Report - City of Tustin
Report - City of Tustin Report - City of Tustin
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
- 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: Swiontek Ryan From Sent To Cc Subje
- 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 and 76: Page l2 Ona local level residents a
- 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
We<br />
can tell you that the one downside to moving to <strong>Tustin</strong> Ranch was the fact that cell<br />
tower coverage near Peters Canyon is TERRIBLE TMobile sin particular is very bad and<br />
we are<br />
TMobile customers Having<br />
good coverage in the area makes it more desirable for us<br />
My husband and I have a 12 year old daughter and we would be much more comfortable<br />
with her walking and biking around the neighborhood if she had a reliable cell phone with<br />
her in the event <strong>of</strong> emergency<br />
throughout our home and yard<br />
We would also like to be able to use our cell phones<br />
Finally the infrastructure <strong>of</strong> our nation is increasingly being based on mobile<br />
communications We have cell phones blackberries and iPads and we rely on being able to<br />
get voice and data coverage wherever we are Moreover we are in a high fire risk and high<br />
earthquake risk area We want to know that emergency communications will be available when<br />
we need it whether if be for a 911 emergency or another slightly lesser urgency<br />
The standard that the planning commission needs to look at is whether TMobile has<br />
shown a significant gap in service coverage and whether the design is the least intrusive<br />
solution Although we have not seen their evidence we have no doubt that there is a<br />
significant service coverage gap based upon our own experience since we moved to <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
With regard to the site design it is located in a wooded area in the park and not<br />
immediately adjacent<br />
to residential properties As noted above I doubt any<br />
casual observer<br />
would ever notice the site<br />
T<br />
understand that a <strong>City</strong> Councilman actually filed the appeal on behalf <strong>of</strong> the<br />
neighborhood opponents <strong>of</strong> the site We would like to go on record in support <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
and ask that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Administrator<br />
decision approving a<br />
TMobile cell site at Cedar Grove Park<br />
Thank you for your consideration<br />
Cathy J Bardenstein<br />
7effrey D Scherzer<br />
10908 Dishman Place<br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> CA 92782<br />
Cell phone 585 370 8020 2
Change language