Report - City of Tustin

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 1 and 2:
ITEM 6 Report to the Planning Commi
Page 3 and 4:
I r l DR09 033 December 14 2010 Pag
Page 5 and 6:
l I i J I i I DR09 033 December 14
Page 7 and 8:
DR09 033 December 14 2010 Page 7 Ex
Page 9 and 10:
DR09 033 December 14 2010 Page 9 sa
Page 11 and 12:
DR09 033 December 14 2010 Page 11 C
Page 13 and 14:
DR09 033 December 14 2010 Page 13 C
Page 15 and 16:
ATTACHMENTA Location Map
Page 17 and 18:
ATTACHMENT B Land Use Fact Sheet
Page 19 and 20:
ATTACHMENT C Submitted Plans
Page 21 and 22:
Site Selection The proposed siteTMo
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 and 74: Page X10 Thus residents are justifi
Page 75: Page l2 Ona local level residents a
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 126 and 127:
Municode Page 1 of2 PART 6 DESIGN R
Page 128 and 129:
RESOLUTION NO 01 95 A RESOLUTION OF
Page 130 and 131:
Resolution No01 95 Page 3 G That it
Page 132 and 133:
EXHIBIT A DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR ABO
Page 134 and 135:
Exhibit A of Resolution No01 95 Pag
Page 136 and 137:
Exhibit A of Resolution No 01 95 Pa
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Exhibit A of Resolution No 01 95 Pa
show all

Report - City of Tustin

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?