ri 

T 

Irv 

o 

p 

c 

C 

i 

la 

a W 

5 I w 

I 

rvnxaim mnm nian aamaaw i 

i 

I s 

JY 

i 

r 

a 

h 

l 

r 

4 

v 

g4 4LL 

1 i a 

M3 MM IgOn 

l 3fiWOx rnl I 

Iu 

u 

r 

m 

N 

a 

z 

c 

Q 

i 

W i 

pS yq n i6y 5 

U N S u 

62 K 57 vS 

w 

wv a 

g Y 458 

WwyJUryga 

i I 8 

c 

y 

F 

w 

s X11 

u 

4 j 

s 

F 1 v SCW o 

W 

g 

u 

vwv rnooacndoua J 

5n 

8 

k 

Z i 

LL34 

i 

Q 

a Q W 

a a 

n wP 

i wuv Y uv Ga08Pmt mm oinf rnr4i iyy po zy 

i

M 

j 

i 

i 

i 

i 

I 

I 

I 

i 

i 

i 

t 

1 

i 

I 

i 

i 

i 

I 

o to m O sy ji iYA 

L 

V 

g 

gg 

6 

n 

yq 

Sag 

yixrlr Io 

o 

u 

3 

4o 

w 

3 

I 

I 

j 

m 

Y 

V o 

m 

61 

v M Y 

ag os J 

a 

o 

W 

a7 LLl i 

s 

s 

s 

r3 

N 

w cwwnao wea w w woco 

inunNr au 

az 

srm 

m 

nxvnii 

ii 

b m 

G 

4 

I 

I 

I 

tNnLVrJmmaTMrN 

l 

0LIJOtl q tlLN0Zi 

svvu3lNr Liir Yt N allxl 0 er 

ice 

E 

1 

g 

a 

JIII 

ryI 

ii 

yl 

u 

i 

6gy 

3u 

ey 

m 

9 

4 

gg 

N 

n3 3 

e 

I 

I 

r K 

W 

yc 

fit 

a 3 

1wti 

a 

Y g 

s 

Y i 

71N e w W E I R rvY ry e 

I 

s 

S i 

tl 

1 I 

y rfi a w 

E 

x 

d 

I atl 

1 I i 

r 

Ko r a 

3 

11 

1 

tir 

v 

iFVrEr f1T n z 1 1zr E 

5 

1e1 itJ L4 UJ 

yy 

eQ 

qK 

6eo 

J 

A 

5 

E 

2 3a 

k d 

o 

U 

3 

r 

zc 

i 

4 i 

p 

T a aciw vYir S y4 1 s 

i 

tl 

f 

eSa Y 

3 II 

I 

or W e ox 

i 

Y 

yE 

l c 

1 

a 

Iq l 

g 

kTT 

d 

1 Y 

b I uF 

L 

i 

4p 

jkg 

a yyy 

A 

j 

Z 

5u fav M W 

Yt b s 

Q 

Jp 

t L 31 

W 

3wy x rtl 

vq 

ha 

ya 

a 

a 5 j 1 

I 

W I I I 

r 

rrAV31M 

simWV wir ianin Jo 

uiunou 

lM9ma iQP 

OiCeOba JD ta1N YLG 

SrtaolMTi4pN 

i @CdOtld b 1ILx YS 

n1 

MN Nraosmaoxtl o anoo 

anaNw nssa wtoo at an 

5 

5 

p 

R 

hI 

Q 

F I 

J 

Elf 

7 

p N 

vcirJn tl 

r s sr nai a o

i 

VC i 

ni 

nee vOi Crr7 0Mii r 

r r a1trY lvl wn 3arn kN1 IrCYo

cw 

I 

I 

I 

J 

i 

i 

N 

ijy I I 

5 

1 

S 

F 

I 

r 

N 

I 

d 

J 

i 

r 

oi s 

M 

Z 

Q 

a 

W 

J 

W 

F 

N 

W 

2 

r

lI 

t 

I 

I 

r 

r 

r 

r 

p E 

W 

r 

OI 

U 3 

Q 

J S 

3 aoy3 

Sits 

ccr 

I 

t g 2 

4 r 

j 

xm 

wf r 4 om 

W 

i 

r 

LL 

d 

lImo Y 

ems 

s 

rT 

V1V 

a 

I 

Z 

l 

Ali 

L 

i 

s 

m 

Y 

X 

Z 

I 

Lit z 

JJ 

x 

d 

rr 

iS 

w 

LL 

c 

Iy a 2 n 

I r 

a 

wy R 5 q 

N 

Q OQ 000000 

0 

O 

ANiGl 

w 

1 

Z 

p S 4 

O 

t 

l 111 

tJ 

iJ 

S 

r 

s 

Q 

1 

a 

V 

w 

i 

se R 

7 E xY 

i x sr 

c L 

J X 

t 

R 

uN 

t 

Y 

11 

r 

X 

i i i 

w 

L 

1 

e 

Y 

i 

w 

yy 

i g 2 

z y 

w 

J 

a 

YS 

y 

r 

L I F 1i 

n 3fi r 

5 sy 

a 

N 

I a 

nab 

z p F a 

J 

SS 

d 

1 

al 

r 2 

d u Q 

w 

anaa wca woarno u 

caaava atii so wiaa Li qa ia

t 

r 

i 

J 

i 

i 

r 

i 

I 

E 

W 

g 

b 

N 

O 

Q r 

t 

P i 

z 

c 

Y Cca a 

rc y c 

M 

7 

2 

Z 

Z g 

N 

L 

U 

l o Yk 

Zr i 

s 5 

DNEri 

V 1 

lT 

J 

Y 1 

V 

s 

fl 

1 

Y 

rT 

Ss 

j r 

z t 

K 

3 

Z A 

y 2 k C k z 3 

S F 4 w 

w 

C 

y 

W 

t tr 3M 

1 

In 

I 

I 

r 

z 

F 

1 

F 7 

r 

L 

1n 

1J 

S 

J 

q3 

S 

9 

5 Lo x 

c 

e 

g 

y 

E 6 

Y6 

i 

Y 

k 

y c5 

1 s 

f z 

y C 

Si 

1 

w i 

q 

S 5X 41F g 

Y 

Z 3 

k 

e 1 

N 

1 

1 y8 r 

1 

t 

F 3 1 

te N 

p 

4 

S 

x 

a 

11 Y T Y 

y 

i u 

4 IV t y1 

K 

4 i 

4t vY W b w 2 

a 

k 

s 

zs 3 

y 

3 c 2 

1 

y 

1 

J 

6 WWyt 

j 

3 

y2 24 

F 

J 

Ii1 

Z 

J 

3 

i 

c 

z 

Y 

b 

t 

n 

x 

d 

w 

3 k 

t3 

i TJ a r 

y 3 k 

c7 

c G F Z 

a 

nr 1wWcc Iraovra i 

ov 

i 

cwuv um alonoai

N 

O 

C 

to 

U 

da 

O 

O 

L 

0 

V 

N 

O 

C 

41 

0 

2 

h 

C 

N 

Qi 

O 

sI 

rl

O 

O 

Le 

O 

Q 

L 

Q 

N V 1 

L 

3 

gin 

e 

0 

H 

J 

v 

c 

d 

s 

2 

r 

ri 

r 

r

C 

N 

N 

0 c 

ca 

U 

r 

w

N 

i 

N 

LL 

V 

Q 

N 

H 

G 

i 

w

CAMOUFLAGE 

Larson Camouflage LLC 

1501 S Euclid Avenue 

Tucson AZ 85713 

Office520 294 3900 

FAX520 741 3488 

I N N O V A T O R S O F C O N C E A L M E N T S O L U T I O N S 

Monica Moretta 

Land Use Planner 

Sequoia Development Services Inc 

One Venture Suite 200 

Irvine CA 92618 

Re 

TMobile Site LA33842 City of Tustin Cedar Grove Park 

August 11 2010 

Dear Monica 

Larson Camouflage is a manufacturer of camouflaged cellular towers and has bid on and been 

awarded the above referencedTMobile site As you know our original proposal included 

foliage different from both the sample originally provided to the city and from the current sample 

we have provided to you This lettercontains information describing both types of foliage 

Larson has proposed a 60 foot top ofsteel structural monopole on which to base this mono 

cedartree The basic dimensions are as follows 

Top of steel 60 AGL 

Top of branches 65 AGL 

Base diameter 25 

Top diameter 16 

Base plate 29 square by 2 thick ASTM A572 G50 with 4 2 4 7ASTM A615 Grade 75 

Anchor bolts 

Shaft material ASTM A572 65steel 

Larson Camouflage utilizes a specially formulated and proprietary epoxy composite applied to 

the pole which is textured and painted to simulate the trunk of a pine tree Larson Ultraflex 

bark is proven to withstand extreme temperature variations and harsh environments A 

detailed sample has been provided 

Carson spine branches are composed of a PVC pipe skeleton wrapped with fiber reinforced 

plasticFRP to provide the strength necessary towithstand winds of 110 mph yet provide 

natural look and RF compatibility Extensive testing has been performed on our branches 

including wind tunnel testing structural strength testing and analysis accelerated UV testing 

etceteras Quality control is maintained though continuous inspection and testing The 

individual pine foliage is UV resistant commercially manufactured PVC material designed to 

stand up to the rigors of prolonged outdoor exposure All materials are RF friendly with a very 

low signal interference of less than 05db

Ms Monica Moretta 

August 11 2010 

Page 2 of 2 

The cedar branch sample we have provided to you is composed of the same basic materials as 

the pine branches described above with two differences first the sample contains metal wire 

which will not produce the same RF signal performance and will not be used in the RF area of 

the cypress built forTMobile and second the individual foliage is composed of a high density 

polyethylene HDPE instead of PVC 

Based on the latest information the tree would ultimately be delivered with a total of 150 

branches beginning at 10 AGL and extending the height of the tree with top branches 

extending 5above the top of steel and ranging in length from 4 to 12 long 

Antenna socks if necessary are constructed of PVC and HDPE plastic exclusively 

on the socks will be of the same source used on the branches 

Any foliage 

Please let me know if you have any other comments or questions 

Sincerely 

Tom Feddersen 

General Manager

ATTACHMENT D 

Public Comment

Dear Mr Swiontek 

October 20 2010 

Thank you for your time this morning to discuss the Cedar GroveCell Tower Project 

under consideration by the City ofTustin As discussed I would suggest the applicant 

and City consider engaging in the following items 

1 Document radiation emissions at specified distances in comparison to other 

typical household equipment such as microwaves orbaby monitors 

2 Discuss why placement oftower is needed at Cedar Grove Park rather than 

co locating within existing Orange County Fire Authority OCFA 

communications tower It is my understanding there is remaining co location 

capacity in the OCFA tower for additional service providers 

3 Discuss status ofpreparation of City ofTustin Wireless Master Plan and 

technical reasons for determining optimal locations of cell towers Explain 

issues relative to 

topography signal strength wireless demand etc 

4 Document height of existing trees at Cedar Grove Park and discuss the 

difference betweentleproposed tower and the adjacent trees 

5 Document the proximity ofthe proposed cell tower to nearby homes and 

school buildings Based on quick Google Aerial review homes appear to be 

approximately 600 feet away from the proposed tower location 

a 1 home in Tustin Ranch Estates within 300 

b 1 home in Tustin Ranch Estates within400 

c 1 

home in Tustin Ranch Estates within 500 and 

d Remaining homes in the Serrano neighborhood 600 feet away 

6 Discuss the revenue expected from licensing ofthe cell tower which will be 

contributed to the City of Tustin General Fund 

7 Consider conditioning the proposed project to construct a pedestriantrail 

linking the existing paved Class Imulti usetrail to internal sidewalk within 

Cedar Grove Park near gated pedestrian access to Peters Canyon Elementary 

Residents repeatedly have removed cross beams from fencing along Class I 

trail to accessCedar Grove Park since no direct access is provided between 

ClassItrail and Cedar Grove Park If proposed project constructs anADA 

compliant linkage concurrent with the cell tower construction the City of 

Tustin can reimburse the applicant partially or fully based on 

negotiations 

See the attached graphic illustrating the recommended concept 

Request the applicant discuss ordinances employed by other jurisdictions to 

help address resident concerns about environmental impacts caused by cell 

towers For example in 2007 the City ofMission Viejo considered an 

ordinance restricting cell towers at any City park or open spaces orrestricted 

cell towers from within300 feet ofresidential property and school district 

property when the anteimas are pointing towards those sensitive land uses 

9 Discuss health concerns related to the 1996 Telecommunications Act 

Thank you for your help with this maiter and I hope the items discussed above are 

constructive and beneficial for the City 

Paul Martin 

11 O1 S Hiskey Lane Tustin

O 

cD 

z 

O 

V 

L 

U 

U 

U 

Z 

N 

Q 

O 

a 

f 

w 

w 

a 

W 

L 

0 

fLn 

V 

L 

d 

a 

z 

g 

U 

U 

4 

L 

r 

vJ 

w 

0 

W 

Z 

F 

X 

W 

a 

m 

U 

3 U 

U 

C 

N r 

N 

N 

S 

d 

4 a 

rn m 

o o 

o o 

d uf a 

a 

U 

a0 

Z

Letters of Support

Swiontek Ryan 

To 

Subject 

Hutter Edmelynne 

RE Resident comment in support of Cedar Grove cellsite 

From Hutter Edmelynne 

Sent Friday October 29 

2010 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 ofthe cellsite on Cedar Grove Park 

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 

His points were 

Edmelynne V Hutter Associate Planner 

City of Tustin 

30o Centennial Way 

Tustin CA yz78o 

T 

7457374 

F74 573i3 

ehutter ex tustinca or 

flease consider the environment before Erintinf thisemail

Swiontek Ryan 

From 

Sent 

To 

Cc 

Subject 

Cathy Bardenstein cjbardyC mac com 

Monday October 25 2010932 PM 

Swiontek Ryan 

Jeffrey D Scherzer 

Letter in support ofTMobile 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 TMobile 

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 antennas on the site as well We 

since we both own 3G 

ipads and have no service here except via wifi 

are looking 

forward to that 

For your information my husband and I are both attorneys 

for many years as a 

paramedic responding to emergency calls 

My 

husband has also worked 

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 I5 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 

to the 

extensive study about this issue and the government has found no evidence of danger 

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 

up to 10 in value 

show homes near towers drop 

THE 

FACT I5 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 TMobile sin particular is very bad and 

we are 

TMobile 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 

throughout our home and yard 

We would also like to be able to use our cell phones 

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 TMobile 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 

T 

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 

decision approving a 

TMobile cell site at Cedar Grove Park 

Thank you for your consideration 

Cathy J Bardenstein 

7effrey D Scherzer 

10908 Dishman Place 

Tustin CA 92782 

Cell phone 585 370 8020 2

Swiontek Ryan 

From 

Sent 

To 

Subject 

Willkom Justina 

Monday December 06 2010508 PM 

Swiontek Ryan 

FW Design Review09 033 

FYI 

Jrr Kir4NTt ksrt 

Cit rl it j irslirt 

jzyi lkorrr trrstirrcn yrl 

From Binsack Elizabeth 

Sent Monday December 06 2010 508 PM 

To Willkom Justina 

Subject FW Design Review09 033 

From Gary Steinmanmailto 

garys@broadcom 

Sent Monday December 06 2010149 PM 

To CITY COUNCIL Biggs David Binsack Elizabeth 

Subject Design Review09 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 

asl them if they have WiFi in their homes or if they ever let theirchildren use the phone at home probably a cordless 

phone ordo 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 acoffee ITS THE SAME RADIATION PEOPLE So why are 

they now debating this issue and making it someone else sfault Please stop the madness and stop letting the minority 

waste public time and money 

Please also asl them to stop wasting my time 

Gary Steinman 

Resident and Citizen Tustin California

Swiontek Ryan 

From 

Sent 

To 

Subject 

Attachments 

Willkom Justina 

Monday December 06 2010509 PM 

Swiontek Ryan 

FW Cedar Grove Cell Tower 

image001 jpg 

ar rrtrE1itsc s1 

171373 btFc Jrt 

J4Uljf iOtJf ti Tlg i11CR 01 Q 

From Binsack Elizabeth 

Sent Monday December 06 2010 508 PM 

To Willkom Justina 

Subject FW Cedar Grove Cell Tower 

From Jolin Reynoldsmailto 

john@hkaconsulting com 

Sent Monday December 06 2010434PM 

To CITY COUNCIL 

Cc Biggs David Binsack Elizabeth 

Subject Cedar Grove Cell Tower 

We could use better cell service in the area Thanks 

John Reynoldsirinci f resietit 

r1trCryultaInc 

2321 i 

1j ti ioint rivr Lr iytd Hills CA93i 

Otiiue54sci Iwxi 201 Direci949 334 534A Cell 949 47 9C19 Fax959 348 9751 

www 

hkaconsulting com 

1

Letters of Opposition

PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK 

The undersigned residents ofTustin Ranch California are 

opposed to the proposal being 

considered by the City ofTustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower 

within Cedar Grave Park Our opposition is based upon thefollowing considerations 

The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential nature ofthe Cedar 

Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding community In this 

instance or any other similar situation anon 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 of65 ft tall is completely out of scale with and in great contrast to the natural 

aesthetics ofthe surrounding area The instruction ofthis structure to the landscape would 

be an eye 

sore and forever alter theresidential and pastoral character oftheconu iuniry 

Cedar Grove Park is important open space ofhistorical 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 

ofthis tower There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support 

the arguments ofreduced property values and cell phone towers 

5 ifthe proposed tower is allowed to be constricted 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 ofPeters CanyonFlementary 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 ofscientific 

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

Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park Petition 

Page 1 of 2 

Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park 

View CurrentSi na tures Sion theRetitiun 

To City ofTustin 


The undersigned residents ofTustin Ranch California are 

opposed to the proposal being considered 

by the City ofTustin and Planning Commission to erect a6511 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 natureofthe Cedar Grove Park 

area and would create a 

hardship on the surrounding community In this instance or any other similar 

situationanon residentiaf area should be the only allowable placement for any cell tower 

2 A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NUT improve wireless coverageei lectively 

3 A tower of65 fttall is completely out ofscale with and in great contrasttothe natural aesthetics of 

the surrounding area The instruction ofthis structure to the landscape would be aneye sore and 

foreveralter the residential and pastoral character ofthe community Cedar Grove Park is important 

open space of historical and ecological significance 

4Itwould 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 ofthis tower There 

are various 

appraiserjournals and industry publications that support the arguments of reduced 

property values and cell phone towers 

5Ifthe 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 towerwill 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 

7The proposed tower is in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents 

potential health risks especially for young kids A growing number ofscientific studies linking cell 

tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches dizziness depression 


We REQUEST that the pla miing commissioners take a precautionary approach strongly consider the 

http www 

petitiononline com CedarGrv 

htrnl 

1U2U 2010


Page 2 of2 

potential physical and mental health effects aesthetic impacts and ineffective coverage improvement 

from the proposed cell tower and do everything in yourpower to prevent this tower and future cell 

towers from being built near this residential area 

Sincerely 

The Undersigned 

C Click Here to Sign Petition 

View Current Signatures 

The Petition toIrOtelCedar GruvcItrk Teti ion to Cityoi Tustin was erected by and written Iy Jennifer Wierks 

jaws2 uam netj This petition is hosted here atwww 

PetitinnOnline com as apuhlic service There is no endorsemc ntof 

this petition express or implied by llrtiIice Inc orour sponsors For technical support please use our simpleIeiilion tteln 

trm 

share blogger f del digg facebook 

0 furl reddit slashdoi Isend to a 

friend 

Send Petition to a Friend Petition FAQ Start a Petition Contributions Privacv Media Kit 

PetitionOnline DesipnCommunity ArchitectureWeek Great Buildincts Archiplanet Search 

h11 Nnvwleti ioriUnlinecom 

CedarGrv peli inrrh1n7 1999 21 U7 Artilice Inc All Rights Reserved 

http vvww 

petitiononline cam CedarGrv 

html 10 ZO 20l 0



UnlvPrrity Of PfioentxllC 

negrces In ToUay s MpstPopular Flekls 

Online and Camlxis Classes 

YQdGanal Nureina 9cfioal 

Hantls ontnlningB JoApla nment helpU 

UC anU Ontado campuses 

w nvGoogk 

Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park 

Following isarah delimited list ofalactive signatures on yourIx ition Co format slid use this data elsewhere you shtruld save tl s page as lextUpon theflein a taxteditor 

anddelelc the text before and after the signature lisland then import thedata into a spreadsheet pmgrsm such as MicrosoftLxce1 

Number Name Ema11 Cemmenl sAddress 

1 Jelmlter WJ erks 

2 Lyrmea Kull There are of her suitahJ eorations than ir a park lncatad in a residential area between two schools Peters 

3 Oav id ttalgh 

davi dhaiyh@cox het 

9 Senni Cer Sou ter2ISOUtec@cox net 

S 

Nal alle Griswold 

6 Kurt Himler 

7 Jane Lhou 

9 Sonja petexsnn sonaap@csu fullarton edu 

y 

thanh va 

10 Lebra Flante debplanCe@cox net 

17 Gru Gesai 

i2 MaLyarat Shen 

13 Jennifer van Terse 

19 Larry Kull 

Put the Dell tower up on rho tall east hlll 

15 Karen ring Would prefer cell Lower not be be placed In cormnunt ty park and by schools 

L6 Kr uti Khan 

L7 liisa Osai o 1kosako@cox net 

10 Jildea Osaka 

Ly Rita Semaau 

20 mlchel Le blum 

2i 

Cu oliue Marchartt 

22 17 dd Marchant 

carollne@marehanthockey com Please do not put up this ce11 tower so close to ourrhildren 

23 Yan Ye 

29 Mirhae l S Carl er 

2S Stephan ir M Fa66r1 Carter Chore are thousands of children who play at that park why would we put all these children 

26 Annie TJ Sun 

27 Yan Se 

79 Madeline Griswold 

2y 

1an Ye 

30 Cathy Sanders 

31 Marcene Marcus 

32 Jayne Chun jayneehun@hotmail com A 

33 Brannon Key dcpost@cox net Wouldn t s locatJ en nearer the toLl toad Sri a less populated area be a better option 

39 Stacey Mutn staceymuto@hctmail 

35 GvetLe Srn1Lh 

36 KathyFazxon 

37 Sharon Komoroue l oppose the construction of a call phone tower next to Cesar Grove park and our schools Let sfind anotlter 

38 RoberCAllen 

39 Val eris Perzira vppere tra@aa rom 

cot1 Warner Griswold Let 3 find a1ietterspot than a popular and SonoJfu1 park 

90 

91 Tn yde MagsaclJ i 

42 Iatharine Bou Celle We rlon t want Co expose our kids 

q3 Ucbbl eBessen 

99 Manlc 

MesbLa 

q5 

q6 

hJ sa Kornlns 

Caleen Fields 

97 t7Jke Kormos Bad ir7ea other locations more suitable 

9R avid Hessen 

99 Jacinta Lamb jacirtCa la abP ymail aom A 

50 Si nU erly nh 

Sl awr Araki 

J2 

li an L GLUVu 

53 Robin King 

59 dane I Allen jdallen@cox ne 

55 Lei Xu netshellyxu@cox 

5G LLzdsey Garrett I am vehemently oppe sd to a cell phone Cower 

57 Lisa Geneen 

59 Anne Barring 

59 Sharon Michael 

60 KrisCi Puontes 

in Codar Grove Par 

6i 

Lisa Richardson 

62 Thrnnas Michae L 

63 Patrick I arnett 

69 Melanik Retger 

65 ChrJ sti na Dennis 

66 Garalyn P7agJ e 

57 Chen Li 

68 Gehralann ing 

ti9 Edward Ferretti 

70 Kal Gamb111kshy@cux net 

1 Surie Won Speizer 

72 David Baker I am 

opposed to a cell tower UNLESS it meets higher safety and aesthetics rtandards 

73 811 LabeLh Ti ltoed 

79 Map Pharr Please don C pat cell phono tower near our residential area 

75 Luke Nguyen It la not Safe Fur oily 

comrtmnlty 

76 rr1h Wornhold Why fn a park surrc by srhnnJ s and neighborhoods 

loll road seems like Lhe perfect place 

77 Cheryl Albetrola 

70 Ienniicr Lucci jemi7ucci@cox net Thls is completely7rresponslble to have this so close Co 

79 Erlk 1ran 

90 Katie Head 

Eli 

Galc mead 

92 Qianq Ye shellyxu coxnor 

N3 Gt aey mckellac there has to be u bef ter place Lo puL 

99 Janis N1lllrt Ln 

R5 

ar 

Icacy Feldman 

lacziueline Floppe 

where children play and spend so m 

Lhe cel 1 Cower the park is clearly erl an appropriate or safe choice 

https 

lpetitiononline securesites com GedarGrv 

tDgGVDjyQihh cgi l020 2010



135 Tceryl De 

87 Bla1r Lloppe 

SS aLi knPP 

A9 rarolyn Osborn 

90 Sue Garland suegarl and@yahoo cum 

91 Salma Monica Greene 

92 Liatiunq 

93 Susan fel ecsnn 

94 Tesslca Chatterton 

95 Timothy P Lruchene 

96 lnyrid Ftvb Li F 

97 hisa B9Urbpur 

90 Milc Kury kinyim@yahuu COm 

99 Sue Tohler 

100 Alida Calvagna 

101 Rebecca Gomez 

02 Lira guardadn 

1U3 Stacie L fieyee 

ln4 Vicki SchaCrer A 

105 Chad Slumstae 

l06 Bath Pflomra 

10 5t eve Irwin 

IOrj IL Lna lodornv 

109 Sara SCewart 

iii ta lherine LaniberL 

111 Jctf SprvsCy 

112 Candace Lee 

ll3 Graham Lambert 

114 Lauris Ayers 

115 ypsy M Bi 11er 

116 Magyie Villeqas moil leyas1516@yahoo cam 

11 pun Vile9as 

11A Eric Sanders 

ll9 David Ayers 

720 Susie Teel 

121 Ma kalia Banning 

122 Jodi Sprnsty 

123 kini chi trap 

24 TereseOGe1 L 

125 kirnberty vu 

12fi BraU Bjvrndahl 

127 KendraBjorn lahl 

26 Joanna Sakaeda 

129 Nani y iuwada 

tan stephaty e tlra 131 Tanet Bead Le 

132 Michael Beadle 

133 Scott Crail We don t want it There musY be a safer place Co put iC 

134 Co Lleen Bell 

Thefetitian ut ProrrtiCednrGrnvePnrk Petition vCityof Custin wascreareJ ny anJ written 6y Jennifer Wicrks jaws2ncox nat this petition iy hosicJ herz el www PutitiunOnlinc com 

ea npublic service There is nn endorst mem of this petition express nr implicYlby Ariili eluc uruur spwtxurs ftrrtndtnicnl support please use our simple Icriiian hlrln form 

Send thisLo a friend 

Snnd Politinn io a Frinnn NaxnFno Start vPeWon ConGleulione P Ir vcy in I Comrc nla onU uonanII nn 

Ieldinr UnlurCleaeacCon rutvArcYUle tui UV ek Ci c3i AilginyG Sar i i 

b1rp Ghuxwr rrli7 mxHrlirxr cnm edurC rvrnhdrm firrn qy 1999 3gU5 itiLcc Inc AllIiieWsReserved 

hops 

petitiononline securesites com CedarGrv 

tDgGVDjyQihh cgi 2010

Swiontek Ryan 

From 

Jennifer Wierks jaws2C cox net 

Sent 

Wednesday October 27 2010217 PM 

To 

Biggs David City Clerk 

Cc 

CITY COUNCIL Swiontek Ryan 

Subject Confirmation of Vacated 10 20Zoning Admin Decision re Proposed Cell Tower in Cedar 

Grove Park 

Dear City ofTustin 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 coloration in Cedar Grove Park He further confirmed that there wasno 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 


714 505 9236

Swiontek Ryan 

From 

Sent 

To 

Subject 

Lauralee McKay IauraleemckayCsbcglobal net 

Saturday November 27 2010635 PM 

CITY COUNCIL Biggs David Binsack Elizabeth Swiontek Ryan 

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 dawn 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 ourhome away from 

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 thatTMobile wants to 

construct G5 foot 5story Cell Phone Tower with large ground equipment in Cedar 

Grove Parl 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 ald 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 tocl ildren in the park In short it will 

affect our quality of fife 

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 seekre assessment based upon the 

lower values ust 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 to28 000 year is not enough to offset the lower property 

entire area would suffer as a result of the placement of the tower at this location It is 

tax revenues the 

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 

is especially 

hazardous to children 

near Cell Towers 

I am aware that you don twant 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 

and some 

Cell Towers in undesirable locations have been rejected all over this country 

jurisdictions have banned them on or near public schools There are other alternative 

locations available that need to be studied and oridentified 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 sborders 

Also a word of cautionTMobile 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 tput 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 

z

Swiontek Ryan 

From 

Sent 

To 

Cc 

Subject 

Attachments 

Jennifer Wierks jaws2@cox net 

Tuesday December 07 2010839AM 

Swiontek Ryan Binsack Elizabeth Biggs David 

CITY COUNCIL City Clerk 

Save Cedar Grove Park Letter Opposing Application under Design Review09 033 

Position Letter of Save Cedar Grove Park pdfExhibits 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 tothe application under Design Review09 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 thattlePlanning Commission has received it in advance ofthe hearing and that it is made part ofthe 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 

JenniferAnn Wierks Esq 



714 505 9236 

Jaws2@cox net 

Brandon Key 

10950 Hislcey Lane 


714 544 9133 

dr ost cox net 

Sharon Michael 

11615 Goetting 


714 505 6200 

Sharor 

sharonmichael com 

David Bessen 

10960 Hiskey Lane 


714505 4545 

furniturerep@cox net 

Tracy Powell 

2875 Pankey 


Tracylpowell yahoo com 

Sharon Komorous 

10875 Kimball Place


715 573 9938 

skomoC cox net 

Rita Semaan 

10880 Tantlinger Drive 


714 838 0592 

rilasemaan aol com 

Eril Tran 

11675 Leihy Avenue 


714 392524 

eriknlran yahoo com 

Nancy Iuwada 

2701 Timmons 


714 832 7259 

nkuwada@cox net

SAVE CEDAR GROVE PARK 

JENNIFER ANN WIERKS ESQ 

INDIVIDUALLY AND TOGETHER WITHTHE COMMITTEE TO SAVE CEDAR GROVE PARK 

714 505 9236 

jaws2@cox net 




Planning Commission 

City Council 

City ofTustin 

300 Centennial Way 


RE 

Position Paper of Save Cedar Grove Park 

Proposed 65 Fake Tree Cellular Tower Application 

by TMobile Communications Design Review09 033 

Dear Planning Commissioners and City 

Council Members 

We are residents We are parents We are shtdents We appreciate nahire We frequentour 

park We love our community We wantto preserve our history We are land owners We pay 

taxes We are cell phone users We oppose the application ofTMobile to install a65 cellular 

tower and associated ground equipment in our CedarGrove 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 ofNovember 30 2010 the online Petition contained 481 signatures which accompanies this 

letterfor your review as Exhibit 1 

Should this application be grantedTMobile would install one ofthe largest cellular phone 

towers in ourCity with 9 panel antemias 1 parabolic antenna and associated ground mounted 

equipment Eventually under the City s Wireless Master Plan 4 additional carriers would join 

them with all oftheir own antennas and equipment 

1 Introduction 

This location isjust a little over 300 feet from Peters Canyon Elementary School Bungalow 

style portable classrooms are just on the other side ofthe fence Children play at recess at the 

playground just on the other side ofthe fence Residential homes including the bordering 

neighborhoods known as Tustin Ranch Estatesand Sedona are just a few hundred feet away 

Tustin Wireless Master Plan p 5

2 

Playground equipment and picnic areas at the park are even closer The sports field is right in 

front ofit 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 isjust 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 ofall that surrounds it Those haveling on 

Pioneer Road will have an unobstructed view ofthe 65 foot fake tree cell tower with 10 

antennas and its associated equipment sheds Simply put this spot is the centerof our 

recreationa educational and residential community and is an extremely undesirable location to 

place a giantcell 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 beaffected by the proximity ofthe tower Studies 

indicate they can be affected anywhere from 2to 10or more In these neighborhoods even 

at just 2we could be talking anywhere from 15 000 to 70 000 or more per home Our pool 

of prospective buyers will shrink as people steer clearfi om our area because ofthe perceived 

risks of living next to acell tower Safety risks will increase from fire and injury ofcurious 

children and others Our overall enjoyment ofthe park will be compromised We urge the City 

to deny this application and if necessary look for alternative options for placement ofthis and 

any future proposed towers 

2 The Players 

a 

The City 

The City of Tustin has actively been pursuing the installationofwireless 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 hasestimated that it cancollect between21 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 ofthose facilities are currently operated by TMobileTMobile has the largest number of 

wireless installations in the City 2 

The City has an existing General Panwhich recognizes and encourages the preservation ofits 

history and the specitic presewation ofthe Cedar Grove located at Cedar Grove Park The City 

is known as the City ofTrees and its motto is Building Our Future Honoring Our Past 

b ATS Communications 

TMobile filed this application ostensibly as a result ofthe identification ofthis spot as a possible 

wireless tower location by the Tustin Wireless Master Plan Study 

Donot let the wordstudy 

fool you This Wireless Master Plan isa marketing tool that maximizes the potential revenue 

August4 2009 Agenda Report from Redevelopment Agency to City Manager Tustin Wireless Master Plan p 5

Page 3 

that can be generated from new cell sites on a property 3 This study was performed notby the 

Ciiy but by athird party wirelessvendor 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 signiFcant 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 ofCalifornia as Telecom Parhiers Group Coip 4 Thus it is in 

ATS s financial interest to get as many towers installed as possible ATS is not a neutral party 

c 

TMobile 

TMobile hasthe largest nutnber of towers in the City ofTustin 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 ofthis representation however is cast into doubt by TMobile s own data on its 

website where a consumer can checkhis her coverage in their area According toTMobile s 

Personal Coverage Check found athttp 

www tmobile 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 Partfler Good Very Good and Excellent Copies ofthese results can be 

Found with this letter as Exhibit Number2 and s 

incorporated by this reference These maps 

indicate that there isin car or better coverage for virtually all ofthis area without the proposed 

Cedar Grove tower It appears that whatTMobile portrays to the City to obtain approval for 

the cell phone tower is indirect conflictwith what they maintain to the buying public on their 

website putting its representations to the City into question 

MoreoverTMobile 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 ofthe Irvine Ranch What is now 

known as Tustin Ranch was annexedjust a little over twenty years ago in 1986 Itis 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 au adequate windrow as an alternative to 

ATS Communications literature found on its websiteathttp atscomm 

services wireless master plan html 

However according to the Orange County C1erk Recorder s office ATSCommunications dba registration 

expired on July 29 2007 

s 

For purposesofthis exercise we used the Sedona neighborhood address of 1161 S Goetting Avenue which is 

ownedand occupied by Thomas and Sharon Michael

F 4 

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 markofthe history ofthe 

area Few if any other historical markers exist in Tustin Ranch Simply put this grove has 

historical significance not only to the City ofTustin but also to Irvine and the County as a 

whole Its scenic beauty needs no mention It is probably the oldest preserved 

Ranch 

site within Tustin 

James Irvine s love of trees is evidenced in his gift ofthe 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 thepeat k wus to 

be kept crs natural as possible G One can liken Tustin Ranch s Cedar Grove to the majestic oaks 

ofIrvine Regional Park it is one of the last vestiges of Tustin Ranch history that must be 

preserved protected and kept nahu al 

No one would thinkof putting up atower next to Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park or upon 

Mount Rushmore or next to the General Grantor General Sherman trees in Sequoia National 

Park Our Cedar Grove is our own little piece ofTustin Ranch history 

desecrated by a 65 modern fake tree tower 

It should not be 

4 Cont7ict with City GeneralPlan and Purpose 

The proposed placement of this tower is in direct conflict with the City General Plan and is 

inconsistent contrary and out ofcharacter with the nature beauty landscape 

and historical nature of the park and surrounding neighborhoods 

scenery charm 

The City ofTustin published an updated General Plan in 2008 as a 

blueprint Eor fiiture growth 

and development in the city 

Lt addresses issues in relation to land use circulation housing 

the conservation ofnahrral resources the preservation of open space the noise envirorunent and 

the protection of public safety as required under Section65302 of the Government Code 

An approval ofTMobi es 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 isof paramount importance in the General 

Pialand 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 Cormnuuications is 

also in direct conflict with the General Plan 

For example within the General Plau is the Land Use Element LUE a guide 

land use in the City It provides in pertinent part 

for allocation of 

DEVELOPMENT CIARACTER IN IJAST TUSTIN 

Liebeclc Judith Irvrue A HistoryofInnovation andGrowth 1990 

City of Tustin General Plan TGP tune 17 2008 page 6 

Pioneer Publications

Se 5 

o The opporhmity exists in East Tustin to ensure hillside 

development protects thenatural terrain and that significant 

open space resources such as the eucalyptus windrows and 

stand ofredwoods are preserved 

o In anarea as large as East Tustin the provision of land uses 

which support the resident population 

to muiimize travel 

distances to shopping recreation and service uses 

o Important viewsheds in East Tustin including the Peters 

Canyon ridgeline the redwood cedar grove theknoll and 

major tree stands should be protected from intrusion 

The Land Use Element warns at page 7 that newdevelopment if not regulated 

can interfere 

with public vistas and views ofthe surrounding hillsides public monuments and other important 

viewsheds 

Many ofthe Goals contained in the Land Use Element apply in this instance 

Policy 37 implores the City to encourage the preservation and enhancement of public 

vistas particularly those seen from public places 

Goa14 states assure a safe healthy and aesthetically pleasing community 

and businesses 10 

Policy 65 Preserve historically significant stnichires and sites and 

for residents 

encourage the conservation and rehabilitation ofolder buildings sites and neighborhoods 

that contribute to the City s historic character 

In the Conservation OpenSpace Recreation Elementofthe General Plan COSRE it is noted 

that the Cedar grove has been preserved and its continued protection will require biological 

assessment of any new ensw 

developmentto ethe local ecosystem and the City s aesthetic 

enviroiunent i2 

The interpretation ofthe General Plan is clear Cedar Grove Pack is a recognized location of 

natural and historical significance that must be protected and preserved Moreover no biological 

assessments were performed prior 

to 

approval ofthis application Simply stated a wireless 

telecommunications facility has no place in this park 

We have substantial evidence Installation ofthis 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 Tustinhillside 

neighborhood 

s 

9 

Land Use Element p 9 Emphasis added 

LUE p 

16 

10 

LUEp 16 

LUE p 19 

CSRE pp 34 35

6 

5 The City Retains Power to Deny the Application Despite the Limitations ofthe 

Federal Telecommunications Act 

It appeared from the previous the Zoning Administrator meeting held on October 20 200 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 u 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 47ofthe United States Code which embodies the Telecommunications Act its 

clear language states that nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority ofa local 

government over decisions regarding the placement construction and modification ofwireless 

facilities 47 USC 332 c7A In short local governments do have the authority to deny 

wireless tower 

applications Reasonable discrimination isallowed under federal law Moreover 

the City has authority to regulate the place and manner ofcell phone tower facilities including 

the location number and appearance ofwireless facilities 

a Authority to Deny based uponHistory and Nature 

Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 includes several limitations to prohibit 

municipalities from denying acell 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 nahiral 

surroundings 

The Committee recognizes for example that the useofWashington Monument 

Yellowstone National Park or a pristine wildlife sanctuary while perhaps prime sites for 

an antenna and other facilities are not appropriate and use ofthem would be contrary 

to envirornneutai conservation and public safety laws t3 

As stated above allowing this installation ofa giant 65 foot fake tree would mean the City of 

Tustin will failto live up to its conunitment and pledge in the General Plan if it is allowed to be 

located in this park location The placement ofa cellular tower nextto tlvs grove will greatly 

compromise its aesthetics and the historic integrity ofthe Cedar Grove trees Fake tree or not 

these towers are unattractive and avisual blight to the community and a desecration ofthe honor 

ofourpast We urge the City to stand by the promise ofits 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 ofits Residents 

Moreover recent Ninth Circuit Court andUS District Court decisionsciting the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 TCA 1 and California state laws have acknowledged and 

13 

Original authors of theTelecommunications Act of 1996 see l04 Congress IS Session House of 

Representatives Report 104 204 Communications Act of 1995 Commerce Convnittee July 24 1995 p 95

Pagc 7 

affirmed the rights and authority of local governments to regulate the placement and appearance 

of wireless facilities 14 

There have been two recent US District Court decisions NewPath Networks v City oflrvine and 

NewPath Networks v City ofDavis explaining haw local autharities 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 ofits residents 

is 

In case there is fitrther doubt look to the explanation and assurances that Thomas Bliley 

chairman of the Commerce Committee at the time ofthe TCA s enactment In addressing the 

concerns ofhis fellow representatives that the proposed TCA would strip local governments of 

their regulatory powers he stated for the record that 

Nothing is in thisbill that prevents a locality and Iwill 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 donotallow a community to say we are notgoing to 

have any cellular pale in our locality That is wrong Nor are we going to say 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 far the same 

right of way They should not discriminate and that is all we say Charge what yattwill 

but make it equitable between the parties Donot discriminate in favorof one or the 

other 

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 ofthe TCA 

For example in MetroPCS v the City anf County of Sara Francisco 9h Cir 2005 400 F 3d 715 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals citedATWireless v City Council of Virginia Beach 155 

F3dat 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 

j5 

Telecommunications Actof 1996 Source hCC p 1 l7http www fcc gov 

ReportsJtcom1996 ndf 

You can read the decision denying NewPath s motion for summaryjudgment dated Dec 23 2009 here 

http cityofdavis orQ cmo pdfs newpathlreliminary Iniunetion 02 23 10 Exhibit Ato Citvs Request For Judicial 

Notice 28Doc 2429 pdfYou can read the City ofDavis Feb 24 2Ui U response to NewPath s complaint 

herelute cityofdavis orK cmo 

pdfslnewpath NewPath vCity ofDavis Answer to Complaint pdf and the March 

19 2410 US District Court final Decision favoring the City of Davis here 

141 Cong Rec H8274 daily ed Aug 2 1995

J 

inATWireless PCS v 

Ciry Council of Virginia Beaclt 4t Cir 1998 155 F3d423 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 theUS Fourth Circuit Court ofAppeals 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 Vold faced 

emphasis below is this Report s 

even assuming that the City Council discriminated it did not do so 

unreasonably under 

any possible interpretation ofthat word as used in subsection BiI 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 

ofservice over another In addition the evidence shows that opposition to the application 

rested on traditional bases ofzoning regulation preserving the character ofthe 

neighborhood and avoiding aesthetic b1ig11t If such behavior is unreasonable then 

nearly every denial ofan 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 behuid this particular limitation of the TCA that supports 

Itcondemnsdecisions that unreasonably favor one competitor over another but 

this view 

emphasizes the conferees intent that the discrimination clause will provide localities 

with the flexibility to treat facilities that create differentvisual 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 ofthe authors ofthe TCA 

of 1996 

For example the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a 

permit in acommercial 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 331F3d 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 residentialdish ict Unity Towrrslrip 282F3d at267 

discrimination claim 

require s a showing that the other provider is similarly situated 

quoting Perris Towrrslrip 196F3d at 480 n8 In fact the sole district court case from 

the Ninth Circuit on this issue holds that a mere increase in the number ofwireless 

antennas in a given area overtime can justify differential treafiientof providers Airtorrclr 

Cellularv City of El Cajon 83F Supp 2d 1158 1166SD Cal 2000

Pag c 9 

Other recentcourt decisions also affirm that requirements for installations in one part oftown 

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 

taCl01 S I8 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 

2to 2U by some sources Even the financially interested ATS Communications 

representative present at the Zoning Administrator meeting on October 20 ZO10 conceded that 

property values may be affected by as much as 2 taking the most conservative approach 11 

the neighborhoods surrounding Cedar Grove even this meager2 can have an 

impact of 

15 000 

70 000 

on a home s value The value ofthe home in htrn dictates the amount 

of property tax that municipalities may collect for that residenceI 

17 

Please see Spris t PCS vPalos Verdes MelroPCS v San Fraracisco andTMobile vCidvofAnacortesId 

is 

Examples ofrecentlocal municipal decisions resolutionsand motions denying a cell tower due to aesthetics 

include 

City ofLos Angeles Planning Commission denies cell phone toweron condo complex October 12 2010 

news story herehttpa blogs lawcckly com informer 2010 IO losan eles residents tight ba hp 

City of Nortlu idge rejects CMobile application October2010 near residential neighborhood news story 

herehttp www dailynews cum 

ci162b094fi 

County ofLos Angeles BoardofSupervisors deniesTMobile cell tower prapascd for Hacienda Heights 

upon appeal see County ofLos Angeles website for Motion of Intent to Deny by Supervisor Don Kiabe 

October 27 2009 on line athttp lilo lacounty ov bos supdocs 51925 pdf Also see County ofLos 

Angeles Counselffindings and order adopted March 92010 6 pages on lineat 

City of Los Angeles Associate Zoning Administrator Maya E Zaitrevsky denies TMobile cell tower in 

Toluca Lake CA North Hollywood Valley Village area see CUP denial Case No ZA2009 1873 

CtIW February 17 2010 Los Angeles Planning Department websiteon lineSununary at 

final Decisionon linedirectly here 

City Council for Temple CityCA denies monopine cell tower proposed for church location in residential 

neighborhood passed approved and adopted March 162010 Source City Clerk Temple City CA 

City Council for City of Irvine CA denies NewPath DAS installations for TurtleRock community 

resolution approved August 11 2009 Seeon lineat City ofIrvine website at 

http wwwirvineq uickrecords con sireuub cache 2smoxvoyxOSvvzg45kpeyvpuo 

9573494051720 l 00130 

5652 PDF 

19 A numberof organizations and studies have documented the deMmental effects ofBell towers on property 

values

Page X10 

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 

whatits like for people who purchase or build their dream home or neighborhood only to later 

have an unwanted cell tower installedjust outside their window 

This negative effect canalso contribute to urban blight and a deterioration of neighborhoods and 

school districts when residents want to move outorpull their children out because they don t 

want to live orhave their children attend schools next to a cell tower These points underscore 

why this wireless facility is a commercial facility that doesn t belong u this park near residences 

and two schools and should be placed in an alternative less obtntsive location 20 

1 The Appraisal nstitute the largest global professional membership organization for appraisers with 91 chapters 

throughout the worldspotlighted the issue ofcell towersand the fair market value ofahome and educated its 

members that a cell tower should infact cause a decrease in home value 

The detinitivework on this subject was done by Dr Sandy Bond who concluded that media attention to the 

potential health hazardsof cellular phone towers and antennas has spread concerns among the public resulting in 

increased resistanceto 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 ofher studies 

aThe effect ofdistanceto cell phone towers on house prices by Sandy Bond Appraisal Journal Fall 2007 see 

attached Source Appraisal Journal found onthe Entrepreneur website 

http www enh epreneur com 

tradejournals article 171851340 html or 

httlx www prres net papers Bond Squires Using GIS to Measurc pdf 

b Sandy Bond Ph DKo Kang Wang The Impact ofCell Phone Towers onHouse Prices in Residential 

Neighborhoods The Appraisal Journal Summer 2005 see attached Source Goliath business contentwebsite 

c 

Sandy Bond alsoco authored CellularPhone Towers Perceived impact on residents and property values 

University oFAuckland paper presented at theNinth Pacific Rim Real EstateSociety Conference Brisbane 

Australia lanuary 19 22 2003 see attached Source Pacific Rim Real EstateSociety website 

http www prres net Fakers Bond The Impact OfCellular Phone Basc Station Towers On Propert Values pd 

f 

2 hidustry Canada Canadian government department promoting Canadian economy Report On the National 

Antenna Tower Policy Review Section D The Six Policy Questions Question 6What evidence exists that 

property values are impacted by the placement ofaiteima towers see attached Source Industry Canada 

http www ic gc ca etc site smt gst nsl enti 

83html website 

3 New Zealand Ministry for the EnvironmentAppendix 5 The Impact of Cellphone Towers on Property Values 

see attached Source Ncw Zealand Ministry for the Environment website 

http www mfeogvr nz uhlications rma nes 

teleconununicatinns section32 au 08 

pagel2 html 

20 

A few other examples ofevidence showing the decline in real estate value include 

1 Glendale CA During the 3anuary7 2009 Glendale City Council publichearing about a proposedTMobile cell 

towerin a residential neighborhood local real estate professional Addora Beall described how a 

Spanish home in 

the Verdugo Woodlands listed for 1 million dollarssold25 000less because ofa power pole across the street 

Perception is everything said Ms Beall stated it the public perceives it to be a problem then itis a problem It 

really does affect property values See Glendale City Council meeting January 72009 video of Addora Beall 

comments c 235 24htt 

plGlendale tranicus com MediaPlayer php viewid l2 cli id 1227 

2 WindsorNills View Park CA residents who were tighting offaTMobile antenna in their neighborhood

Page tI 

received letters from real estate companies homeowner associations andresident organizations in their community 

contirnling that real estate values would decrease with a cell phone antennain 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 No2007000202 fromLA County Board of Supervisors September 16 2009 Meeting documents 

Los Angeles County website here athttp 

file lacounty ov bos sundocs 48444 df 

a See page 295 August31 2008 Letter from Donna Bohanna President RealtorofSolstice 

International Realty and resident ofBaldwin Hills to Los Angeles Board of Supervisors explaining 

negative effect ofcell tower on property valuesof surrounding properties As a realtor l must disclose to 

potential buyers where thereare 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 296 March 26 2008 Letter from real estate professional Beverly Clark Those who would 

otherwise purchase a home now considered desirable can be deten edby a facility like the one proposed 

andthis significantly reduces sales prices and does so inunediatelylbelieve a facility such as the one 

proposed will diminish the buyer pool significantly reduce homes sales prices alter the character ofthe 

surrounding area and impairthe use ofthe residential properties for their primary uses 

c See Page 298 The Appraiser Squad Comment Addendum about the reduced valueof a home of 

resident directly behind the proposed installation after the city had approved theCUP for a wireless 

facility there The property owner has listed the property and has had apotential buyer back outofthe 

deal oncethis particularinfoi rnation ofthe satellite communication center was announeed therehas 

been a canceled potential sale therefore it is relevantand determined thatthis 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 

valueor desirability ofthe property including known conditions outsideofand surrounding it This 

includes nuisances and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses 

e Sec Pages 302 305from 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 alreadydepressed 

market or in the caseofone new resident with little to no equity simply walk awayifthese antennas are 

installed 

f See Pages362 363 September 17 2008 Letter from resident Sally Hampton of the Windsor Hills 

Homeowner sAssoc Item K addressing effects of the proposed facility on real estate values 

3 Santa Cruz CA Also attached is a story about how apreschool closed up becauseof a cell tower installed on 

its grounds Santa Cruz Preschool Closes Citing Cell Tower Radiation Santa Cniz Sentinel May 17 2006 

Source EMPacts website httpa www emfacts com weblog plti6 

4 Merrick NY For agraphic illustrationof whatwe dontwant 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 

Bast Buyers Brokers Realty website adfrom this area Residents ofMerrick Seaford and Wantaugh Complain 

wer Perceived Declining Property Valueshttp www 

bestbuyerbroker com blog p86 

5 BurbankCA At a CityCouncil public hearing on December 82009 hillside resident and a California licensed 

real estate professional Alex Safarian informed city officials that local real estate professionals he spoke with agn ee 

about the adverseeffects the proposed cell towerwould have on 

property values 

fvedone research on the subject and as well as spoken to many real estate professionals in the area and 

they all agree thatthere s nodoubt thatcell towers negatively affect real estate values Steve Hovakimian a 

resident near Brace park and a Californiareal estate broker and the publisher ofHome by Design monthly 

real estate magazine stated that he has seen properties near cell towers lose up to 10oftheir value due to 

proximity ofthe cell tower So evenifthey try to disguise them as tacky fake metal pine trees as a real

Page l2 

Ona local level residents and real estate professionals have also informed city officials about the 

detrimental effects ofcell tawers on home property values At Tustui 

own zoning 

administrator meeting an October 20 2010 realtor Sharon Michael testified that the presence of 

the cell tower would most certainly affect praperty values She fitrther testified that the question 

ofthe presence ofnearby cell towers frequently arises during her conversations and real estate 

estate professional you re required by the California Association ofRealtors that sellers and licensees must 

disclose material factsthat affect the value ordesirability of a property including conditions that are known 

outside and surrounding areas 

see City of Burbank Website Video Alex Safarian comments @624 28 

httu burbank aranicus com MediaPlayer phU viewid6clipid 848 

Indeed 27 Burbank real estate professionals in December 2009 signedapetition statement offering their 

professional opinion that a proposed TMobile cell tower at Brace Canyon Park would negatively impact the 

surrounding homes stating 

ftis our professional opinion thatcell towers decreasethe valueofhomes in the area tremendously Peer 

reviewed research also concurs that cell sites do indeed cause adecrease in home value We encourage you 

to respect the wishes of theresidents and deny the proposed TMobile lease at this location We also request 

that you strengthen your zoning ordinance regarding wireless facilities like the neighboring city ofGlendale 

has done to create preferred and non preferred zones that will protect the welfare ofour residents and their 

properties as well as Burbank sreal 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 CityCouncil 

Planning Board City Manager City Clerk and other city officials viaamail onJune 182010 To see a 

copyoftl isscroll down to bottomof page and clickSubpages or go hare 

Here is a list ofadditional articles onhow cell towers negatively affect the property valuesofhomes near them 

The OhservcrUK 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 

hltpa www guardian coukmoney 2UU3 may 25 houseprices uknews 

Cell Towers Are Sprouting in Unlikely Places The New YorkTimes January 9 2000 fears that 

property values could drop between 5 and 4U percent because of neighboring cell towers 

Quarrel over Phone Tower Now Court sCallChicago Tribune January I8 2000 fear of lowered 

property values due to cell tower 

The Future is Here andts Ugly a Spreading of Techno blight of Wires Cables andTowers Sparks a 

Revolt New York Times September 7 2000 

Tower Dpponents Ring Up a Victory by Phil Broz mski in the Barr irzglart TllinoisCourier Review 

February 15 1999 5 reporting how the Cuba Township assessor reduced the value oftwelve homes 

following theconstruction of acell tower in Lake County TL See attached story 

http spot colorado edu rnaziara appeal attachments Newton 43 

LoweredPropertyVal cation 

Tn another case aHouston jury awarded 12million to a 

couple because a100 foot tall cell tower was 

determined to have lessened thevalueoftheir 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 0 percent because ofthe tower

Pack t3 

transactions with real and prospective clients Subsequent to the October 20 2010 Zoning 

Adminish atormeeting she was indeed professionally involved in a sales transaction in 

November 2010 where this very tower 

application for a facility in Cedar Grove put herclient s 

sale transaction into jeopardy 

this matter 

She will be able to testify about that experience at the hearing on 

7 There is No Significant Gap in Coverage Necessitating this Tower Here 

There is aburden of proof which must be met by TMobile that proves a significant gap in 

coverage exists in the proposed location necessitating the tower in the area ofthe proposed 

location 

Just last year theUS Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sprint PCS Assets v the City of 

Yerdes9 Palos 

Cir October 2009 487F3d 684 andTMohile v the City ofAraacot tes9 Cir July 

20 2009 572F3d 987 explained that the effective prohibition inquiry involvesa two 

pronged analysis requiring1 the showing of a significant gap in service coverage and2 

some inquiry into the feasibility ofalternative facilities or site locations We contend that this 

application fails onboth prongs TMobile has failed to show a signficant gap nor has an 

inquiry been conducted into the feasibility ofalternative locations or facilities 

InTMobile v the City ofAnacortes the City conceded a significant gap existed so the Court 

stated that the provider then had the burdenof showing the lackofavailable and technologically 

feasible alternatives to close the gap for instance exploring and researching reasonable and 

viable alternative locations called the least intrusive means standard The Ninth Circuit 

noted that this standard 

allows for ameaningfitl comparison of altennative 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 ofeffective prohibitionby submitting a 

comprehensive application which includes consideration of alternatives showing that the 

proposed WCI 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 ofour wireless applicants 

In our caseTMobile has presented some evidence that there is purportedly a gap in coverage 

The truth ofthis representation however is cast into doubt by TMobile s own data on its 

website where a consumer can checkhis her coverage in their area According toTMobile s 

Personal Coverage Check found at http wwwtmobile com covera pcc aspx the area in and 

around Cedar Grove Park ranges from Good to Very Good with the Parkitself being in the 

Very Good range The entire range spans from No Coverage Partner Good Very 

Sprlnt PCS Assets v the Cityof 1alos Verdes 9 Cir October 2009 487F3d 684 andTMohrle v theCity of 

Anacortes 9 Cir July 20 2UO9 572F3d 987

Pa X14 

Good and Excellent Copies ofthese results can be found hereto attached as Exhibit 

Number 2 and incorporated by this reference For purposes ofthis exercise appellant used the 

Sedona neighborhood address of 11615 Goetting Avenue which is owned and occupied by 

Thomas and Sharon MichaelThese maps indicate that there is in car or better coverage for 

virhtally all ofthis area without the proposed Cedar Grove tower Data coverage is even better 

It appears that whatTMobile 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 ofthe cell tower at Cedar Grove may provide 

additional coverage 

to the immediate Sedona and Tustin Ranch Estates Communities it will also 

cover in substantial partjust parkland thereby limiting the number ofresidences that will benefit 

from this locationTMobile 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 ofTustin residences 

8 Altcrttative Locations 

Moreover as to the second prong ofthe analysis discussed above pursuant to Sprint PCSlssets 

v the Ct tyof Palos TTerdes 9 Cir October 2009 487F3d684 andTMobile vthe City of 

Artacortes9 Cir July 20 2009 572F3d 987 little evidence exists that this prong hasbeen 

satisfied in exploring whether alternative and feasible site locations and facilities exist In fact 

the evidence indicates an opposite result 

Again the veracity ofTMobile 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 TMobile and the City contended at the October 2U 241U hearing that the OCFA was 

not interested in a facility 

at their location This is simply untnte In November 2010 

representatives ofSave 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 245 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 theselocations 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 hvine has given prelinunary approval to the 

project at thishigher elevation site 

Suchalternative 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 alsobeen trying to find atower builder to put one 

up in Citrus Ranch ParkoffofPortola and Tustin Ranch Road In addition we are told there arctwo sites already

Page t5 

modern telecommunications in fiagile historic ornatural areas with the installation ofa 

distributed antenna system such as that on Jamboree Road which is less obtrusive and unsightly 

than a Fake tree towerTMobile has failed to consider the implementation ofsuch 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 tobe 

enveloped by the historical and natural surroundings of CedarGrove Park and do not expect to 

seeor hear the modernity and intrusiveness ofa 65 foot cell tower with significant ground 

Facilities 

9 Quality ofLife 

a Until Potential Health Effects Issue is Resolved Wireless Companies 

Should be Discouraged from Building facilities in Close Proacimity to 

Schools This Should only 

be aLast Choice Possibility 

Although the FCC hasmade it clear that local municipalities cannot deny an application based 

upon the adverse health effects ofa 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 ofwireless facilities The committee workshop occurred on July 21 1993 

Studies su ee then have shown relationships between adverse health effects and RF radiation 

from cell towers so these workshop conclusions are preriy much outof date However the 

State committee concluded that it had to deter to FCC standards and ntles 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 notexist 

Relevant however the committee also acknowledged public perception ofadverse health 

elfects Until it could find mare conclusive evidence of harmful effects ofcell 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 proxunity to schools or hospitals School and hospital 

sites can be designated only aslast choice possibilities See Decision91 11 017 

http www cpuc ca gov 

Environmentlemt emfopen htm and 

http www cpuc ca ov 

Environmendemt 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 affectthe 

quality of lifeofTustin residents near a cell tower Whether perceived or real healthrisks a cell 

tower installation atCedar Grove park adversely impacts neighboring properties and schools It 

approved by the City ofIrvine on the other sideofthe toll roads near the Orchard Hills and Nigh Grove areas which 

may or may not serve this community Although we do not endorse any ofthese locations we merely point out that 

alternatives do exist h1 Fact the Save Cedar Grove Park committee has learned of an active pursuit ofa multi 

carrierwireless 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 theOCFA and theCity of 

wine It has been represented to us thatTMobile 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

Pgc l6 

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 

theirkids to PCE and possibly even Pioneer Middle School This is a deterioration ofthe 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 ofCalifornia 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 amact 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 of92 mph snapped in 

the SOmph hour winds due to the heavywind 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 oftrees adjacent to the elementary school and around 

homes It s a potential fire hazard especially in this hillside fire sensitive area ofTustin It 

would increase atixiety and worries about a potential fire here There is the safety concern 

regarding cell towers and potential fire hazards 

The CaliforniaPublic 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 oflives 

andlor serious destruction ofhomes and or property land 

In addition back up batteries for wireless facilities can be made of hazardous substances ror 

instance this lone 2008 Board of Appeals Report addresses this serious concern residents raised 

in that instance about the dangers and IZazards of lead back up batteries 

http www 

montgomerycount iY nci gov cont 

cou icil zih pdf reports2709 

See also 

http www calicorp com articles battery advisory htinl 

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 

and 

The City has the power to 

regulate the placement and appearance ofcell towers as long as such 

discrimination is notunreasonable Keeping acell tower out ofCedar Grove Park is a 

reasonable limitation Cell coverage albeit not perfect does already exist in this area 

cell towers in Cedar Grove isjust bad business 

Por residential owners it means decreased property values 

prospective buyers of our properties when it comes time to sell 

Itwill mean asmaller pool of 

Putting 

It means anxiety and concern

ic X17 

for perceived stigmas attached to the proximity ofthese towers toour homes and schools It 

means the compromise of the area s natural beauty Itwill 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 

decreased income And for city governments it results in decreased revenue property taxes 

it will create 

There are viable alternative solutions including but not limited to higher elevation places 

outside the City limits ofthis 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 

General Plan to preserve the historic nahtre ofthe cedar grove trees and the park 

Ct will substantially affect the aesthetics ofthe park and will significantly affect residential 

property values Many homes bordering the park are multimillion dollar homes or near million 

dollar homes This in htrn will significantly affect the City sproperty 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 TMobile 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 withTMobile s interests in securing adequate coverage for the area 

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 ofthe City ofTustin 

Ior the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested the Planning Commission deny the 

application ofTMobile under Design Review09 033 and do everything in its power to prevent 

the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities and towers in Cedar Grove Park 

Respectfully 

The 

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


The 

undersigned residents ofTustin Ranch are opposed 

to the proposal being considered 

by the City ofTustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone 

tower within 

Cedar Grove Park Our opposition is based upon the following considerations 

l 

The proposed tower is completely 

Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding 

inconsistent with the residential nah reofthe 

community In this instance or any other similar situation anon residential area 

should bethe only allowable placement for any cell tower 

2 A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT unprove wireless 

coverage effectively 

A tower of65 Ft tall is completely out of scale with and in great contrastto the 

natural aesthetics of the surrounding area The instruction ofthis structure to the 

landscape would bean eye sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral 

character ofthe community Cedar Grove Parlc is important open space ofhistorical 

and ecological significance 

3 It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town 

houses in the residential conununity and residents would seek lower tax 

assessments as a resultofthis tower There are various appraiser journals and 

industry publications that support the arguments ofreduced property cell phone towers 

values and 

4 Ifthe proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area a 

precedent will be set for future wireless carriers Co buildtowers in other Tustin 

Ranch neighborhoods perhaps next in your backyard 

5 The proposed tower will be within short distance ofPeters 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 inclose proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools 

presents potential health risks especially for young kids A growing number ofscientific 

studies linkuig 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 



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 haigh@cox net Put the cell tower up on 

the tall east hill 

4 Jennifer Souter2jsouter@cox net 

5 Natalie Griswold 

6 Kurt Himler 

7 Jane zhou 

8 Sonja peterson sonjap@csu fullerton edu 

9 thank 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 

I6 

Kruti Khan 

17 Lisa Osako lkosako@cox net 

18 Tilden Osako 

19 Rita Semaan 

20 rnichelle 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 

risk 

26 Annie TJ Sun 

28 Madeline Griswold 

30 Cathy Sanders 

all these children at 

31 Marcene Marcus 

32 Jayne Chun jaynechun@hotmail com A 

33 Brandon Key dcpost@cox net Wouldn location nearer the 

toll road in a less populated area be a better option 

34 Stacey Muto staceymuto@hotmail 

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 A11en 

39 Valeria Pereira vppereira@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 dontwant 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 

50 Kimberly Goh 

51 Dawn Araki 

52 Dean L Groves 

jacinta 

lamb@grnail com A 

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 

7D Kathleen Gambill kshg@cox net 

71 Suzie won Speizer 

2 David Baker I am opposed to a cell tower UNLESS it 

meets higher safety and aesthetics standards 

73 Elizabeth Tilford 

74 Hop Pham Please dontput cell phone tower near 

our residential area 

75 Luke Nguyen Tt 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 jennlucci@cox 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 shellyxu@cox 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 5alma Monica Greene 

92 Lisa Hung 

93 Susan Peterson 

94 Jessica Chatterton 

95 Timothy P Duchene 

96 Ingrid Hoblik 

97 Lisa Bourbour

98 Mitch King kingimC yahoo com 

99 Sue Tobler 

lU0 Alida Calvagna 

101 Rebecca Gomez 

102 Lisa guardado 

103 Stacie L Reyes 

104 Vieki Schaffer A 

105 Chad Slumskie 

lU6 

Beth Pflomm 

107 Steve Irwin 

108 Irina Todorov 

lU9 

Sara Stewart 

110 Catherine Lambert 

111 Jeff Sprosty 

112 Candace Lee 

113 Graham Lambert 

114 Laurie Ayers 

115 Gypsy M Biller 

116 Maggie villegasmvillegas1516c yahoo com 

117 Dan Villegas 

118 Eric Sanders 

119 David Ayers 

120 Susie Teel 

121 Natalie Banning 

122 Jodi Sprosty 

123 kim chi tran 

124 TereseODell 

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 dont want it There must be a safer 

place to put it 

134 Colleen Be11 

135 Cheryl Bell 

136 Shawna Esparta 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 

142 Naushad Reshamwalla 

143 Gita Aminloo 

144 Lisa Beale 

145 Candice Kikuta 

146 elisabeth mccutcheon 

will impact 

our home values 

147 Ivan Todorov We neet to stop this tower 

148 john boots Id 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 drkamerdcc aol com 

156 Karen Daurio 

157 Karen Malloy Please choose another location that is 

far away from schools homes 

will not affect our children 

158 John Wallace 

159 Pina Mehta 

160 Siren Mehta 

161 Todd von Sprecken 

retail and parks so that the readiation 

Thank you 

162 Clark Le Done This tower has no place in a residential 

neighborhood 

163 Gary D Acker Place the cell tower at another location 

164 Gail Kamo kamokids9juno com NO Tower at Cedar Grove 

Park 

165 Brian Sakaeda 

166 Malena Deall I go to that park 

167 Tracy L Powell tracylpowell yahao com 

168 Rebeeca Gallegos ntrgall aim com 

169 Jun Dai 

170 Sanjay Mehta 

171 Joseph Tso 

172 Sonja Key yeclcs cox net Keep cell towers out of Cedar 

Grove Park and away from our kids 

173 

Cindy Koval 

174 Jennifer Sutton A 

175 Mimi Saenz Listen to your constituents whom you 

represent 

176 David Pifel Place the cell tower on private land not 

publi c 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 Marlc Love 

184 maria von sprecken mllobanc yahoo com 

185 Hendric Minassian 

186 Hendric Minassian 

187 Catherine Fortier Minassian 

188 Thomas L Michael tmichael 

bluepacificproperty com 

189 Evelyn Gerace 

190 Geraldine Schwarz 

191 Matthias Schwarz 

192 Paolo Mazzucato Petition itern 7 is of utmost concern I 

would rather risk losing a ca ll than risk losing even one child 

193 Arja Galentine

194 MARGARET BURNETT Completely NOT NECESSARY 

TMobile I don think so Switch to Verizon Shame on you Tustin 

Commission 

195 Christine Liekhus NO TOWER Cedar Grove Park 

196 Monica Myhr 

197 Niklas Myhr 

196 Christopher Liuchristopher 

liu yahoo com 

199 Joan Liu joan wuliu yahoo 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 A 

208 Dev Keshav devkeshav eathlink netvery much opposed 

tower installation 

209 Roshani Le Done 

210 Kelly 

211 Jamie Holzberg 

212 Micheline Awad 

213 Timothy Powell timcpowell yahoo com 

214 Lawrence Kull 

215 michelle vu 

216 Ron Fields 

to this 

217 Emmy Coats put it somewhere else 

218 Elaine Tso elainetathome cox 

Ce11 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 

theYower please research them 

221 Robert Smith Our property values have dropped enough 

this is the last thing 

we need 

222 Britt Kiley brittkiley sbcglobal net Please consider an 

alternative location 

223 Karen Whittemore 

224 Ruben Whittemore 

225 Allan Brooks PuY it the grounds of OC Fire Authority 

226 Stacey Spector sjspector2 aol com 

227 Jane Seltzer janc22 72 hotmail com 

228 kelly w pauls Cummings 

229 Silbana Uribe silbanam yahoo com Not around our 

schools Please Protect our children s health 

230 Susan Lee 

231 D Jack Tan 

232 Rngela Y Tan 

233 Bin Chu 

234 Jihong Zhou 

235 Sandra Staffordsandy stafford cox 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 

TOWEP it 

240 Maricris Lee 

neighborhood 

huge amount of time 

241 Sharon Mexal 

242 Erice Cheng 

243 Tammy Wu 

especially 

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 lames Wikle jimc youngwikle com 

265 kelvin vu 

266 robert Weinberg 

We 

dantneed another cell tower in our 

near a school where our children spend a 

I WILL NEVER LET THEM DO 

THIS 

267 ROBERT REAOBRIEN 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 pdmlaw gmail com 

273 Bonnie Foulkes 

274 Daniel Demsher ddemsherc aol com 

275 Denise E Julian 

276 Molly Brown 

277 Jun Hong 

278 Sherri Lovelandsherri lovelandc cox net 

not be placed near schools where our children 

radiation 

Consider our children 

279 Timothy J Butler Simply e 

a cell tower 

280 Shelly Decker 

281 Nick Schubert 

What do they have against the 

282 Cary Vanraes 

future 

283 Jennifer Imus 

Tragic decision 

Cell towers should 

may be affected by 

bad choice for locating 

In a park next to an elementary school 

children in this area 

Let s make the right choice for the

284 Junia Martinson 

285 Ann Lew 

266 Erik Martinson eman nol@yahoo com Place the tower a the fire 

department 

267 Lilly Lin 

288 Joanna Y Sakaeda Place the tower at the fire 

marshall 

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 jane yahoo com 

296 Yueying Ren yren 98@yahoo com Please do not allow the 

cell tower in the park within a residential area 

297 Ron Imus 

298 Feng Wang fengwang3001 yahoo com Protect our children No 

cell tower at Cedax Grove park or any park in the residential and 

school neighborhood 

299 Adelle Wang yren 98 yahoo com 

300 Cindy Lynch Please use the the endless hills of the 

toll roads where there arenthundreds 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 an 

community alternative must be 

found 

303 Erin Salomon I oppose the cell tower at Cedar Grove 

Park 

304 Debbie Balise we dontwant our children exposed to 

this 

305 Sue and David Wang wangsueleeOyahoo com 

306 Sean Solomon First show me the study that proves 

conclusively that cell waves have NO adverse effects on children and 

then let saddress the aesthetics Find a more appropriate location 

307 mei ling then 

308 Lin Chen 

309 Cindy Qin Ci0 2 

310 Dana Cooper ARE YOU CRAZY THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF 

CHILDREN IN 2 SCHOOLS 

311 Yihan Hong 

312 Susan Shube 

ADJACENT TO THIS SITE 

313 Lihua Peng 

314 Jill Munro NO NO NO 

315 Ruth Evans ImrevansC cox net 

316 Charles Hatch How can you put it in a park next to 2 

schools 

317 Rick Balsiger rbalsigerC cox net Clearly there are other 

far safer options than near a huge park two schools and hundreds of 

homes 

318 Connie Wang we dontneed the cell tower to close to 

our kids 

319 penningt 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 Elisabeth 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 ssjungl hotmail com A 

335 Lee Jung 1jungl hotmail com A 

336 Kim Tolsma 

337 Steve Tolsma 

338 Irwin Vidal ividal yahoo 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 dontneed a cell phone tower here 

343 Gina Vidal 

344 Cameron Carlen The proposed cell phone tower would be a 

detriment to one of Tustin sbest loved parks 

345 Randy Ruegger 

346 Deborah Nassetta 

347 Natalie Soo 

348 bindu kansagra 

349 Marianne Hales 

350 ji11 perricone 

Please stop it 

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 dontdestroy it 

359 Kelly Foley 

360 Tim Foley 

361 Chris Danielson 

362 Pat Beerdsen

363 Al 8eerdsen 

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 againitsTMobile 

pushing around communities 

367 Faith Lattomus 

368 Bing Wu 

369 Michael Vuu m vuuc yahoo com 

370 Tim Denin tdeninC hotmail com Stop the madness 

371 Adrienne Kitson 

372 Brian McMahon 

373 Darren Kopp 

374 Bryan Dell 

375 Donald Kitson 

376 Mylin Sun 

377 Michael Sun 

dkopp 

shorelinemedia org 

378 James Karns james 

karnsQericsson 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 lilte 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 

383 Nancy Jones 

the Ce11 Tower at Cedar Grove Park 

384 Carlos Nuques 

385 Sheila Sentner shei1a33c sbcglobal net 

386 Tucker Morrison NO CELL PHONE TOWER IN OUR PARK 

387 Siriporn Kuanchai 

388 Marie Van Raes 

389 Shiao LiLau We do not need further exposure to health 

risks than we 

390 Jin Kam 

are already 

391 Victoria A11en 

392 Jonathan Verdi It is outrageous that this location is 

even being considered Cell phone towers dontbelong near schools and 

our homes 

393 Adam Key TMobile tsk tsk tsk 

394 Sang Lee 

395 Payal Swami 

396 ChristineMa Schweich 

397 Susana Daboub VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT OUR ELECTED 

OICiALS WOULD EVEN CONSIDER PLACING THESE TOWERS HERE THEY NEED TO 

LOOK OUT FOR THEIR CONSTITUENTS 

398 Donna Kunz We need to protect ourpark and the 

surrounding homes in which we live 

399 Ann Hoang and Duc Ngo atthoangc yahoo com 

400 Mark V Johnson johnsonof4c cox net 

401 Tzatzi Murphy

402 Rochelle Murphyre info asap gmail com UNVELIEVABLE that our 

elected officials would allow a tower near school grounds 

403 Zandra A Diaz Why are we permitting a tower thaY is 

potentially hazardous to our children at Peters Canyon Elementary on 

PUBLIC property 

404 Jane Ashpes 

405 Ong Lay Chin A 

406 Lim Chee Leong A 

407 Brian Murphy bmurf6873dyahoo com This is a no brainer 

cmon people think of your own kids If you knew haw 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 Blumhardtnoshots4me gmail com Please do not endanger our 

children Tustin Ranch residents family and friends Read this info 

from Dr Mercola and see if you still thinkits ok to puL the tower up 

http 

mercola com sites articles archive 2008 27the cell 

phone 

tower of doom quot aspx It could increase cancer rates by 

2D cause Alzheimer sAutism Parkinson sHeadaches 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 thinkits ok to put the tower up 

http 

mercola com sites articles archive 2008 27the cell 

phone 

tower of doom quot aspx It could increase cancer rates by 

20 5 cause Alzheimer sAutism Parkinson sHeadaches 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 kjessel earthlink net 

414 Wade and Helen Oshiro lhensy dcox 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 

think of the residence and impact before corporate desires 

Someone needs to 

certainly dontneed another contaminator and ugly sight in this lovely 

and healthy neoighborhood 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 xinwang98Qhotmail 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 

We

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 TOWERI 

430 Tiffany Storm PLEASE for the safety 

DO NOT INSTALL THE 

CELL TOWER 

of the children 

431 Lorenz Kull deny the cell tower 

432 Jennifer czinder No cell tower around school and 

resident area 

433 Shaun Storm PLEASE for the 

DO NOT INSTALL THE 

CELL TOWER 

434 James F Beachler PLEASE 

NOT 

INSTALL THE CELL TOWER 

435 Len Piazzan 

436 ken oelerich 

437 Kristen Reeves 

438 Sean Reeves 

safety of the children 

PROTECT THE CHILDREN DO 

439 Melissa Minahan Save our kids health Who needs a T 

Mobile tower there They should share towers since we dontknow the 

health implications Dontput 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 dont 

take away a park for children 

442 Mark McLellan 

443 Shellye McLellan 

444 Sergio Avila 

445 Diem thanh 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 ahbari 

459 Darlene Grech 

460 Douglas Sandra Polett


The undersigned residents ofTustin and other Area Cities are opposed to the proposal 

being considered by the City ofTustin 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 natureofthe 

Cedar Grove Park area and world create a 

hardship on the surrounding 

community Inthis instance or any other similar situation anon 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 of65 ft tall is 

completely out of scale with and in great contrast to the 

natural aesthetics of the surrounding area The instructionofthis structure tothe 

landscape would bean eye sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral 

character ofthe community Cedar Grove Park is important open space ofhistorical 

and ecological significance 

3 Itwould lower property values to the neighboring single family 

homes and town 

houses in the residential community and residents wouldseek lower tax 

assessments as a result ofthis tower There are various appraiser journals and 

industry publications that support the arguments ofreduced 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 ofPeters Canyon1lementary 

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 numberofscientific 

studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches dizziness 

depression 


We REQUI 5T that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach strongly 



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 rlbholdenc sbcglobal net keep the tower out 

of CedarGrove 90620 

2 Casey King 92614 

3 JessicaOneill 92604 

4 Nora Chen 92614 

5 kathie Schultz 92614 

6 Ana Gonzalez 79912 

7 Ms Kiku Lani Iwata Burbank ACTION 

nocelltowerinourneighborhoodc gmail 

comResidents here in Burbank 

are opposing the proposed TMobile 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 noL 

be allowed in your community park next to schools and homes too 

91504 

8 Catherine Abbott 11218 

9 Dan Shah danshalzOcox net 92705 

10 Carol Smiley needs to be in anon residential area can 

be a potential health hazard 44092 

11 saul martinet 92672 

12 leigh anne Webster 92610 

13 Rusty Yunusav 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 Me11o 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 here 92865 

This shorter second Petition 21 signatures was prepared For those out oFarea residents who wanted to 

sign a Petition specifiying same

Exhibit 2 

TMobile Coverage Map 

http coverage tmobile com Default aspx

Panned Out View Data Coverage is Red Voice Ccwerage is Green 

t 

4JfreM Sa a Ga uewae 

i r rarr y 

iq ygnaK wm 

ia rasa 

ai 

aws owlrs vy 

1w 1iM1wwaYulul YMDMNwMLYMIb r 

wN p1ry 

irrypYF1ir 

Yyy 1Mr 

IIn lMII

Voice Coverage Map Green and Data Coverage Map Red1262010 at525 pm 

Horton 

ro 

6 cw atraY 

P Mnbile oiscmer Coverage 

PanonalCOVangerCheeN 

6es cn vr ae rnWramawne llc 

A 

reC SrOi aeeree ue COy iyeln wro G ilR O2TO21 

TMOI 

aOLOSfSLOS11 

OxwM 

t vryher 6M MMenr M1m r4 

rAal 

dew deu 

uE 9c wiq 

xuki 

HCxvOen6fT 

uOtp rtwlarPe 

nrrnGw 

CuiI 

4irv 

r 

uarryFO rf I 

nf etwrWi 

0ucrun loutar ll x C1 br iue8r NaOSptl 

nrr r 

uE2JJa1rJO4 

frvvrnvi 

Lrbi 

1 CMB Lqh 

na 

Pmonal Cowngr Chick 

nvascowr ouwwl rper yup 

lemn man 

Slre 

t 

rtarCf Tu On rYaOv CIM wbCn Sfa Oi82b 

CYO 

i i cev in r rnA 

ee xdY YOYY 

Very M1MrqMWm eu Mar Wn MMYNK 

tr v 

IAO 

Haw en wens 

na 

MaveMn dawnT 

11e2hmNNNI 

nnlxeM fo erxp 

Gn I 

uemy IOme 11l 

kevMlMem ron Orl 

Q rddrn turan 

NxCAbr 

1CaM

ATTACHMENT E 

Information Pertaining to Wireless Facilities

BRINGING YOU BETTER CONNECTIONS 

Frequently 

Asked Questions 

Cell Phone and Wireless Facilities Tustin 

Q Why does Tustin need more cell sites 

A Many Tustin residents experience dropped calls because new technologies being 

offered on cell phones and other wireless devices have placed greater demand on 

existing wireless networks These technologies include television video 

conferencing applications and games which reduce the capacity of the existing 

system Both reduced capacity and increased demand can result in poor service In 

order to provide better service to customers wireless carriers need to increase 

capacity by establishing 

new cell sites 

The infrastructure of our nation is increasingly being based on mobile 

communications Residents and businesses have cell phones smart phones 

blackberries and iPads and they rely on being able to get voice and data coverage 

wherever they are 

Q Where canthese new sites belocated 

A Cellular site locations are determined based on current demand and anticipated 

future demand from residential customers business customers and the estimated 

return on investment from facilities built on a cell site The City through its agent 

ATS Communications works with wireless carriers in finding optimal locations on 

City owned property for improving service and ensuring an efficient network which 

will not interfere with park activities The City s Wireless Master Plan approved by 

the Tustin City Council on August 4 2009 identified the areas within Tustin with the 

greatest service gaps and Tustin Ranch as having the greatest need for new 

wireless locations Several potential sites identified by ATS Communications are on 

City owned sites such as Cedar Grove Park 

Q Who owns the Wireless Cell Carrier Facilities 

A Facilities such as cell towers are owned by wireless cell carriers The wireless 

cell carrier is responsible for financing constructing and maintaining the facilities 

pursuant to City standards On City owned cell sites the City continues to own the 

land on which the facilities are located When a license expires or is terminated the 

cell sites will be returned to their original condition There are also wireless sites that 

may be requested on private property 

Q Can a cell site bedenied 

A Yes a cell site has to follow the City s codes and requirements with respect to 

zoning siting and architectural design and alteration of the public rights of way

The City also maintains control aver the actual real estate licensing and business 

terms and conditions under which a cell site on any city owned property would be 

subsequently licensed by the City after it is location and design is approved by the 

Community Development Department or legislative body as may be required 

pursuant to City codes However the City may not reject a zoning approval of a cell 

site or tower due to health concerns under federal law 

Q Are there health dangers 

from cell sites and or towers 

A 

There is no credible US scientific evidence which attributes negative health 

effects to exposure to wireless transmissions from cell site and towers 

www fcc pov cqb 

consumerfacts rfexposurehtml 

The federal government also regulates wireless transmissions through the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA and the Federal 

Communications Commission FCC In 1996 the FCC adopted guidelines for 

evaluating human exposure to radio frequency RF fields from fixed transmitting 

antennas such as those used for cellular sites These guidelines are used by all 

wireless carriers in testing to ensure their compliance with OSHA and FCC 

requirements The FCC guidelines for cellular sites are identical to those 

recommended by third party agencies the National Council on Radiation Protection 

and Measurements NCRP and similar to guidelines recommended by American 

National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 created the regulatory environment that 

provides for ubiquitous wireless coverage in the United States Because the 

Telecommunications Act was enacted by Congress and because federal agencies 

regulate wireless transmissions federal law pre empts any State or local laws 

concerning telecommunications The Telecommunications Act provides that cell 

tower applications may not be rejected by municipal governments on the basis of 

health concerns in part because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that cell 

towers present risk to health Although residents may have concerns about health 

effects related to cell towers the City cannot legally reject zoning applications based 

on this factor 

There have been numerous studies done measuring the levels of radio frequency 

exposure near typical cellular and wireless carrier installations especially those with 

tower mounted antennas These studies have concluded that ground level radio 

frequencies and energy power densities are thousands of times less than the limits 

for safe exposure established by the Federal Communications Commission FCC 

Safety guidelines already in place establish minimum requirements that must be 

followed by the cell carrier industry This makes it extremely unlikely that a member 

of the general public could be exposed to radio frequency levels in excess of FCC 

guidelines due to cellular or wireless antennas located on towers or monopoles 

FCC guidelines establish Maximum Permissible Exposure MPE for use by the 

wireless carriers in the development and placement of their antennas and

transmitters The FCC s guidelines are identical to those recommended by the 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements NCRP 

hftp www ncrponline orq a non profit corporation chartered by Congress to 

develop information and recommendations regarding radiation protection The 

FCC s guidelines also resemble guidelines recommended by the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEEhttp lwww ieee org index htmll 

Additional information regarding these studies can be found on the websites of each 

of the above organizationsfhttp 

osha gov SLTC index htmlJwww fcc povl 

Q Do cell phone towers emif radiation 

A Cell towers emit radio frequency RF waves 

These are the same RF waves 

found in everyday appliances such as microwaves televisions and baby monitors 

A cell site and or tower must meet minimum Federal Communications Commission 

FCC standards as it relates to RF exposure as is noted above 

Q Why cell sites in parks 

A The benefit to licensing wireless facility space in parks is to make the wireless 

network throughout the City as efficient as 

possible and reduce the proliferation of 

cell sites throughout the City Another benefit is to provide coverage for residential 

areas which are using cellular devices in increasing numbers Any Wireless facilities 

proposed to be located in parks are located with the goal of minimizing the visual 

and functional impact of wireless facilities while still permitting the park to continue to 

operate as originally intended 

Q Will cell sites take away from the beauty of Tustin orits Parks 

A Tustin sCouncil and City staff are very proud of Tustin providing 

our citizens with 

the added benefit of better cell will not come before our strict aesthetic zoning 

standards 

In developing a wireless communications facility the surrounding environment is 

taken into consideration 

While earlier attempts to mask or hide cell antennas on private properties are 

noticeable new designs have become much better New technologies and 

advances in design allow wireless cell facilities to be integrated and well disguised 

within the location they are placed These technologies include the design of 

wireless facilities that replicate a variety of tree species and other designs such as 

incorporation of the wireless facilities within buildings and structures including as 

clock towers light standards for sports facilities flag poles obelisks and in other 

portions of construction Because the majority of cell sites will be located on City 

property the City works diligently with carriers to ensure the designs do not take 

away from the public s enjoyment of our parks and open spaces 

In the case of Cedar Grove Park the design of the proposed cedar tree cellular 

monopole incorporates colors and textures of the park to best simulate a cedar tree

in keeping with the majority of the Cedar trees located at the park Visits to the park 

site were made with samples to make a visual comparison between the proposed 

surrounding environment and design and the actual tree to arrive at a design that 

would best blend in with the surrounding trees 

No trees will be removed to 

accommodate the facility The location of the facility was sited in an area to best 

seclude the facility and place it out of the way of typical activity at the park and 

residences in the vicinity of the park site A rendering of the Cedar Grove Cellular 

Tower proposal is available for review with the City s Community Development 

Department 

Q Why can the City place fhese towers alongside 

Roads 

the 241 and 261 Toll 

A Currently there are numerous cell towers alongside both of the Toll Roads 

These towers were 

designed solely to provide cell phone coverage for the drivers 

that utilize the Toll Roads on a 

daily basis Based on the Wireless Master Plan 

created by the City sconsultant ATS Communications the Tustin Ranch area has a 

need for new wireless locations Simply placing additional towers alongside the Toll 

Roads will not provide the needed coverage that the residents in Tustin Ranch need 

Q Why can fthe City place a cell tower at the Orange Counfy Fire 

Authority OCFA facility 

on Jamboree Road 

A The OCFA facility is located in the City of Irvine and it does not belong directly to 

the City of Tustin It is owned by the Orange County Fire Authority and they would 

have to agree to put a cell tower on their facility and it may not be the optimum 

location for reception desired by all cell carriers 

Q Do Cell sites or Cell Towers Decrease Property Values 

A There have been no definitive studies completed that show that the presence of 

cell phone towers in a neighborhood decreases property values The contrary is also 

possible the presence of wireless coverage may enhance property values 

As more and more people work out of home offices 

the need for wireless 

communications in residential areas has grown rapidly and many of our citizens are 

asking for more adequate cell coverage In fact there are 

certainly same people 

who look at cell coverage maps as a consideration in where to rent or buy a home 

There are several articles on the Internet pertaining to the perception of cell towers 

and home values but its hard to determine the veracity of the research or the 

methods of testing 

The fact is 

there are no such studies that come to this 

conclusion that the City could find just anecdotal statements from owners no 

appraisers however stating that this is so There is no research or information 

available on this subject that the City could find from the Federal Communications 

Commission 

web site

Q How will more cell sites and towers benefit the residents of Tusfin and 

assistin Emergency Response 

A With more families especially teenagers and youth utilizing cell phones as their 

primary phones rather than land lines having good cell phone reception is 

advantageous for residents and property owners In addition as more people work 

from home good reception allows workers to conduct their business from home 

Nearly twenty five percent of the population has removed their home landlines over 

the last few years 

Residents have become more dependent upon cell phones to ensure adequate 

notification and response to emergencies resulting from personal emergencies or 

from natural disasters This is particularly the case in areas such as California 

where there is high fire risk and high earthquake risk Residents and Businesses 

want to know that emergency communications will be available when we need it 

whether there is a 911 emergency or another slightly less urgent emergency 

numbers can also be registered to receive updates on major doat http www AlertOC org 

Cell 

disasters and what to 

Unfortunately large portions of the northerly segments of Tustin in particularly in 

Tustin Ranch do not have adequate cellular phone reception thereby hampering 

emergency contacts and participation of cell phone owners in countywide 

emergency contact resources 

Q Does the City make money from licensing the money go 

Cell Site Locations Where does 

A Yes Where cell sites are located on City property and the City licenses sites to 

wireless cell carriers licenses are obtained at market rates comparable to wireless 

facilities located on privately owned properties Revenue from cell licenses goes 

into the City sGeneral Fund which allows the City to operate and maintain parks and 

other municipal facilities This is important given the more recent economic 

conditions and reduced revenues that have been available to cities 

If you have questions or would like information regarding specific cell site applications 

please contact the Tustin Community Development at 714 573 3106 Contact 714 

573 3124 for any real estate questions about the City s licensing of cell sites or cell 

towers on public property

Htunan Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields Guidelines For Cellular PCS Sites 


5carcl RSS I Uud iies IEil nq 

Initi 3tivesCorisurnc r5 I 

Finc1fcike 

Consumer 

Governmental Affairs Bureau 

FCC CGB Home Consumer Publications Human Exposure to RF FleldsGuidelines FCC site man 

Muman Exposure To Radio Frequency Fields 

Guidelines For cellular PCS Saes 

FCC 

Consumer Facts 

Background 

Primary antennas for transmitting wireless telephone service including cellular and Personal 

Communications Service PCS are usually located outdoors on towers water tanks and other 

elevated structures like rooftops and sides of buildings The combination of antenna towers and 

associated electronic equipment is referred to as a cellular or PCS cell site or base station Cellular 

or PCS cell site towers are typically 50 200 feet high Antennas are usually arranged in groups of three 

with one antenna in each group used to transmit signals to mobile units and the other two antennas 

used to receive signals from mobile units 

At a cell site the total radio frequency RF power that can be transmitted from each transmitting 

antenna depends on the number of radio channels transmitters that have been authorized by the 

Federal Communications Commission FCC and the power of each transmitter Although the FCC 

permits an effective radiated power ERP of up to 500 watts per channel depending 

on the tower 

height the majority of cellular or PCS cell sites in urban and suburban areas 

operate 

at an ERP of 100 

watts per channel or less 

An ERP of 100 watts corresponds to an actual radiated power of510watts depending on the type of 

antenna used In urban areas cell sites commonly emit an ERP of 10 watts per 

channel or less For 

PCS cell sites even lower ERPs are typical As with all forms of electromagnetic energy the power 

density from a cellular or PCS transmitter rapidly decreases as distance from the antenna increases 

Consequently normal ground levelexposure is much less than the exposure that might be encountered 

if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam Measurements made near 

typical cellular and PCS cell sites have shown that ground levelpower densities are well below the 

microwave safety standards used by the FCC 

exposure limits recommended by RF 

Guidelines 

In 1996 the FCC adopted updated guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF fields from fixed 

transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular and PCS cell sites The FCC s guidelines are 

identical tothose recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NCRP anon profit corporation chartered by Congress to develop information and recommendations 

concerning radiation protection The FCC s guidelines also resemble the 1992 guidelines recommended 

by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEEanon profit technical and professional 

engineering society and endorsed by the American National Standards Institute ANSI anon profit 

privately funded membership organization that coordinates development of voluntary national 

standards in the United States 

In the case of cellular and PCS cell site transmitters the FCC s RF exposure guidelines recommend a 

maximum permissible exposure level tothe general public of approximately 580 microwatts per square 

http www fcc ov ct bconsuiiierfacts rfexposure html 12 08 2010

Human Ixposure To Radio Frequency Fields Guidelines For Cellular PCS Sites 

centimeter This limit is many times greater than RF levels typically 

PCS cell site towers or in the vicinity of other lower powered cell site transmitters 

found near the base of cellular or 

Calculations corresponding to a worst casesituation all transmitters operating simultaneously and 

continuously at the maximum licensed power show that in order to be exposed to RF levels near the 

FCC s guidelines an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam and 

within a few feet ofthe antenna for several minutes or 

longer Thus the possibility that a member of the 

general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of the FCC guidelines is extremely remote 

When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted on 

rooftops RF emissions could exceed higher than 

desirable guideline levels on the rooftop itself even though rooftop antennas usually operate at lower 

power levels than free standing power antennas Such levels might become an issue for maintenance 

or other personnel working on the rooftop Exposures exceeding the guidelines levels however are 

only likely to be encountered very close to and directly in front of the antennas In such cases 

precautions such as time limits can avoid exposure in excess of the guidelines Individuals living or 

working within the building are not at risk 

For More Information 

For more information on this issue visit the FCC s RF Safety Web site atwww 

fcc gov oetlrfsafety Far 

further information about any other telecommunications relatedissues visit the FCC s Consumer 

Governmental Affairs Bureau Web site atwww fcc gov cgb or contact the FCC s Consumer Center by e 

mailingfccinfoC 

gov calling1888 CALL FCC1888 225 5322 voice or1888 TELL FCC 1888 

835 5322 TTY faxing1866 418 0232 or writing to 

Federal Communications Commission 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 

Consumer Information and Complaints Division 

445 12 St SW 

Washington DG 20554 

Pabe 2 of2 

For this orany other consumerpublication in an accessible format 

electronic ASCII text Braille largeprint or audio please write or 

call us at the address orphone number below orsend anemailto FCC504afcc 4ov 

To receive information on this and otherFCC consumertopics through 

the Commission selectronic subscriber service click on 

17ttp www fccpov cgb contarts 

This documentis for consumer education purposes only and is not intended to 

affect any proceeding orcases involving thissubject matterorrelated issues 

19 08 07 

FederalCommunications Commission Consumer Governmental Affairs Bureau 445 12th StSW Washington DC 20554 

1888 CALL FCC1886 225 5322 TTY1888 TELL FCCfi888 835 5322 Fax1666 418 0232 

lastreviewed updated on11 09 07 

FCC Home Search RSS dates EFilin Initiatives Consumers Find People 

Federal Communications Commission 

445 12th Street SW 

Washington DC 20554 

More FCC Contact Information 

Phone1888 CALL FCC1888 225 5322 

TTY1888 TELL FCC1888 835 5322 

Fax1866 418 0232 

Email fccinfoanfcc gov 

Privacy Policy 

Website Policies Notices 

Required BrowserPlug ins 

Freedom of Information Act 

http www fcc gov cab 

constunerfacts rfexposure html 

12 08 2010

WHQ 

Electromagnetic fields anti public health 


v World Health 

awQC 11 141 

Facr shuct N 30 

May uUr 

Electromagnetic fields and public health 

Base stations and wireless technologies 

Mobile telephony is now commonplace aroundthe world This wireless techrtol ogy relies upon an extensive network offixed antennas 

orbase stations relaying information with radioti cqucncy RF signals Over L4 million base stations exist worldwide and the number 

is increasing significantly withthe introduction of third generation technology 

Other wireless networks that allow high speed Internet access and services such as wireless local area networks WLANs are also 

increasingly common in homes offices and many public areas airports schools residential and urban areas As the number of base 

stationrand local wireless networks increases so does the RF exposure ofthe population Recent surveys have shown that the RF 

ex xtsures from base stations range from U0O2 fir2ofthe levels ofinternational exposure buidelines depending on a variety of 

Factors such as theproximity to the antenna and the surrounding environment This is lutveror comparable to RF exposures from radio 

ortelevisionLroadcast transmitters 

There has been concern about possible health consequences from exposure to the ItF tields produced by wireless technologies This 

fact sheet reviews the scientific evidence on the health effects from continuouslow level human exposure to base stations and other 

local wireless networks 

Iea lth concerns 

A common cintcern about base station and local wireless network antennas relates to the possible long terns health effects that whole 

body exposure to the RF signals may have To date the only health effect from RF tields identified in scientific reviews has been 

related to an increase in bodytcmpc rature I C from exposure at very high field intensity Potmd only in certain industrial facilities 

such as RFheaters The levels of RF exposure from base stations and wireless networksarcso low that the temperature increases are 

insitmiticant and donut affect human health 

The strength of RF tields is greatest at its source and diminishes quickly withdistance Access near base station antennas is restricted 

where RFsignals may exceed international exposure limits Recent surv cys have indicated that RF exposures from base stations and 

wireless teduurlugies in publicly accessible areas iududing schools and hospitals are norntally thousands of times below international 

standards 

ht tct due to their lower frequency at similar RF exposure levelsthe body absorbs up to five tinter more of the signal from FM radio 

and television than from base stations This is because the frequencies used in FM radio around IOU MI Iz and inTV broadcasting 

around i00 to4q Mliz are lirwer than those employed inmobile telephony 900 M1rand 18UU MHz and because a person sheight 

makes the body an efficient receiving antenna Further radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or 

more years without any adverse health consequence being established 

While most radio technologies have used analog signals modern wireless teleconnnunicatiuns are using digital transmissions Detailed 

reviews conducted so Par have nut revealed any hazard specific to dilTerenl RF modulations 

Cancer Nlediu oranecdotal reports of cancer clusters around mobile phone base stations have heightened public concern It should be 

noted that geographically cancers arc unevenly distributed among any population Given the widespread presence of base stations in 

the environment it is expected that possible cancer clusters will occur near base stations merely by dunce Moreover the reported 

cancers in these clusters are often a collection of dilfere nt types of cancer withno common characteristics and hence unlikely to have a 

common cause 

Scientific evidence on the distribution uPcancer in the population can beobtaine t through carefully planned andexc euted 

epidemiological studies Over the past IS years studies examining a potential relationship between RFtransmitters and cancer have 

been published these studies have not provided evidence that RF exposure from the transmitters increases the riskofcancer 

Likewise lung term animal shutter have not established an increased risk cif cancer tT Om exposure to RF fields even at levels that are 

much higher than prochrced by base stations and wireless networks 

Ullrereffects Few studies have investigated general health effects in individuals exposed to RF tields hum base stations This is 

because oPthe difficulty in distinguishing possible health effects from the very low signals emitted by base stations from otherhigher 

strength RF signals in the environment Most studies have focused on the RF exposures irFmobile phone users Human and animal 

studies examining brain wave patterns cognition artd behaviour after exposure fo RF tields such as those generated by mobilephones 

have notide ntitied adverseeffects RF exposures used in these studies were about 1 OUO times higher than those associated with general 

public exposure From base stations or wireless networks Noconsistent evidence ofaltered sleep or cardiovascular Function has been 

reported 

http www who 

tollmediacentre factsheets Is34ert print html 29 2010

i 

WHO Electromagnetic fields and public health 


Some individuals have reported that they experiencenon specificsymptoms upon exposure to RF lields emitted from base stations and 

other EMT devices As recognized in a recent Wl lU fact sheet Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity EMF has not been shown to cause 

such symptoms Nonetheless it is important to recogniLe the plight of people suffering frOnl these symptoms 

From all evidence accumulated so far no adverse short or long term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals 

produced by base stations Sincewireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations nn adverse health effects are 

expected from exposure to them 

Protection standards 

International exposure guidelines have beeu developed to provide protection against establishedet ecls from RF fields by the 

International Commission on Non Ionizing Radiation Protection ICNIRP 1998j and the nstitutc ofElectrical and Electronic 

Engineers IEEE 2005 

National authorities should adopt international standards to protect their citizens against adverse levels nP RP lieldsThey should 

restrict access to areas where exposurelimitsmay he exceeded 

Public perception of risk 

Some people perceive risks from RF exposure as likely and even possibly severe Sevcad reasons for public fear include media 

announcements ofnew and unconfirmed scientific studies leading to a feeling of uncer tainry and a perception that there may be 

unknown or undiscovered hazards Other factors areacslhet icconcerns and a feeling ofa lack ofcontrol ur input to ehe process of 

dctennining the location of new base stations Experience shows that education pmgraynmes as well as effective communications and 

involventcntofthe publicand other stakchul Iersat appropriate stages 

ofthe decision process before installing RF sources can enhance 

public confidence and acceptability 

Conclusions 

Considerin the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date Chere is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak 

RF si nutls from base statiims and wireless networks cause adverse health effects 

WT Onitiatives 

WIU through the International EMF Project has established a progranune to nutnitor the EMI scientific literature to evaluate the 

health effectsfi om axposure to EMF in the range from O to 300 GHz to provide advice about possible EMF hazards and to identity 

suitable mitigation measures Following extensiveintc mational reviews the Intemational EMF Project has promoted research to fill 

gaps in knowledge In response national governments and research institutes have funded over 25O million on EMF research over the 

past I 0 years 

While no health effects are expected from exposure to RF fields from bash stations and wireless networks research is still being 

promoted by WI 10 to determine whether there arc any health consequences from the higher RF exposures from mobile phones 

The lntemational Agency for Research on Cancer TARC a Wll0 specialized agency is expected to cirnduct a review of cancer risk 

from RF fields in2006 2007 and the International EMF Project will then undertake an overall health risk assessment for RF fields in 

2007 2008 

Further Reading 

1CNlRP 1998 www iuiiii ors documcuta emfgdl ndf 

IEEE 2006 IEEECc51200 IEEE Standard tier Safety Levels withRespect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency 

Elcctrumagnctic Fields 3 kHz to 300 Ghli 

Related licks 

Por more information contact 

WHd Media centre 

Telephone 41 22 791 2222 

Emailmulininquirieslri who int 

http www whip 

mediacentre factslieets fs304 en print httul 29 2010

112010 WHO Electromagnetic fields and publ 

Fact sheet N 1 

Vlay 2U I 0 

jvWorld Health 

LOrganlzation 

Electromagnetic felds and public health mobile phones 

Key facts 

Mobile phone use is ubiquitous with an estimated4ibillion subscriptions globally 

To date no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use 

Studies are 

ongoing to assess potential long term effects of mobile phone use 

There is an increased risk ofroad traffic injuries when drivers use mobile phones either handheld or hands 

free while ch iving 

Mobile or cellular phones are now an integral part of modern telecommunications n many countries over halfthe 

Iopulation use mobile phones and the market is growing rapidly At theend of2009 there were an estimated46billion 

subscriptions globally In some parts of the world mobile phones are the most reliable or the only phone available 

Given thelarge number ofmobile phone users it is important to investigate understand and monitor any potential public 

health impact 

Mobile phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a network of fixed antennas called base stations 

RadioFrequency waves are electromagnetic fields and unlike ionizing radiation such asXrays or gamma rays cannot 

break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body 

Exposure levels 

Mobile phones are low poweredradiofrequency transmitters operating at frequencies between 450 and 2700 fVIHz with 

peak powers in the range of01to 2 watts The handset only transmits power when it isturned on The power and 

hence the radiofrequency exposure to a user falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset n person usv g 

a mobile phone 04U cm away from their body for example when text messaging accessing the Internet or using a 

hands free device will therefore have a much lower exposure to radiofrequency fields than someone holding the 

handset against their head 

1n addition to using hands free devices which keep mobile phones away from the head and body dw ing phone calls 

exposure is also reduced by limiting the numberand length ofcalls using the phone in areas of good reception also 

decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power The useofcommercial devices for reducing 

radiofrequency field exposure has not been shown to be effective 

Mobile phones are often prohibited in hospitals uul on airplanes as the radiofrequency signlals may interfere with certain 

electro medical devices and navigation systems 

Are there any health effects 

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a 

potential health risk To date no adverse health effects have been established for mobile phone use 

Short term effects 

Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body At the 

frequencies used by mobile phones most ofthe energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues resulting in 

negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs ofthe body 

who 

mediacentre print html 13

S1201b WHO Electromagnetic fields and publ 

A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity cognitive function 

sleep heart rate and blood pressw 

in volunteers To date research does not suggest any consistent evidence of 

adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating Further 

research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and 

self reported symptoms orelectroma metic hypersensitivity 

In contrast research has cleaa ly shown an increased risk of roaduatfic injuries when drivers use mobile phones either 

handheld or hands Free while driving nseveral countries mota ists are prohibited or strongly discouraged from 

using mobile phones while driving 

Long term effects 

Epidemiological research examining potential long term risks From radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an 

association between brain tumours and mobile phone use However because many cancers are not detectable until 

many years after the interactions that led to the tumour and sines mobile phones were not widely used until the early 

1990x epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods 

Iowever results of anima studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long term exposure to radiofrequency 

fields 

Sevel al large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing including ease control studies 

and prospective cohort studies examining a number ofhealth endpoints in adults To date results of epidemiological 

studies provide no consistent evidence ofa causal relationship between radiofrequency exposure and any adverse health 

effect Yet these studies have too many limitations to completely rule out an association 

A retrospective case control study on adults INTERPHONE coordinated by the nternational Agency for Research on 

Cancer IARC was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck 

cancers in adults The international pooled analysis of data gathered from I3 participating countries found no increased 

risk ofi gtioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 1 U years There are some indications of an increased 

riskofi gtioma or those who reported the highest 10of cumulative hours ofcell phone use although there was no 

consistent trend ofincreasing risk with greater duration of use Researchers concluded that biases acid errors limit the 

strength of theseconclusions and prevent a causal interpretation 

While an increased risk oibrain tumorti is not established from INTERPHONIr data the increasing use ofmobile phones 

and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than IS years warrant further research of mobile 

phone use and brain cancer risk In particular with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people 

and therei orea potentially longer lifetime of exposure WHO has promoted further research on this group Several 

studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway 

Exposure limit guidelines 

Radiofrequency exposure limits For mobile phone users are given in terms of Specific Absorption Rate SAR the rate 

of radiofrequency energy absorption pear unit mass of the body Currently two international bodies 

have developed 

exposure guidelines for workers and for the general public except patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment 

These guidelines are based on a detailed assessment of the available scientific evidence 

WHO S response 

in response to public and governmental concern WI IO established the International Electromagrnc tic Fields EMF 

Pro jest in 1996 to assess thescientife evidence of possible adverse health effects fi om electromagnetic fields WHO 

will conduct a formal health risk assessment of radiofrequency fields exposure by 2012 Mea iwhile the International 

Agency for Research on Cancer ARC a WHO specialized agency is expected to review the carcinogenic potc tial of 

mobile phones in 2011 

WHO also identities and promotes research priorities for radiofrequency fields and health to till gaps in knowledge 

through its Research Agendas 

WHO develops public information materials and promotes dialogue among scientists governments industry and the 

public to raise the level of understanding about potential adverse health risks ofmobile phones 

who 


112010 WI 10 Electromagnetic fields and publ 

International Commission onNon Ionizing tadiation Protection ICNIRP Statement on the Guidelines for limiting 

exposure to time varying electric magnetic and electromagetic fields up to 300 GIIL 2009 

2 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ILEE Std C95 1 2005 fEEE atandarzt fur sufehlelsraith respect 

to lrunrun eepati ure to radiof reyrrerrcy elecrlr urrrcrgrretfe fields 3 kH to 3U0 Gflz 

Ior more information contact 

WHO Media centre 

41 22 791 2222 

Telephone 

mailmcxliainguiries invho int 

Contacts Email scams IanploymentlOs Feedback Privacy RSS feeds 

c WHO 20 l 0 

who 


ATTACHMENT F 

Resolution No 4163

RESOLUTION NO 4163 

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 

THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 09 

033 AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION 

OF A WIRELESS TELECOMMMUNICATIONS FACILITY 

CONSISTING OF A 65 FOOT TALL MONO CEDAR FAUX 

TREE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT ALONG WITH A 

FUTURECO LOCATION FACILITY WITHIN CEDAR GROVE 

PARK LOCATED AT 11385 PIONEER ROAD 

The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows 

The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows 

A 

That a proper application for Design Review09 033 was filed byTMobile 

West Corporation requesting to install and operate a wireless 

telecommunications facility consisting of a sixty five 65 foot tall mono 

cedar faux tree with nine 9 panel antennas one 1 parabolic antenna 

and its associated equipment along with a future co location facility 

located within Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

That the site is zoned as Planned Community Residential designated as 

Community Park by the East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan and 

designated as Planned Community Residential by the General Plan 

That the Community Development Director forwarded the Design Review 

application to the City Zoning Administrator in order to allow for a public 

meeting to accept comments from the general public regarding the proposed 

project 

That a public meeting was duly called noticed and held for Design Review 

09 033 on October 20 2010 by the Zoning Administrator 

That on October 27 2010 the Zoning Administrator vacated the decision 

on the subject project and deferred the matter to the Planning Commission 

in accordance with Section 9299b of the Tustin City Code 

That Cedar Grove Park has been identified in the City s Wireless Master 

Plan as an optimal location for a wireless facility 

That the proposed wireless facility complies with Tustin City Code Section 

7260 requiring Design Review of Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public 

Property and in the Public Right of Way and with City Council Resolution 

No 01 95 establishing Design Review guidelines for aboveground utility 

facilities on public property and in the publicright of way

Resolution No 4163 

DR09 033 

Page 2 H 

That the location size and general appearance of the proposed project as 

conditioned is compatible with the surrounding area in that the faux cedar 

tree would be of a stealth design to blend in with the existing perimeter 

trees and all associated equipment would be screened within a stucco block 

wall enclosure The project site is also located within an area of Cedar 

Grove Park that has low visibility from the public right of way due to 

extensive tree screening of the proposed facility 

That the proposed project has identified the potential forco location of 

additional carriers on the wireless facility 

That the proposed facility will provide wireless coverage to an area that is 

currently deficient of wireless reception 

K 

L 

That a license agreement with the City is required prior to installation or 

operation of the proposed facility in accordance with Section 7261 of the 

Tustin City Code 

That the location size aesthetic features and general appearance of the 

proposed wireless facility will not impair the orderly and harmonious 

development of the area the present or future development therein or the 

community as a whole In making such findings the Planning Commission 

has considered at least the following items 

1 Height bulk and area of proposed structure The proposed wireless 

facility is designed as a tree to replicate existing trees within Cedar 

Grove Park Themono cedar is of a height similar to the existing trees 

within the park The proposed equipment 

enclosure which contains 

accessory equipment would be located adjacent to the mono cedar 

faux cedar tree and occupy 330 square feet An additional equipment 

enclosure for a future co location carrier would be connected and 

occupy 440 square feet 

2 Setbacks and site planning The project site is located in a remote 

area of the park that receives minimal use and has a sloping condition 

The facility would be located approximately 350 feet from the closest 

residence and more than 500 feet from the closest street 

3 Exterior material and colors Materials of the proposed mono cedar 

are designed to replicate a cedar tree and are comprised of synthetic 

bark needles and branches in shades of green and brown The block 

wall equipment enclosure will be painted to match other structures 

within the park 

4 Towers and antennae The facility will be designed to replicate a 

cedar tree Nine 9 panel antennas and a parabolic antenna will be 

located at a top height of 60 feet on the mono cedar and arranged in a


DR09 033 

Page 3 circular method Futureco location antennae would be located below 

the proposed 

antennae on themono cedar 

5 Landscaping and parking area design and traffic circulation The 

proposed facility will not impact the parking area or circulation No 

trees will be removed as a result of the project Vines and shrubs 

would be provided at the perimeter of the equipment enclosure to 

screen and soften it 

6 Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed 

structure All accessory equipment would be located within a block 

wall enclosure Only the mono cedar pole structure would be 

freestanding 

7 Physical relationship of proposed structure to existing structures 

There are no 

existing structures within the immediate vicinity of the 

project site 

8 Appearance and design relationship of proposed structures to existing 

structures and possible future structures in the neighborhood and 

public thoroughfares It is not anticipated that additional structures will 

be constructed within the park The project site is located within a 

landscape area consisting of multiple trees and not an open area 

There is an existing hillside buffer between the project site and the 

closest residences within Tustin Ranch Estates 

9 Development guidelines and criteria as adopted by the City Council 

The City Council adopted Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility 

Facilities and their Accessory Equipment which the proposed facility 

complies with 

M 

That the proposed wireless facility complies with the City Council Resolution 

No 01 95 Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities and their 

Accessory Equipment in that 

1 Location The project site is located within a remote and minimally 

used landscape area between two walkways within the park Little to 

no interference with public use of the park is anticipated to result from 

the proposed facility The project site is also a considerable distance 

from adjoining properties 

2 Stealth Facility The proposed wireless facility is of a stealth design 

that replicates a cedar tree The branches bark needles and overall 

design of the monopole has been engineered to blend as closely as 

possible with the existing trees in the area Antenna socks may be 

used to further screen the individual antennas 

3 Co location The proposed facility can accommodate additional carrier 

to co locate onto the facility The additional carrier would place


DR09 033 

Page 4 

antennas on the mono cedar below those ofTMobile The additional 

accessory equipment of the carrier could be placed within a block wall 

enclosure adjacent toTMobile sand of the same material and finishes 

Co location eliminates the need for other providers to establish 

additional facilities within the area 

4 Colors The colors of the facility would be non reflective and 

incorporate natural colors of greens and browns in order to replicate a 

tree The equipment enclosure would be coated with a graffiti resistant 

finish in the color ofother public facilities within the park 

5 Screening The proposed facility would be screened by a grove of 

trees and is not within a highly visible area of the park There is an 

existing mature redwood cedar grove which effectively screens the 

facility from the east and north There is a hillside with eucalyptus trees 

immediately to the west of the project site Views from Pioneer Road 

are limited due to the extensive distance to the project site from the 

street Younger trees surround the project site and will fill in to further 

screen the facility 

6 Landscape No trees would be removed as a result of the proposed 

facility and the equipment enclosure would be landscaped with shrubs 

and vines for screening purposes The vines and shrubs would serve 

to screen the block wall enclosure as well as soften its appearance in 

the park 

7 Signage Only signage related to certifications and warnings will be 

allowed at the facility in accordance with proposed Condition 25 No 

advertising would be permitted on the facility 

8 Accessory Equipment A block wall enclosure would contain all of the 

accessory equipment for the facility The block wall enclosure would 

be partially below grade due to a sloping hillside condition of the site 

9 Required Removal Upon termination of the license agreement the 

proposed facility would be required to be removed 

10 Undergrounding All of the utilities servicing the project site would be 

located underground Utilities are proposed to run along the western 

boundary of Cedar Grove Park adjacent to the park trail 

N 

That this project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 Class 

3 Title 14 Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations Guidelines for 

the California Environmental Quality Act 

II 

The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review09 033 to install and 

operate a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a sixty five 65 foot 

tall mono cedar faux tree with nine 9 panel antennas one 1 parabolic antenna 

and its associated equipment along with a futureco location facility located within

Resolution No4163 

DR09 033 

Page 5 Cedar Grove Park located at 11385 Pioneer Road subject to the conditions 

contained within Exhibit A attached hereto 

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular 

meeting held onthe 14th day of December 2010 

JEFF R THOMPSON 

Chairperson Pro Tem 

ELIZABETH A BINSACK 

Planning Commission Secretary 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF ORANGE 


I Elizabeth A Binsack the undersigned hereby certify that I am the Planning 

Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin California that Resolution No 4163 was 

duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held 

on the 14th day of December 2010 

ELIZABETH A BINSACK 

Planning Commission Secretary

EXHIBIT A 

RESOLUTION NO 4163 


CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 

1 1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans 

for the project date stamped December 14 2010 on file with the 

Community Development Department as herein modified or as modified 

by the Community Development Director in accordance with this Exhibit 

The Director may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans 

during plan check if such modifications are consistent with provisions of the 

Tustin City Code or other applicable regulations 

1 12 All conditions in this Exhibit shall be complied with subject to review and 

approval by the Community Development Department 

1 13 Design Review approval shall remain valid for the term of the Lease 

Agreement 

or License and or Right of Way Agreement including any 

extension thereof or as 

long as the Encroachment Permit is valid Upon 

termination or 

expiration of the Lease Agreement 

or License 

Encroachment Permit Right of Way Agreement or upon the failure of 

Grantee to build the facility within 180 days of its approval the Design 

Review approval for the facility shall become null and void and the facility 

shall be removed within thirty 30 days from such termination or 

expiration Time extensions may be considered if a written request is 

received by the Community Development Department within thirty 30 days 

prior to expiration 

1 14 Approval of Design Review 09 033 is contingent upon the applicant and 

property owner signing and returning to the Community Development 

Department a notarized Agreement to Conditions Imposed form and the 

property owner signing and recording with the County Clerk Recorder a 

notarized Notice of Discretionary Permit Approval and Conditions of 

the Director of 

Approval form The forms shall be established by 

Community Development and evidence of recordation shall be provided to 

the Community Development Department 

1 15 Any violation of any of the conditions imposed is subject to the issuance of 

an administrative citation pursuant to Section 1162 a of the Tustin City 

Code 

SOURCE CODES 

1 STANDARD CONDITION 5 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS 

2 CEQA MITIGATION 6 LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES 

3 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE S 7 PC CCPOLICY 

4 DESIGN REVIEW EXCEPTIONS

Exhibit A 


Page 2 

1 16 The applicant shall agree at its sole cost and expense to defend indemnify 

and hald harmless the City its officers employees agents and consultants 

from any claim action or 

proceeding brought by a third party against the 

City its officers agents and employees which seeks to attack set aside 

challenge void or annul an approval of the City Council the Planning 

Commission or any other decision making body including staff concerning 

this project The City agrees to promptly notify the applicant of any such 

claim or action filed against the City and to fully cooperate in the defense of 

any such action The City may at its sole cost and expense elect to 

participate in defense of any such action under this condition 

1 17 The Community Development Department may review Design Review 09 

033 annually or more often to ensure that the project is in compliance with 

the conditions of approval contained herein The Community Development 

Director may initiate proceedings to amend or revoke Design Review09 033 

if the project does not comply with the conditions of approval 

1 18 The applicant shall be responsible for costs associated with any 

necessary code enforcement action including attorney fees subject to the 

applicable notice hearing and appeal process as established by the City 

Council by ordinance 

1 19 The frequencies used by the wireless facility shall not interfere with the 

Public Safety 800 MHz Countywide Coordinated Communications System 

CCCS 

number to which interference 

1 10 The applicant shall provide a 24 hour phone 

problems may be reported To ensure continuity on all interference issues 

the name telephone number fax number andamail address of a single 

point of contact in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments shall be 

provided to the City s designated representative upon activation of the 

facility 

1 11 The applicant shall ensure that a lessee or other users shall comply with the 

terms and conditions of Design review 09 033 and shall be responsible for 

the failure of any lessee or other users under the control of the applicant to 

comply 

1 12 Radio frequency emissions shall not exceed the radio frequency emission 

guidelines of the Federal Cammunications Commission FCC 

as such 

guidelines may be amended from time totime The applicant shall provide 

to the Community Development Department a pre and post installation 

test showing compliance with the guidelines established by the FCC

Exhibit A 


Page 3 

USE RESTRICTIONS 

1 21 The facility shall be limited to nine 9 panel antennas one 1 parabolic 

antenna and associated equipment All antennas shall be located as 

depicted in the approved plans and associated ground mounted equipment 

shall be located within the proposed block wall equipment enclosure 

1 2 No trees shall be relocated or removed to accommodate the project The 

applicant shall make a note to this effect on the plans In addition the 

applicant shall be responsible for replacing any trees that may become 

diseased and or die as a result of the installation and operation of the 

proposed wireless facility 

1 23 The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any required approvals or 

clearances from the applicable easement holders for work in any easement 

areas 

1 24 The structure and all related facilities shall be regularly maintained and 

inspected for safety and aesthetics by the applicant in accordance with the 

approved plans 

1 2v The equipment shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than 

certification warning or other required seals or signage 

1 26 Utilities associated with the proposed facility which are not contained 

within the proposed block wall enclosure such as but not limited to 

telecommunication and power supplies shall be located underground 

1 27 At building plan check the applicant shall submit a 

plan identifying 

hardscape landscape and other improvements that will be removed 

under the proposed plan 

1 28 Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall obtain a license 

agreement with the City The project plans shall make reference to the 

license agreement 

1 29 The applicant shall evaluate all requests forco location on the facility by 

additional carrier s and make agood faith 

determination of each such 

requesting carrier scompatibility with the applicant at this location If in 

the good faith determination of the applicant the co location is technically 

compatible then the applicant shall accommodate such additional carrier 

if applicable business terms can be successfully negotiated All requests 

forco location shall be reviewed and approved by the City and require a 

separate license agreement

Exhibit A 


Page 4 

1 210 The applicant shall file the accessory equipment identification number 

company name person responsible for maintenance of the accessory 

equipment and the phone number with the Public Works Department 

1 211 Aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed or treated with 

appropriate materials which discourage or repel graffiti and the applicant 

shall be responsible for removing graffiti from accessory equipment within 

forty eight 48 hours The applicant shall be responsible for costs 

associated with any necessary enforcement action related to graffiti 

removal 

1 212 Any removal of landscaping necessary to install the aboveground 

accessory equipment shall be replaced with landscaping materials similar 

in number type and size as approved by the Directors of Community 

Development and Public Works 

1 213 The aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed of a material 

that will be rust resistantie stainless steel etc The utility provider 

shall be responsible for treating any rust by either repainting or any other 

method recommended by the manufacturer that eliminates the rust 

1 214 Prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall post a bond with the 

City to ensure that facility is built to the specifications and design as 

represented in the approved Design Review and building plans Final 

design and materials are subject to review and approval by the City 

NOISE 

1 31 All construction operations including engine warm up delivery and 

unloading of equipment and materials shall be subject to the 

provisions of the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance as amended and may take 

place only during the hours of700am until600 pm Monday through 

Friday and900am until500 pm on Saturday unless the Building Official 

determines that said activity will be in substantial conformance with the 

Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not be impaired 

subject to application being made at the time the permit for the work is 

awarded or during progress ofthe work 

1 32 Noise emanating from the equipment if any shall not exceed the City s 

Noise Ordinance 

BUILDING DIVISION 

1 41 At the time of building permit application the plans shall comply with the 

latest edition of the codes City Ordinances State Federal laws and 

regulations as adopted by the City Council of the City ofTustin

Exhibit A 


Page 5 

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 

1 51 Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling and Reduction Plan 

WRRP 

A 

Theapplicant contractor is required to submit a WRRP to the Public 

Works Department The WRRP must indicate how the applicant 

will comply with the City srequirement City Code Section 4351 et 

al to recycle at least 50 percent of the project waste material 

B The applicant will be required to submit a 50 00 application fee 

and a cash security deposit Based on the review of the submitted 

Waste Management Plan the cash security deposit will be 

determined by the Public Works Department in an amount not to 

exceed 5 percent of the project s valuation 

C 

Prior to issuance of a any permit the applicant shall submit the 

required security deposit in the form of cash cashier 

check 

personal check or money order made payable to the City of 

Tustin 

1 52 Prior to any work in the publicright of way within Cedar Grove Park and 

within any public streets an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from 

and applicable fees paid to the Public Works Department 

1 53 Prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit for construction within the 

public right of way a 24 x 36 construction area traffic control plan as 

prepared by a California Registered Traffic Engineer 

or Civil Engineer 

experienced in this type of plan preparation shall be prepared and 

submitted to the Public Works Department for approval 

1 54 Any damage done to existing landscape irrigation pedestrian walkways 

parking and or utilities shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Director 

of Parks and Recreation and the City Engineer 

ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY OCFA 

5 61 Special Equipment and Systems Prior to the issuance of a building 

permit the applicant shall submit to the Fire Chief a 

plan for review and 

approval of the lead acid battery system The plans shall be in 

accordance with Chapter 6 Section 608 of the 2007 California Fire Code 

The applicant may contact the OCFA at 714 573 6100 or visit the OCFA 

website to obtain a copy of the Guidelines for Completing Chemical 

Classification Packets

Exhibit A 


Page 6 

FEES 

1 71 Prior to issuance of any building permits payment shall be made of all 

applicable fees including but not limited to the following Payments shall 

be required based upon those rates in effect at the time of payment and 

are 

subject to change 

a All applicable Building and Planning plan check and permit fees and 

Orange County Fire Authority fees shall be paid to the Community 

Development Department 

b Within forty eight 48 hours of approval of the subject project the 

applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department 

a 

CASHIER 

CHECK payable to the County Clerk in the amount of 

fifty dollars 50 00 to enable the City to file the appropriate 

environmental documentation for the project If within such forty eight 

48 hour period the applicant has not delivered to the Community 

Development Department the above noted check the statute of 

limitations for any interested party to challenge the environmental 

determination under the provisions of the California Environmental 

Quality Act could be significantly lengthened

ATTACHMENT G 

Tustin City Code 7262 

Resolution No01 95

Municode Page 1 of2 

PART 6 DESIGN REVIEW OF ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FACILITIES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT 

OF WAY 

7260 PURPOSE AND FINDINGS 

7261 LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRED 

7262 DESIGN REVIEWRE IUIREU 

7263 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 

7264 DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS 

7265 APPEALS 

7266TF 

RMIAGANDONMENT 

7260 PURPOSE AND FINDINGS 

The purpose 

of this Part 6 is to maintain asafe and aesthetically pleasing environment in the publicright of way and on 

City owned properties by regulating the location color screening and other aspectsof aboveground utility facilities 

Aboveground utility facilitiescome in a variety offorms that include but are nat limited to cables wires conduits ducts 

pedestals and antennae to transmit receive distribute provide or offer utility services Their accessary equipment typically is 

contained in enclosures cabinets artificial rocks or boxes to house a variety of uses such as controls for signals electronics 

and wiring for cabletelevision and telecamrTlunications or power sources Often these facilities are located aboveground on 

existing structures such as utility or light poles and have the tendency to proliferate to ensure user coverage Such proliferation 

can result in visual clutter blocking visibility to signs and other structures preventing accessfor the disabled distracting 

motorists travelling along the right of way and creating noise 

Reasonable regulations for locating the aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment are necessary to 

promote the health and aesthetic welfare of the people ofTustin Reasonable compensation for permitting private use of public 

property and the publicright of way is also necessary to offset theright of way maintenance costs 

Ord No 7232 Sec 212301 

7261 LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRED 

No person shall place construct install own control operate manage maintain or use any aboveground utility facilities 

and their accessory equipment in above beneath or across any publicproperty exclusive of the publicright of way without 

first obtaining a Lease Agreement or License in accordance with the Design Guidelines Franchises and Right of Way 

Agreements for telecommunication facilitiesin the publicright of way are governed by State and Federal regulations and 

pertinent provisions ofChapter 7 of Article 7 ofthe Tustin City Code 

Ord No 1232 Sec 212301 

7262 DESIGN REVIEW REQUIRED 

No person shall place construct install awn control operate manage maintain or use any aboveground utility facilities 

and their accessory equipment without compliance with the Design Review requirements in Tustin City Code Section 9272 and 

with this Part6 This requirement applies to existing and future franchiseesand any other person who wishes to locate 

replacement or new aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment on public property and in the publicright of 

way Aboveground utility facilities located within Redevelopment Project areas shall beconsistent with the respective 

redevelopment plans No Design Review approvals or any permits can be issued unless the Redevelopment Agency can make 

a finding of conformity 

Existing aboveground utility facilities and accessory equipment installed prior to the effective date ofthis ordinance shall 

not be subject to this requirement 

Ord No 1232 Sec 212307 

librarv municode cam urint aspx clientID 11307 

HTMRequest http 3a 2fro o2flibrary 

l 209 2010

Municode 


7263 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 

An appficant shall submit a plan ofthe proposed location of all aboveground utility facilities including their accessory 

equipment located in cabinets enclosures or boxes to the Director ofCommunity Development Director Information shall 

also be provided as to the dimensions proposed colors screening materials noise levels andwhether there will be 

interferencewith the public radio system anticipated The applicant shall pay afee to cover the anticipated staff time to review 

and process the application as established by the City Council for a Design Review application 

Ord No 1232 Sec272307 

7264 DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS 

Upon the application being found complete by the Director or designee the Director or designee shall review the plan 

the Plan using the criteria set forth in the Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the 

Public Right of way adopted by resolution of the City Council If the utility facilities are to be located within redevelopment areas 

then a finding of conformity by the Redevelopment Agency would need to be made prior to the Director sconsideration of the 

Design Review The Director may conditionally approve or deny the application Amendments to the Plan shall bereviewed and 

approved by the Director concurrent with or prior to issuance ofan Encroachment Permit Lease Agreement or License as 

provided for in the Design Guidelines or Right of Way Agreement as defined in Chapter 7 ofArticle 7 ofthe Tustin City Code 

The aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment must be installed pursuant to the approved Plan The noise 

generated from theaboveground utility facilities including their accessory equipment shall comply with the City s noise 

regulations 

Ord No 7232 Sec 27230 

7265 APPEALS 

Any person may appeal any decision ofthe Director in accordance with Section 9294 of this Code 

Ord No 7232 Sec 272307Ord No 736Sec 7617 1T 09 

7266 TERMIABANDONMENT 

a An aboveground utility facility is considered abandoned if it no longer provides service Ifthe use of the facility is 

discontinued for any reason the operator shall notify the Gity of Tustin in writing no later than thirty 30 days after the 

discontinuation of use If no notification is provided to the City the facility shall be deemed discontinued 

b Aboveground utility facilities including their accessory equipment that are no longer being used shall be removed 

promptly nolater than ninety 90 days after the discontinuation of use Such removal shall be in accordance with proper 

health and safety requirements All affected areas shall be restored to their original condition at the operator s expense 

c The Design Review approval shall remain valid for the term of the Lease Agreement License Right of Way Agreement 

or as long as the Encroachment Permit is valid If the Lease Agreement License Right of Way Agreement or 

Encroachment Permit is terminated notice and evidence thereof shall be provided to the Director Upon termination or 

expiration of the Lease Agreement License Right of Way Agreement or Encroachment Permit the aboveground utility 

facilities including their accessory equipment shall be removed from the public property orthe publicright of way 

Ord No 7232 Sec 272307 

hitpa library municode coin print aspx clientID 11307 

HTMRequest http 1o3a 2I 2llibt 

inunic 12 092110

RESOLUTION NO 01 95 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNGIL OF THE 

CITY OF TUSTIN CALIFORNIA AMENDING 

RESOLUTION NO 99 84 BY ADOPTING DESIGN 

GUIDELINES FOR ABOVEGROUND UTILITY 

FACILITIES AND THEIR ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT 

ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IN THE PUBLIC 

RIGHT OF WAY 

The City Council of the City ofTustin does hereby resolve as follows 

The City Council finds and determines as follows 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

That telephone Internet cable and personal wireless telephone 

cellular servicing the City are expanding and upgrading their 

services and will require installation of additional equipment such as 

aboveground accessory equipment antennas attached to utility 

poles street light poles or other structures on public properties or in 

the publicright of way 

On December 6 1999 the City Council adopted the Aboveground 

Cabinets Design Guidelines These guidelines regulate 

aboveground cabinets for power supply equipment within the public 

right of way These guidelines do not regulate utility facilities 

located aboveground such as antennas attached to utility poles 

street light poles utility towers or other structures within the public 

right of way 

Currently there are no guidelines in place for aboveground utility 

facil ies on public properties such as parks community facilities or 

othiCity owned properties New comprehensive guidelines are 

needed to establish design criteria prior to installation of 

aboveground utility facilities on public properties or in 

right of way 

the public 

That guidelines and development standards are needed to promote 

and protect the public health safety and general welfare and 

preserve and enhance the quality of the City relating to the orderly 

development of aboveground utility facilities and their accessory 

equipment 

That a 

public hearing was duly called noticed and held by the 

Planning Commission on September 10 2001 and the Planning

Resolution No01 95 

Page 2 

Commission recommended approval of the Design Guidelines for 

Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and in the Public 

Right of Way and Ordinance No 1232 

F 

That a public hearing was duly called noticed and held by the City 

Council on October 1 2001 and continued to October 15 2001 

November 5 2001 and November 19 2001 

In adopting the Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public 

Property and in the Public Right of Way the City Council finds and 

determines 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

That the guidelines provide standards that mitigate impacts typically 

associated with installation of aboveground utility facilities and their 

accessory equipment on public property and in the public right of 

way including measures to reduce their visual impact 

That due to the potential forover 

concentration and proliferation of 

aboveground utility facilities particularly in residential neighborhoods 

where these facilities are highly visible and thus may impact the 

visual character of the neighborhood the criteria established in the 

guidelines are necessary to promote the welfare of the community 

That the guidelines require approval of an Encroachment Permit 

andlor Design Review process which would ensure that 

aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment are 

developed in an orderly manner with respect to location size and 

screening 

Traffic signal controller cabinets are exempted because they are 

different in nature and function and provide essential services The 

traffic signal control cabinets by nature must be located where 

traffic can be controlled at intersections Irrigation controller 

cabinets are also exempted because they must be located in close 

proximity to available power sources 

That street light poles being used solely to provide illumination are 

exempted because the nature of the service they provide must be 

located aboveground and that they provide essential services for 

the safety of motorists and pedestrians 

F That fair and reasonable compensation shall be secured for 

permitting private use of public properties by utility providers

Resolution No01 95 

Page 3 G That it is appropriate for the City Manager on behalf of the City 

Council to accept discretionary applications for use of public 

properties andfor publicright of way 

H 

That the Director of Community Development should be authorized to 

approve approve with conditions or deny the Design Review 

application in accordance with the Design Guidelines adopted herein 

For projects located within redevelopment project areas the 

Redevelopment Agency shall make a finding of conformity to the 

respective redevelopment plans concurrently or prior to consideration 

of the Design Review application No Design Review approvals shall 

be granted without a finding of conformity by the Redevelopment 

Agency 

A Final Negative Declaration has been prepared and adopted in 

accordance with the provisions 

Quality Act CEQA 

of the California Environmental 

III The City Council hereby amends Resolution No 99 84 by adopting the 

Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility Facilities on Public Properties and 

in the Public Right of Way attached hereto as Exhibit A to be followed 

when considering an Encroachment Permit and or Design Review 

application for the installation of aboveground utility facilities and their 

accessory equipment on public properties and in the publicright of way 

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 

19t day of November 2001 

Tracy Wil 

Mayor 

r 

Orley 

Pamela Stoker 

City Clerk

Exhibit A of Resolution No 01 95 

Facilities onPublic 

Design Guidelines for Aboveground Utility 

Properties and in the Public Right of way

EXHIBIT A 

DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR 

ABOVEGROUND UTILITY FACILITIES 

ON PUBLIC PROPERTIES AND IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY 

SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND INTENT 

The purpose of these guidelines is to implement Part 6 of Chapter 2 of Article 7 of the 

Tustin City Code Ordinance No 1232 and regulate the placement and design of 

aboveground utility facilities and their accessory equipment in conjunction with any City 

permitted use of public properties and publicright of ways 

These guidelines are intended to protect the health safety aesthetics and welfare and 

secure fair and reasonable compensation for permitting private use of public property 

SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS 

For purposes of these guidelines the following words and phrases shall have the following 

meanings unless the context of the sentence in which they are used indicates otherwise 

Aboveground Accessory Equipment or Accessory Equipment means any aboveground 

equipment located in enclosures cabinets artificial rocks boxes or other structures to 

facilitate the operation of their associated utility facilities 

Aboveground Utility Facility or Utility Facilities means any aboveground public or private 

plant equipment and property including but not limited to cables wires conduits ducts 

pedestals antennae utility poles 

utility towers or other structures and 

their supports electronics and other appurtenances used or to be used to transmit 

receive distribute provide or offer utility services This does not include street light poles 

being used solely for providing illumination but includes facilities 6F such as personal 

wireless services as defined in the Telecommunication Act of 1996 47USC 332 c7 

City means the City of Tustin 

Council means the City Council of the City ofTustin 

Co location means the locating of more than one aboveground utility facility provider on a 

single structure mountedroof mountedorground 

utility facility 

Director means the Community Development Director of the City of Tustin 

Grantee means a person who has been granted a Lease Agreement or License pursuant 

to this policy and guidelines 

Interference means any instances of interference with public safety radio equipment 

preventing clear radio reception which includes but is not limited to static unwanted 

signal and distortion of sounds or reception

Exhibit A of Resolution No01 95 

Page 2 

Lease Agreement or License means a contract agreement between the City and a 

person pursuant to this policy and guidelines The contract may be in the form of a 

lease if the City owns a fee interest in the property or in the form of a license if the City 

has a leasehold interest in the property 

Modification means an alteration of an 

existing utility facility that changes its size 

location shape or color This is not intended to include replacement of a facility with an 

identical facility or the repair of the facility 

Person means and includes but is not limited to corporations companies or 

associations firms partnerships limited liability companies and individuals and includes 

their lessors trustees receivers and successors in interest 

Public property means any property in which the City of Tustin and or the City s 

Redevelopment Agency holds a legal interest except the publicright of way 

Public right of way means and includes all public streets sidewalks and utility 

easements now or hereafter owned in fee or easement by the City 

Public Works Director means the Director of Public Works ofthe City 

Right of way Agreement means a contract granted to a person pursuant to Chapter 7 of 

Article 7 of the Tustin City Code as follows 1 a license in the case of a 

telecommunications provider that will not serve areas or persons within the City or 2 a 

franchise in the case of a telecommunications provider that will serve areas or persons 

within the City as it may be amended 

Stealth Facility means any aboveground utility facility which is disguised to appear as 

another natural or artificial man made objects such as trees clock towers score boards 

etc that are prevalent in the surrounding environment ar which are architecturally 

integrated into buildings or other concealing structures 

Utility Provider means and includes any person that proposes to or does own control 

operate or manage plant equipment or any other facility on public property or in the 

publicright of way for the provision of an 

utility service 

Utility Service means and includes any electrical gas heat water telephone pipeline 

sewer or telegraph services or commodity where the service is performed for or the 

commodity delivered to the public or any portion thereof 

SECTION 3 APPLICABILITY 

These guidelines regulate the installation of new and replacement aboveground utility 

facilities and their accessory equipment on public properties or in the public right of 

way


Page 3 

SECTION 4 PROCESS 

41 Application Process 

The City Manager or designee may accept a discretionary application for use of 

public property and or public right of way for aboveground utility facilities and 

process the application in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 9272 related 

to the Design Review process At the City Manager ssole discretion a request 

to submit an application may be denied Authorization to submit an 

application 

does not commit the City to approve the proposed use 

Upon the application being found complete by the Community Development 

Director Director or designee using the criteria set forth in these guidelines 

and Tustin City Code Section 9272 the Director may approve conditionally 

approve or deny the application The Director reserves the right to or if required 

will forward any application to the Planning Commission and or City Council for 

consideration and action 

For projects located within redevelopment project areas a finding of conformity 

to the respective redevelopment plans shall be made concurrently or prior to 

consideration of the Design Review application No approvals shall be granted 

unless the Redevelopment Agency can make a finding of conformity 

Upon the approval of the application the Grantee shall obtain all applicable 

permits prior to installation of the aboveground utility facilities and their accessory 

equipment including but not limited to Lease License Right of Way Agreement 

under Chapter 7 of Article 7 of the Tustin City Code electrical permit building 

permit Encroachment Permit owner authorization and other required permits by 

the City or any other agencies such as Federal Aviation Administration FAA 

Federal Communication Commission FCC Public Utility Commission PUC or 

other County State or Federal agencies However existing franchises or 

agreements need not be reconsidered by the City Council unless the franchise 

agreement requires such consideration 

42 Design Review 

a Design Review approval in accordance with Tustin City Code Section 

9272 shall be required prior to the placement construction installation 

operation establishment or modification of any aboveground utility 

facilities on public property and in the publicright of way 

b 

c 

A Design Review application shall be accompanied with a statement to 

indicate that the utility facilities will not interfere with the public safety radio 

equipment If interference occurs after the installation the utility providers 

shall take immediate action to eliminate the interterence and pay all 

associated fees for compliance 

Design Review approval shall remain valid for the term of the Lease 

Agreement 

or License and or Right of Way Agreement including any


Page 4 

extension thereof or as long as the Encroachment Permit is valid Upon 

kermination or expiration of the Lease Agreement or License 

Encroachment Permit Right of Way Agreement or upon the failure of 

Grantee to build the facility within 180 days of its approval the Design 

Review approval for the facility shall become null and void and the facility 

shall be removed within thirty 30 days from such termination or 

expiration 

d 

e 

Design Review approval for aboveground accessory equipment associated 

with the operation of the utility facilities shall be considered in accordance 

with the process and criteria as outlined in Section 7 of these guidelines 

In addition to the information requested in the Development Application 

Form the following items shall be required for an aboveground utility 

facility 

A statement providing the reason for the location design and 

height of the proposed aboveground utility facilities 

Evidence satisfactory to the City demonstrating location or co 

location is infeasible on existing structures light 

or utilities 

poles towers and existing sites for reasons of structural support 

capabilities safety available space or failing to meet service 

coverage area needs 

3 A photo simulation of the proposed aboveground utility facility in 

true scale 

4 A site plan showing the locations of all proposed and existing 

aboveground utility facilities 

5 A screening plan showing the specific placement of landscaping or 

any other proposed screening materials to be used to screen the 

aboveground utility facilities including the proposed color sand 

to allow for co 

6 A signed statement that the applicant agrees 

location of additional aboveground utility facilities on the same 

structures or within the same site location or whether such co 

loration is infeasible and the reasons for such infeasibility 

Comprehensive Manual for Aboveground Utility Facilities 

A comprehensive manual may be submitted in lieu of a Design 

Review application for new or 

replacement aboveground utility 

facilities that meet each of the requirements of Section 5 of the 

Design Guidelines The manual shall contain sufficient information 

to verify compliance with Section 5 When a 

project is located 

within a redevelopment project area the comprehensive manual 

submitted to the Community Development Department shall be


Page 5 

routed to the Redevelopment Agency for a 

finding of conformity to 

the respective redevelopment plan Upon approval of the 

comprehensive manual the applicant shall comply with Section 41 

with respect to obtaining applicable permits 

2 Installation of subsequent aboveground utility facilities in 

accordance with an approved comprehensive manual shall not be 

subject to a new Design Review process 

SECTION 5 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 

Aboveground utility facilities on 

public property and in the public right of way shall be 

placed in accordance with criteria listed below Aboveground accessory equipment located 

inside cabinets enclosures artificial rocks boxes or other structures shall be subject to 

criteria listed in Section 7 of these guidelines 

The following criteria shall apply 

a 

Location Aboveground utility facilities on public property and in the public right of 

way shall be placed in locations where there is little or no interference with public 

use of the properties and the rights or reasonab econvenience of property owners 

who adjoin the properties 

b Stealth Facility Except for street light poles being used solely for providing 

illumination all other aboveground utility facilities shall be designed as stealth 

facilities with concealed antennas to be placed within on or attached to existing 

structures such as buildings utility poles light poles utility towers freestanding 

signs score boards towers or fencing and shall blend into the surrounding 

environment or be architecturally integrated 

c 

Co location Aboveground utility facilities shall be co located with existing 

aboveground utility facilities where possible Whenever any existing utility facilities 

are located underground within the public right of way the utility providers with 

permission to occupy the same public right of way shall co locate their utility 

facilities underground 

d Colors Any part of aboveground utility facilities visible to public view shall have 

subdued colors andnon reflective materials which blend with surrounding materials 

and colors and shall be covered with an anti graffitimaterial when appropriate 

e Screening For building or structure mounted facilities screening 

compatible with the existing architecture color texture and 

building or structure 

shall be 

or materials of the 

f 

Landscaping When landscape screening is proposed or required the landscaping 

shall be compatible with the surrounding landscape area and shall be a type and 

variety capable of screening the aboveground utility facilities All landscaping areas 

shall be adequately maintained which includes but is not limited to trimming


Page 6 mowing weeding removal of litter fertilizing regular watering and replacement of 

diseased or dead plants 

g 

h 

Signs Any signs attached to aboveground utility facilities shall comply with the City 

of Tustin Sign Code 

Accessory Equipment Accessory equipment associated with the operation of the 

utility facilities shall be designed located and be made part of the structuresie as 

part of the base or 

support structure or be located within buildings enclosures or 

cabinets in accordance with Section 7 ofthese guidelines 

Required Removal The City in accordance with the Lease Agreement or License 

Right of Way Agreement or Encroachment Permit as applicable reserves the 

right to require the removal or relocation of any aboveground utility facility when 

determined to be necessary to protect public health safety and welfare by giving 

ninety 90 days notice 

Undergrounding The City reserves the right to require that all utility facilities 

including their accessory equipment be placed underground when technologically 

feasible 

SECTION 6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 

Development standards including height limits for any aboveground utility facility on 

public property and in the public right of way shall be determined pursuant to the 

Design Review process 

SECTION 7 ABOVEGROUND ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT 

Aboveground accessory equipment for aboveground utility facilities located inside 

cabinets enclosures artificial rocks boxes or other structures shall be subject to the 

following criteria 

71 Process 

a 

Replacement Aboveground Accessory Equipment that are the Same Size 

as Existing Aboveground Accessory Equipment 

Installation of replacement aboveground accessory equipment shall be 

approved in conjunction with issuance of an Encroachment Permit 

provided the replacement aboveground accessory equipment is the same 

size or smaller than the existing aboveground accessory equipment and 

the aboveground accessory equipment complies with the height 

requirements set forth in Section 73 herein 

New Aboveground Accessory Equipment or Replacement Aboveground 

Accessory Equipment that are 

Larger than Existing Aboveground 

Accessory Equipment


Page 7 

Installation of new 

aboveground accessory equipment or replacement 

aboveground accessory equipment that are 

larger than the existing 

aboveground accessory equipment may be approved in conjunction with 

issuance of a concurrent Encroachment Permit Design Review 

application provided that each the following requirements are met 

No aboveground accessory equipment may be located adjacent to 

a 

front yard area of a 

residentially zoned or used property 

2 The aboveground accessory equipment complies with the height 

requirements set forth in Section73 herein 

3 The aboveground accessory equipment complies with the 

requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

4 No aboveground accessory equipment may be located in an area 

that obstructs line of sight at an intersection driveway or alley 

Comprehensive Manual in Lieu of a 

Design Review 

A comprehensive manual may be submitted in lieu of a Design 

Review application for new or replacement aboveground accessory 

equipment that meets each of the requirements of Section 71 b 

above The manual shall contain sufficient information to verify 

compliance with the above requirements such as 

type and size of 

the proposed aboveground accessory equipment When a project 

is located within redevelopment project areas the comprehensive 

manual submitted to the Community Development Department 

shall tae routed to the Redevelopment Agency for finding of 

conformity to the respective redevelopment plans Upon approval 

of the comprehensive manual the applicant shall obtain an 

Encroachment Permit The Community Development and Public 

Works Departments shall review the Encroachment Permit 

application 

2 Installation of aboveground accessory equipment in accordance 

with an approved comprehensive manual shall not be subject to a 

Design Review process 

New Aboveground Accessory Equipment or Replacement Aboveground 

Accessory Equipment that cannot comply with Requirements for 

Concurrent EncroachmentPermit Design Review Section71b 

Installation of new aboveground accessory equipment or replacement 

aboveground accessory equipment that are larger than the existing 

aboveground accessory equipment and cannot comply with the 

requirements for a concurrent Encroachment PermitlDesign Review 

Section 71b require a Design Review prior to issuance of 

Encroachment Permits

Exhibit A ofResolution No 01 95 

Page 8 e 

System Upgrades 

System upgrades which require substantial installation of new and 

replacement aboveground accessory equipment shall require Design 

Review approval prior to issuance of Encroachment Permits when Design 

Review is required by these guidelines A comprehensive Master Plan 

depicting the locations of all new and replacement aboveground 

accessory equipment shall be submitted concurrently with the Design 

Review application 

72 Development Guidelines 

Location size and screening of proposed aboveground accessory equipment 

will be considered by the Community Development Department in accordance 

with the following criteria 

a 

Location 

Whenever feasible accessory equipment should be installed 

underground If it is not technologically feasible to install accessory 

equipment underground the utility provider shall submit a letter of 

explanation regarding the hardship associated with or infeasibility of 

underground installation One letter may be included in the 

comprehensive manual described in Section 71c for all proposed 

accessory equipment within the manual 

2 When underground installation is not feasible the following order of 

preference shall be considered for aboveground installation of 

accessory equipment of any size 

a 

Aboveground accessory equipment should be designed as 

stealth facility 

b Aboveground accessory equipment should be located 

adjacent tonon residential properties in an area where no 

modification to the existing right of way would be required 

and existing landscaping is present to screen the accessory 

equipment 

c Aboveground accessory equipment should be located 

adjacent to side or rear yards of residential properties 

preferably on major streets where no modification to the 

existing right of way would be required and existing 

landscaping is present to screen the accessory equipment 

Aboveground accessory equipment should be located as 

closely as possible to the shared property line between the


Page 9 

front yards of residential properties where no sight distance 

from driveways would be obstructed 

3 Consideration shall be given to the number of existing aboveground 

accessory equipment within a particular 

area and over 

concentration of aboveground accessory equipment shah be 

avoided Over 

concentration is defined as more than one 

1 

aboveground accessory equipment installed adjacent to the same 

side of a 

property If a sufficient distance separation is not 

technologically feasible 

Aboveground accessory equipment shall be located as far 

as possible from existing aboveground accessory 

equipment and 

The accessory equipment owner installer shall submit a 

letter of explanation regarding the hardship associated with 

or unfeasibility of installing the aboveground accessory 

equipment at a sufficient distance from existing aboveground 

accessory equipment 

4 Aboveground accessory equipment located in parkway areas 

should be located at the same distance from the curb as other 

aboveground accessory equipment along the parkway to create a 

uniform setback distance and appearance 

Aboveground accessory equipment 

shall not 

Obstruct line of sight requirements 

driveways 

at intersections or 

Obstruct or hinder opening of vehicle doors 

c 

Obstruct disabled access 

along public sidewalks to the 

extent that a minimum of four 4 feet clear sidewalk would 

not be maintained 

Interfere with any existing or proposed improvement 

projects 

73 Height 

The height of any replacement aboveground accessory equipment that 

to be 

are larger than existing or new aboveground accessory equipment 

located adjacent to the front side or rear yards of residentially zoned 

properties may not exceed the permitted height of fencing as determined 

at the property line in residentially zoned areas


Page 10 

b 

The height of any replacement aboveground accessory equipment that 

are larger than existing or new aboveground accessory equipment located 

innon residential areas will be considered on a by case basis 

74 Screening 

a 

In residentially zoned areas aboveground accessory equipment shall be 

enclosed or screened to match or complement surrounding features such 

as fencing buildings or landscaping The use of a matching accessory 

equipment color or applied paint texturing or faux finishing or other 

techniques shall be applied in accordance with manufacturer 

recommendations 

b The use of crash posts is discouraged However if shown to be 

necessary the exterior finish of the crash post should be painted the color 

of the aboveground accessory equipment 

c 

Access openings shall face away from street frontages whenever feasible 

75 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 

a Noise emanating from aboveground accessory equipment shall not 

exceed the City sadopted Noise Ordinance standards 

b The accessory equipment owner company shall file the accessory 

equipment identification number company name person responsible for 

maintenance of the accessory equipment and the phone number with the 

Public Works Department This information may be included in the 

comprehensive manual described in Section71c of these guidelines 

c The aboveground accessory equipment shall not bear any signs of 

advertising devices other than certification warning or other required 

seals or signage 

d 

Aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed or treated with 

appropriate materials which discourage or repel graffiti and the accessory 

equipment owner shall be responsible for removing graffiti from accessory 

equipment within forty eight 48 hours Accessory equipment 

owners 

shall be responsible for costs associated with any necessary enforcement 

action related to 

graffiti removal 

e Any removal of landscaping necessary to install the aboveground 

accessory equipment shall be replaced with landscaping materials similar 

in number type and size as approved by the Directors of Community 

Development and Public Works Landscape materials located in a 

public 

parkway shall be maintained by the adjacent property 

owner and 

landscape materials located on public properties or in the public right of 

way shall be maintained by the City unless provided for in a Lease or 

License Agreement and or Right of way Agreement


Page 11 

The utility provider or accessory equipment installing entity shall be 

responsible for reconstruction ofin kind facilities within the public right of 

way that are damaged or modified during installation of aboveground 

accessory equipment 

Prior to installation the utility provider shall provide notification to adjacent 

property owners within a one hundred 100 foot radius indicating the type 

location and size of aboveground accessory equipment that will be 

installed and the estimated start and ending dates of construction 

The aboveground accessory equipment shall be constructed of a material 

that will be rust resistantie stainless steel etc The utility provider 

shall be responsible for treating any rust by either repainting or any other 

method recommended by the manufacturer that eliminates the rust 

SECTION 8 ABANDONMENT 

An aboveground utility facility and or its accessory equipment is considered abandoned 

if it is no longer in service or is in default pursuant to default provisions in any Lease 

Agreement License Right of Way Agreement or any other applicable agreements or 

licenses A written notice of the determination of abandonment by the City shall be sent 

or delivered to the Grantee The Grantee shall have ninety 90 days to remove the 

facility at the Grantee ssole cost and expense or provide the Community Development 

Department with evidence that the use has not been discontinued Such removal shall 

be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements 

If the use of the aboveground utility facility and or its accessory equipment is 

discontinued for any reason the Grantee shall notify the City of Tustin in writing no later 

than thirty 30 days after the discontinuation of use Aboveground utility facilities and 

their accessory equipment that are no longer being used shall be removed within ninety 

90 days after the discontinuation of use Such removal shall be in accordance with 

health and safety requirements All disturbed areas shall be restored to original 

conditions at the Grantee sexpense 

If the facility is not removed within the required ninety 90 day period the City shall be 

entitled to remove the facility at the Grantee ssole cost and expense The Grantee 

shall execute such documents of title to convey all right title and interest in the 

abandoned aboveground utility facility and its accessory equipment to the City 

SECTION 9 LEASE AGREEMENT OR LICENSE 

All persons wishing to construct attach install operate maintain or modify a 

aboveground utility facility and its accessory equipment on public property exclusive ofthe 

public right of way in which the City has ownership easement leasehold or any other 

possessory interest after approval of a Design Review application shall obtain a Lease 

Agreement or License and any other approval required under these guidelines A Lease 

Agreement or License shall be subject to approval of the City Attorney s office and the 

City Manager soffice as to the specific terms and conditions required

City ofTustin 

RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

COUNTY OF ORANGE 


SS 

RESOLUTION NO 01 95 

I PAMELA STOKER City Clerk and ex officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of 

Tustin California hereby certifies that the whole number of the members of the City 

Council ofthe City of Tustin is five and that the above and foregoing Resolution No 01 

95 was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19h day of 

November 2001 by the following vote 

COUNCILMEMBER AYES 

COUNCILMEMBER NOES 

Worley Thomas Bone Doyle Kawashima 

None 

COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED None 

COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT None 

Q 

Pamela Stoker City Clerk

Report - City of Tustin

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?