Report - City of Tustin
Report - City of Tustin Report - City of Tustin
ic X17 for perceived stigmas attached to the proximity ofthese towers toour homes and schools It means the compromise of the area s natural beauty Itwill signal a lack of appreciation and honor to our local history It means bringing our treasured park down a few notches and creating potential safety risks For local businesses realtors and brokers representing and listing these properties decreased income And for city governments it results in decreased revenue property taxes it will create There are viable alternative solutions including but not limited to higher elevation places outside the City limits ofthis border neighborhood which will effectively serve this area The Wireless Master Cellular plan is not absolute and may warrant further investigation We encourage the City to explore these alternative options In this instance the tower and cellular facility as currently proposed directly conflicts with the City of Tustin General Plan to preserve the historic nahtre ofthe cedar grove trees and the park Ct will substantially affect the aesthetics ofthe park and will significantly affect residential property values Many homes bordering the park are multimillion dollar homes or near million dollar homes This in htrn will significantly affect the City sproperty taxes as residents seek lower tax assessments as a result of this tower The facility will affect quality of life and can present a potential fire hazard to this community Good to Very Good coverage already exists in this area by TMobile s own admission and alternative locations and or solutions exist or can be identified by the City or other municipalities in the area that will both serve its residents and comply withTMobile s interests in securing adequate coverage for the area installation of a cell facility in Cedar Grove is bad for the City bad for the Park bad for the residents and bad for the legacy ofthe City ofTustin Ior the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested the Planning Commission deny the application ofTMobile under Design Review09 033 and do everything in its power to prevent the installation of wireless telecommunication facilities and towers in Cedar Grove Park Respectfully The Jennifer Ann Wierks Esq Brandon Key Sharon Michael David Bessen Tracy Powell Sharon Komouros Rita Semaan Erik Tran Nancy Kuwada And nearly 500 others Save Cedar Grove Park enclosures
Exhibit 1 Petition to Protect Cedar Grove Park
- 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 and 76: Page l2 Ona local level residents a
- Page 77 and 78: Pa X14 Good and Excellent Copies of
- Page 79: Pgc l6 will create anxiety stress w
- 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 124 and 125: Exhibit A Resolution No 4163 Page 6
- Page 126 and 127: Municode Page 1 of2 PART 6 DESIGN R
- Page 128 and 129: RESOLUTION NO 01 95 A RESOLUTION OF
ic X17<br />
for perceived stigmas attached to the proximity <strong>of</strong>these towers toour homes and schools It<br />
means the compromise <strong>of</strong> the area s natural beauty Itwill signal a lack <strong>of</strong> appreciation and<br />
honor to our local history It means bringing our treasured park down a few notches and<br />
creating potential safety risks<br />
For local businesses realtors and brokers representing and listing these properties<br />
decreased income And for city governments it results in decreased revenue property taxes<br />
it will create<br />
There are viable alternative solutions including but not limited to higher elevation places<br />
outside the <strong>City</strong> limits <strong>of</strong>this border neighborhood which will effectively serve this area The<br />
Wireless Master Cellular plan is not absolute and may warrant further investigation We<br />
encourage the <strong>City</strong> to explore these alternative options<br />
In this instance the tower and cellular facility as currently proposed directly conflicts with the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Tustin</strong><br />
General Plan to preserve the historic nahtre <strong>of</strong>the cedar grove trees and the park<br />
Ct will substantially affect the aesthetics <strong>of</strong>the park and will significantly affect residential<br />
property values Many homes bordering the park are multimillion dollar homes or near million<br />
dollar homes This in htrn will significantly affect the <strong>City</strong> sproperty taxes as residents seek<br />
lower tax assessments as a result <strong>of</strong> this tower The facility will affect quality <strong>of</strong> life and can<br />
present a potential fire hazard to this community Good to Very Good coverage already<br />
exists in this area by TMobile s own admission and alternative locations and<br />
or solutions exist<br />
or can be identified by the <strong>City</strong> or other municipalities in the area that will both serve its<br />
residents and comply withTMobile s interests in securing adequate coverage for the area<br />
installation <strong>of</strong> a cell facility in Cedar Grove is bad for the <strong>City</strong> bad for the Park bad for the<br />
residents and bad for the legacy <strong>of</strong>the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Tustin</strong><br />
Ior the foregoing reasons it is respectfully requested the Planning Commission deny the<br />
application <strong>of</strong>TMobile under Design Review09 033 and do everything in its power to prevent<br />
the installation <strong>of</strong> wireless telecommunication facilities and towers in Cedar Grove Park<br />
Respectfully<br />
The<br />
Jennifer Ann Wierks Esq<br />
Brandon Key<br />
Sharon Michael<br />
David Bessen<br />
Tracy Powell<br />
Sharon Komouros<br />
Rita Semaan<br />
Erik Tran<br />
Nancy Kuwada<br />
And nearly 500 others<br />
Save Cedar Grove Park<br />
enclosures
Change language