Report - City of Tustin
Report - City of Tustin Report - City of Tustin
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
- Page 23 and 24: Exhibit 1 Alternate locations map f
- Page 25 and 26: 0 z W v o N w v c 1 R NN j t a Mr a
- Page 27 and 28: I I I I W I o r J o Z W Q W e w y I
- Page 29 and 30: f i j t i r l r I f I I i l a 3 I j
- Page 31 and 32: I t 9 i I i a O to f E1e F c y us 1
- Page 33 and 34: M j i i i i I I I i i i t 1 i I i i
- Page 35 and 36: cw I I I J i i N ijy I I 5 1 S F I
- Page 37 and 38: t r i J i i r i I E W g b N O Q r t
- Page 39 and 40: O O Le O Q L Q N V 1 L 3 gin e 0 H
- Page 41 and 42: N i N LL V Q N H G i w
- Page 43 and 44: Ms Monica Moretta August 11 2010 Pa
- Page 45 and 46: Dear Mr Swiontek October 20 2010 Th
- Page 47 and 48: Letters of Support
- Page 49 and 50: Swiontek Ryan From Sent To Cc Subje
- Page 51 and 52: Swiontek Ryan From Sent To Subject
- Page 53 and 54: Letters of Opposition
- Page 55 and 56: Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Par
- Page 57 and 58: Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Par
- Page 59 and 60: Swiontek Ryan From Jennifer Wierks
- Page 61 and 62: Cell Towers continuously emit RF EM
- Page 63 and 64: Tustin CA 92782 715 573 9938 skomoC
- Page 65 and 66: 2 Playground equipment and picnic a
- Page 67 and 68: F 4 the costly and imported eucalyp
- Page 69 and 70: 6 5 The City Retains Power to Deny
- Page 71 and 72: J inATWireless PCS v Ciry Council o
- Page 73: Page X10 Thus residents are justifi
- Page 77 and 78: Pa X14 Good and Excellent Copies of
- Page 79 and 80: Pgc l6 will create anxiety stress w
- Page 81 and 82: Exhibit 1 Petition to Protect Cedar
- Page 83 and 84: Number Name Email Comments Address
- Page 85 and 86: 98 Mitch King kingimC yahoo com 99
- Page 87 and 88: 194 MARGARET BURNETT Completely NOT
- Page 89 and 90: 284 Junia Martinson 285 Ann Lew 266
- Page 91 and 92: 363 Al 8eerdsen 364 Tanya Zaverl No
- Page 93 and 94: 422 jacklyn huang stop the tower 42
- Page 95 and 96: Number Name Email Comments Your Zip
- Page 98 and 99: Panned Out View Data Coverage is Re
- Page 100 and 101: ATTACHMENT E Information Pertaining
- Page 102 and 103: The City also maintains control ave
- Page 104 and 105: in keeping with the majority of the
- Page 106 and 107: Htunan Exposure To Radio Frequency
- Page 108 and 109: WHQ Electromagnetic fields anti pub
- Page 110 and 111: 112010 WHO Electromagnetic fields a
- Page 112 and 113: 112010 WI 10 Electromagnetic fields
- Page 114 and 115: RESOLUTION NO 4163 A RESOLUTION OF
- Page 116 and 117: Resolution No 4163 DR09 033 Page 3
- Page 118 and 119: Resolution No4163 DR09 033 Page 5 C
- Page 120 and 121: Exhibit A Resolution No 4163 Page 2
- Page 122 and 123: Exhibit A Resolution No 4163 Page 4
Page tI<br />
received letters from real estate companies homeowner associations andresident organizations in their community<br />
contirnling that real estate values would decrease with a cell phone antennain their neighborhood To see copies <strong>of</strong><br />
their letters to city <strong>of</strong>ficials look at the <strong>Report</strong> from Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission regarding<br />
CUP Case No2007000202 fromLA County Board <strong>of</strong> Supervisors September 16 2009 Meeting documents<br />
Los Angeles County website here athttp<br />
file lacounty ov bos sundocs 48444 df<br />
a See page 295 August31 2008 Letter from Donna Bohanna President Realtor<strong>of</strong>Solstice<br />
International Realty and resident <strong>of</strong>Baldwin Hills to Los Angeles Board <strong>of</strong> Supervisors explaining<br />
negative effect <strong>of</strong>cell tower on property values<strong>of</strong> surrounding properties As a realtor l must disclose to<br />
potential buyers where thereare any cell towers nearby I have found in my own experience that there is a<br />
very real stigma and cellular facilities near homes are perceived as undesirable<br />
b See page 296 March 26 2008 Letter from real estate pr<strong>of</strong>essional Beverly Clark Those who would<br />
otherwise purchase a home now considered desirable can be deten edby a facility like the one proposed<br />
andthis significantly reduces sales prices and does so inunediatelylbelieve a facility such as the one<br />
proposed will diminish the buyer pool significantly reduce homes sales prices alter the character <strong>of</strong>the<br />
surrounding area and impairthe use <strong>of</strong>the residential properties for their primary uses<br />
c See Page 298 The Appraiser Squad Comment Addendum about the reduced value<strong>of</strong> a home <strong>of</strong><br />
resident directly behind the proposed installation after the city had approved theCUP for a wireless<br />
facility there The property owner has listed the property and has had apotential buyer back out<strong>of</strong>the<br />
deal oncethis particularinfoi rnation <strong>of</strong>the satellite communication center was announeed therehas<br />
been a canceled potential sale therefore it is relevantand determined thatthis new planning decision can<br />
have some negative effect on the subject property<br />
d See Page 301 PowerPower presentation by residents about real estate values The California<br />
Association <strong>of</strong> Realtors maintains that sellers and licensees must disclose material facts that affect the<br />
valueor desirability <strong>of</strong>the property including known conditions outside<strong>of</strong>and surrounding it This<br />
includes nuisances and zoning changes that allow for commercial uses<br />
e Sec Pages 302 305from the Baldwin Hills Estates Homeowners Association the United<br />
Homeowners Association and the Windsor Hills Block Club opposing the proposed cell tower and<br />
addressing the effects on homes there Many residents are prepared to sell in an alreadydepressed<br />
market or in the case<strong>of</strong>one new resident with little to no equity simply walk awayifthese antennas are<br />
installed<br />
f See Pages362 363 September 17 2008 Letter from resident Sally Hampton <strong>of</strong> the Windsor Hills<br />
Homeowner sAssoc Item K addressing effects <strong>of</strong> the proposed facility on real estate values<br />
3 Santa Cruz CA Also attached is a story about how apreschool closed up because<strong>of</strong> a cell tower installed on<br />
its grounds Santa Cruz Preschool Closes Citing Cell Tower Radiation Santa Cniz Sentinel May 17 2006<br />
Source EMPacts website httpa www emfacts com weblog plti6<br />
4 Merrick NY For agraphic illustration<strong>of</strong> whatwe dontwant happening here in Burbank just look at Merrick<br />
NY where NextG wireless facilities are being installed resulting in declining home real estate values Look at this<br />
Bast Buyers Brokers Realty website adfrom this area Residents <strong>of</strong>Merrick Seaford and Wantaugh Complain<br />
wer Perceived Declining Property Valueshttp www<br />
bestbuyerbroker com blog p86<br />
5 BurbankCA At a <strong>City</strong>Council public hearing on December 82009 hillside resident and a California licensed<br />
real estate pr<strong>of</strong>essional Alex Safarian informed city <strong>of</strong>ficials that local real estate pr<strong>of</strong>essionals he spoke with agn ee<br />
about the adverseeffects the proposed cell towerwould have on<br />
property values<br />
fvedone research on the subject and as well as spoken to many real estate pr<strong>of</strong>essionals in the area and<br />
they all agree thatthere s nodoubt thatcell towers negatively affect real estate values Steve Hovakimian a<br />
resident near Brace park and a Californiareal estate broker and the publisher <strong>of</strong>Home by Design monthly<br />
real estate magazine stated that he has seen properties near cell towers lose up to 10<strong>of</strong>their value due to<br />
proximity <strong>of</strong>the cell tower So evenifthey try to disguise them as tacky fake metal pine trees as a real
Change language