Ad Hoc Cell Tower Committee Report  

Date: February 27, 2013 Committee Chair: Wayne Karp Committee Members: Doug Bishop, Don Kovac, Bob Prezkop, Clark Champion (staff) Update: An informational meeting for homeowners was held on February 5th. A brief synopsis of that meeting is presented near the end of this report. Objective: The objectives of this project are basically twofold. The first being to enhance cellular reception within our community for our members and guests and the second is to provide a new revenue stream for the Association from outside sources. The amount is estimated to be about $24,000 for the first year with an incremental change each subsequent year. The tower will be disguised as a pine tree and AT&T has agreed to plant additional pine trees in the area. Current Status: We are aware that a homeowner is circulating a petition opposing the cell tower. The petition is premature at this time as the Board has NOT put forth a resolution or approved any contractual agreement nor has AT&T has made their final decision. Any signatures on a petition are purely advisory in nature. Up to this point the board has only approved the committee to study the concept and authorized staff to continue to develop the concept with the vendor and the community. The vendor has acquiesced to many of our requests in the proposed Draft Lease. It is the committee’s recommendation the next steps be as follows:     

GM negotiates final contract terms with the representatives for AT&T The HOA attorney(s) review the contact. If all parties agree, the finalized contract would be presented at the March 27th HOA Board meeting as a formal resolution to approve the posting and notice of contract for a cell tower. The resolution would be posted for Homeowner comments until the April 24th meeting of the Board. Execution of the agreement with AT&T

It has been determined that the proposed site at the NW corner of Alma School and Champaign in the NE corner of the IronOaks golf maintenance yard is commercial property and not common area; as such the association is not required to provide notice for change of use under our CC&Rs. It should be noted however that the association plans to explore having this property re-classified as common area for tax purposes thus saving our association tax dollars. While the initial response to a cell tower was overwhelmingly positive, the number responding was very small with 8 negative responses from slightly more than 200 comment cards. Since a vote will not be required and a petition is being circulated, the committee is interested in assuring that more homeowners provide input. We therefore recommend that the Association

20130227_adhoccelltowerreport.docx Page 1 of 7

Ad Hoc Cell Tower Committee Report  

create a poll, to be posted on the website. The poll would better indicate community sentiment, assuming more homes respond. Review of February 5th information meeting: There was an information meeting scheduled for the homeowners, on February 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM in the Oakwood Ballroom. There were approximately 150 people in attendance. Overall the meeting was informative in nature. Representatives of AT&T set up 3 stations in the ballroom where owners could go and ask questions, one-on-one. After a few opening comments from our GM, our association attorney and AT&T representative the meeting broke up into small groups of people who visited the 3 stations that were set up. Most the allotted time was spent by homeowners in these areas communicating directly with representatives of AT&T. The stations were set up to provide: -

Information about perceived Health Concerns Pictures of a cell tower masked as a pine tree and samples of the material used. (we will include these pictures on the website very soon) Information about the location with maps and depiction of the expected signal strength before and after the installation.

A few of the questions are outlined below: A question of how soon could the tower be operational: AT&T commented that it could take up to 1 year after a contract is signed to have the tower operating. Permits from Maricopa usually take some time. There were one or two comments/questions asked related to concerns about Health implications. The gentleman that responded is an independent, outside agency, and is not employed by AT&T. He is also a voting member of IARC which is part of the World Health Organization (W.H.O.). He said that there is no documented scientific evidence that a cell tower can cause health issues. He did state that IARC categorizes the signals from Cell Towers as Group 2B carcinogens which means that there is not any evidence proving or disproving harm. Afterwards the definition of Group 2B carcinogens was looked up on-line. It is re-stated below: It should be noted that the list includes coffee, pickled foods and a few life saving drugs. "Substances, mixtures and exposure circumstances in this list have been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 2B: The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents, mixtures and exposure

20130227_adhoccelltowerreport.docx Page 2 of 7

Ad Hoc Cell Tower Committee Report  

circumstances for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent, mixture or exposure circumstance for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but limited evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from other relevant data may be placed in this group. Further details can be found in the IARC Monographs." This information can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens One or two questions asked about impact on the ability to sell a home and the impact of a tower on home values. While there have been reports in years past that a cell tower could lower property values, they were before the cell towers that are camouflaged as Pine Trees or Palm Trees. Additionally, those towers were much taller than the 65 foot tower proposed. At the meeting, a homeowner/realtor spoke up about this issue. The realtor, also an Oakwood resident in close proximity of the proposed tower, stated that in her 19+ years as a realtor, she has never had a negative response on any property because of its proximity to a cell tower. She also mentioned that it needed to be disclosed, but in her 19 years her experience was that it has not impacted the home value. She clarified the requirement for “disclosure” somewhat by saying that it was just included with other items such as airports, fire stations etc. In other words the cell tower itself wasn’t a special item. The AT&T representative said he was not aware for any comprehensive studies of any affects on property values. He also stated we are all becoming more dependent on cell phones. He mentioned that a concern of developers is of sales that were lost, because cell reception was poor. During the meeting there were several people who complained about the coverage within this area and were eager to have better coverage. AT&T representatives discussed the need to have towers approximately every mile in urban areas because of signal bounce from buildings, regardless of the height of those buildings. In rural areas with minimal structures or no buildings the signal is much stronger and greater distances between towers can work for them. The coverage maps provided by AT&T showed that the proposed new tower will enhance their coverage significantly for our residents. Another question was asked about the use of the tower for internet service. The response was that since the tower would be a 4G technology, it would be possible for AT&T users to use that service in place of wired internet service.

20130227_adhoccelltowerreport.docx Page 3 of 7

Ad Hoc Cell Tower Committee Report  

Background: The Ad Hoc Cell Tower committee, appointed at the July 25th HOA Board meeting, was tasked to look at a letter of intent from AT&T proposing an agreement that would have us put a 4G cell tower in IronOaks. The resolution calls for the committee to examine the proposal, the site location and our associations governing documents related to the installation of a cell tower on our association property. To date, the committee and/or our staff has: ~ Researched; HOA CC&R’s, Possible Health Concerns, Other Community Proposals. ~ Posted information regarding perceived health risks associated with cell towers. ~ Solicited homeowner input. Approximately 200 responses with only 8 negative comments. ~ Proposed a counter offer to the letter of intent which AT&T has accepted. ~ Determined that the maintenance yard is NOT classified as common area. ~ Held a community informational meeting on Feb 5, 2013 with representatives of AT&T in attendance. Approximately 150 people attended. ~ At the February 27th HOA Board meeting the committee has recommended: a. An on-line poll be conducted of homeowners and notice be published in the SITL. b. The GM enter in contract negotiations with AT&T

During the investigation, the committee stated that IF the land was designated as common area the association would be required to provide a notice for a change of use to homeowners. It has been determined that this is NOT the case. The land is classified as commercial area but the association plans to explore the option of re-classifying the maintenance yard with the goal to lower taxes to the association. Because the association is not required to use this process, we estimate that the association will save somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 in mailing and ballot preparation costs as well as attorney’s fees that may have been required to review the ballot.

20130227_adhoccelltowerreport.docx Page 4 of 7

Ad Hoc Cell Tower Committee Report  

Alma School 

Champaign Drive 

20130227_adhoccelltowerreport.docx Page 5 of 7

Ad Hoc Cell Tower Committee Report  

Simulated Pictures of Pine Tree disguised Cell Tower on proposed site. BEFORE:

AFTER:

20130227_adhoccelltowerreport.docx Page 6 of 7

Ad Hoc Cell Tower Committee Report  

Simulated view of proposed tower, heading north on Alma School

20130227_adhoccelltowerreport.docx Page 7 of 7