Report - City of Tustin

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents ofTustin Ranch are opposed to the proposal being considered by the City ofTustin and Planning Commission to erect a 65ft cell phone tower within Cedar Grove Park Our opposition is based upon the following considerations l The proposed tower is completely Cedar Grove Park area and would create a hardship on the surrounding inconsistent with the residential nah reofthe community In this instance or any other similar situation anon residential area should bethe only allowable placement for any cell tower 2 A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT unprove wireless coverage effectively A tower of65 Ft tall is completely out of scale with and in great contrastto the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area The instruction ofthis structure to the landscape would bean eye sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character ofthe community Cedar Grove Parlc is important open space ofhistorical and ecological significance 3 It would lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential conununity and residents would seek lower tax assessments as a resultofthis tower There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments ofreduced property cell phone towers values and 4 Ifthe proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers Co buildtowers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods perhaps next in your backyard 5 The proposed tower will be within short distance ofPeters Canyon Elementary School and Pioneer Middle School property lines and could present a danger to children at these schools This tower will be in an area children can view daily and travel around quickly and easily The proposed tower is inclose proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks especially for young kids A growing number ofscientific studies linkuig cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches dizziness depression as well as cancer We REQUEST that the planning commissioners take a precautionary approach strongly consider the potential physical and mental health effects aesthetic impacts and ineffective coverage improvement from the proposed cell tower and do everything in your power to prevent this tower and future cell towers from being built near this residential area
Number Name Email Comments Address 1 Jennifer Wierks 2 Lynnea Kull There are other suitable locations than in a park located in a residential area between two schools Peters Canyon Elem and Pioneer Middle school 3 David Haigh david haigh@cox net Put the cell tower up on the tall east hill 4 Jennifer Souter2jsouter@cox net 5 Natalie Griswold 6 Kurt Himler 7 Jane zhou 8 Sonja peterson sonjap@csu fullerton edu 9 thank vo 10 Debra Plante debplante@cox net 11 Dru Desai 12 Margaret Shen 13 Jennifer Van Iersel 14 Larry Kull 15 Karen Dey Would prefer cell tower not be be placed in community park and by schools I6 Kruti Khan 17 Lisa Osako lkosako@cox net 18 Tilden Osako 19 Rita Semaan 20 rnichelle blum 21 Caroline Marchant Caroline@marchanthockey com Please do not put up this cell tower so close to our children 22 Todd Marchant 23 Yan Ye 24 Michael S Carter 25 Stephanie M Fabbri Carter there are thousands of children who play at that park why would we put risk 26 Annie TJ Sun 28 Madeline Griswold 30 Cathy Sanders all these children at 31 Marcene Marcus 32 Jayne Chun jaynechun@hotmail com A 33 Brandon Key dcpost@cox net Wouldn location nearer the toll road in a less populated area be a better option 34 Stacey Muto staceymuto@hotmail 35 Evette Smith 36 Kathy Piazzon 37 Sharon Komorous I oppose the construction of a cell phone tower next to Cedar Grove park and our schools Let s find another solution 38 Robert A11en 39 Valeria Pereira vppereira@aol com 40 Scott Warner Griswold Let s find a better spot than a popular and beautiful park 41 Joyce Magsarili 42 Katherine Boutelle We dontwant to expose our kids 43 Debbie Bessen 44 Monica Nesbitt 45 Lisa Kormos 46 Coleen Fields 47 Mike Kormos Bad idea other locations more suitable
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 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: Exhibit 1 Petition to Protect Cedar
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?