Report - City of Tustin
Report - City of Tustin Report - City of Tustin
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
- 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: F 4 the costly and imported eucalyp
- 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
- 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
6<br />
5 The <strong>City</strong> Retains Power to Deny the Application Despite the Limitations <strong>of</strong>the<br />
Federal Telecommunications Act<br />
It appeared from the previous the Zoning Administrator meeting held on October 20 200 that<br />
the <strong>City</strong> is mistakenly under the assumption that its hands are tied in this matter in that it lacks<br />
authority to deny an application under federal law u that its authority is limited and preempted<br />
by the Telecommunications Act <strong>of</strong> 1996 TCA This <strong>City</strong> is misguided The <strong>City</strong> retains<br />
power to deny this application<br />
Under Section 47<strong>of</strong>the United States Code which embodies the Telecommunications Act its<br />
clear language states that nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority <strong>of</strong>a local<br />
government over decisions regarding the placement construction and modification <strong>of</strong>wireless<br />
facilities 47 USC 332 c7A In short local governments do have the authority to deny<br />
wireless tower<br />
applications Reasonable discrimination isallowed under federal law Moreover<br />
the <strong>City</strong> has authority to regulate the place and manner <strong>of</strong>cell phone tower facilities including<br />
the location number and appearance <strong>of</strong>wireless facilities<br />
a Authority to Deny based uponHistory and Nature<br />
Although the Telecommunications Act <strong>of</strong> 1996 includes several limitations to prohibit<br />
municipalities from denying acell tower based on health and environmental concerns the<br />
authors <strong>of</strong> the Act wanted to ensure that our parks be preserved and protected<br />
In this regard<br />
the <strong>City</strong> still has authority to deny an application to preserve both history and nahiral<br />
surroundings<br />
The Committee recognizes for example that the use<strong>of</strong>Washington Monument<br />
Yellowstone National Park or a pristine wildlife sanctuary while perhaps prime sites for<br />
an antenna and other facilities are not appropriate and use <strong>of</strong>them would be contrary<br />
to envirornneutai conservation and public safety laws t3<br />
As stated above allowing this installation <strong>of</strong>a giant 65 foot fake tree would mean the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Tustin</strong> will failto live up to its conunitment and pledge in the General Plan if it is allowed to be<br />
located in this park location The placement <strong>of</strong>a cellular tower nextto tlvs grove will greatly<br />
compromise its aesthetics and the historic integrity <strong>of</strong>the Cedar Grove trees Fake tree or not<br />
these towers are unattractive and avisual blight to the community and a desecration <strong>of</strong>the honor<br />
<strong>of</strong>ourpast We urge the <strong>City</strong> to stand by the promise <strong>of</strong>its <strong>City</strong> motto honoring the past in this<br />
instance in protecting the Cedar Grove from a such a significant visual intrusion This living<br />
history must continue to be preserved and protected<br />
b Authority to Deny Based Upon Protecting<br />
the Public Interests <strong>of</strong>its Residents<br />
Moreover recent Ninth Circuit Court andUS District Court decisionsciting the<br />
Telecommunications Act <strong>of</strong> 1996 TCA 1 and California state laws have acknowledged and<br />
13<br />
Original authors <strong>of</strong> theTelecommunications Act <strong>of</strong> 1996 see l04 Congress IS Session House <strong>of</strong><br />
Representatives <strong>Report</strong> 104 204 Communications Act <strong>of</strong> 1995 Commerce Convnittee July 24 1995 p 95
Change language