Report - City of Tustin

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PETITION TO PROTECT CEDAR GROVE PARK The undersigned residents ofTustin and other Area Cities 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 1 The proposed tower is completely inconsistent with the residential natureofthe Cedar Grove Park area and world create a hardship on the surrounding community Inthis instance or any other similar situation anon residential area should be the only allowable placement For any cell tower 2 A cellular phone tower at the proposed location will NOT improve wireless coverage effectively A tower of65 ft tall is completely out of scale with and in great contrast to the natural aesthetics of the surrounding area The instructionofthis structure tothe landscape would bean eye sore and forever alter the residential and pastoral character ofthe community Cedar Grove Park is important open space ofhistorical and ecological significance 3 Itwould lower property values to the neighboring single family homes and town houses in the residential community and residents wouldseek lower tax assessments as a result ofthis tower There are various appraiser journals and industry publications that support the arguments ofreduced property values and cell phone towers 4 If the proposed tower is allowed to be constructed near residential area a precedent will be set for future wireless carriers to build towers in other Tustin Ranch neighborhoods perhaps next in your backyard 5 The proposed tower will be within short distance ofPeters Canyon1lementary 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 in close proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools presents potential health risks especially For young kids A growing numberofscientific studies linking cell tower to health related illnesses issues such as headaches dizziness depression as well as cancer We REQUI 5T 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 Your Zip Code 1 Richard Holden rlbholdenc sbcglobal net keep the tower out of CedarGrove 90620 2 Casey King 92614 3 JessicaOneill 92604 4 Nora Chen 92614 5 kathie Schultz 92614 6 Ana Gonzalez 79912 7 Ms Kiku Lani Iwata Burbank ACTION nocelltowerinourneighborhoodc gmail comResidents here in Burbank are opposing the proposed TMobile cell tower at Brace Canyon recrational park near our homes and schools We are also working with local officials to update our outdated wireless ordinance to adopt stronger regulations to protect our homes parks and schools like so many other communiites are now doing This proposed tower should noL be allowed in your community park next to schools and homes too 91504 8 Catherine Abbott 11218 9 Dan Shah danshalzOcox net 92705 10 Carol Smiley needs to be in anon residential area can be a potential health hazard 44092 11 saul martinet 92672 12 leigh anne Webster 92610 13 Rusty Yunusav 92630 14 Kitty and Bob Stockton As former residents we know the park was designed as a healthy recreational area for families to gather bottom line it was paid for with Me11o Roos tax money in other words the residents of the area the city council should bow to the realistic concerns of the tax paying residents 34481 15 J Maag 92675 16 Karen Webb 92663 17 Amy Piazzon 48073 18 Kathleen Piazzon 34135 19 Joe Piazzon 34135 20 Terry Andorfer 46815 21 Kevin Nguyen Keep Tustin Parks Natural Beautiful Please do not a cell phone tower here 92865 This shorter second Petition 21 signatures was prepared For those out oFarea residents who wanted to sign a Petition specifiying same
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 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: 422 jacklyn huang stop the tower 42
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 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?