On June 17th, at approximately 11:00AM, Councilmembers Sarah Fuller, Okorie Ezieme, and myself met with Richard Ambrosini of Reliant Land Services, Inc. (Reliant is a sub-contractor of AT&T, but not employed directly by AT&T). In regards to the feedback I have received through e-mail correspondence, the great majority of you have been in favor of the proposed cell tower in our census tract.
The key questions I posed to Mr. Ambrosini were:
1. What are the known health risks, if any, that are associated with cell towers?
2. How many cell sites are located in the surrounding areas?
3. How long is the lease with the proposed location at the Lincoln
Water Company (3406 Fair Oaks Ave – see attachment)?
4. Can these types of towers be located on residential properties?
Answers:
1. I must be very frank, Mr. Ambrosini flat out said that he would not answer any questions regarding health risks to the community, and referenced the Communications Act of 1996. His response was actually a little scary. I asked if he would live near a cell tower and he said yes. He explained that the signal is strongest near the tower then fades as it gets further away. I pressed him for a statement regarding their position on potential health risks, and his reference to the Communications Act of 1996, and he said he would provide one. I have not yet received this statement.
2. Mr. Ambrosini stated that he would provide information regarding other cell sites in surrounding areas. I have not yet received this information.
3. AT&T likes 30 year leases.
4. Residents can go to websites of local cellular companies, find out where they need sites, and submit their information. He stated that it really depends on zoning in the area.
Factoids:
- Mr. Ambrosini has a Master’s Degree in Architecture and Urban Planning.
- There is a possibility that this will be a co-location tower, meaning that AT&T would combine with T-Mobile.
- It costs about $100,000 to put up a cell site.
- Construction takes 3 weeks or less.
- AT&T currently has a 1,000 site project.
- There are three different methods of construction. The first is called stealth, in which the cell tower is disguised as a tree (This is the method that is proposed for us. In our case, it will be either a palm tree or a pine tree). The second is concealment, in which the cell tower is hidden in the architecture of a building (Pasadena prefers this method). The third method is the construction of the cell tower in plain view.
- One thing that Mr. Ambrosini said was that radiation will be emitted from the tower, but at very low levels.
- He stated that in Altadena, 375 emergency 911 calls had been made, and 75% were dropped.
At this point, everybody residing within 300 feet of the cell site should have received notification. Mr. Ambrosini, after a few minor adjustments to his plans (such as deciding whether to have a pine tree or a palm tree), will be ready to move forward upon approval from the Land Use Committee and the Altadena Town Council.
This is how it works:
1. First, Mr. Ambrosini will present his proposal to the Land Use Committee, which meets on the first Tuesday of every month at the Altadena Community Center at 7:00PM (730 E. Altadena Dr). In order to do this, he must be on their agenda. Brian League is the chairman of the Land Use Committee (brian@echomet.net). (It is not necessary to attend the meeting unless it is confirmed that Mr. Ambrosini and Reliant Land Services are on the agenda).
2. After presenting to the Land Use Committee, Mr. Ambrosini will present his proposal to the Town Council for a vote.
3. The Town Council will vote to either recommend the project to move forward or not, based upon your responses and input.
4. After Town Council makes a vote, Mr. Ambrosini and his proposal will go before the Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles County. The Regional Planning Commission will either approve or disapprove.
5. The last step is for this proposal to reach the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. They have the final say.
The Town Council represents you, so if you strongly favor or oppose the cell tower after careful review and research, it is important that you make your voice heard. You can do this through five different opportunities:
1. You can contact me with your opinion. Until I officially take my seat on July 21, I must communicate my report to Hon. Okorie Ezieme and Hon. Sarah Fuller, who currently remain Councilmembers for Census Tract 4602.
2. You can show up at the Land Use Committee when the proposal is on the agenda.
3. You can show up at the Altadena Town Council meeting when the proposal is on the agenda.
4. You can show up at the Regional Planning Commission meeting (time and location to be determined).
5. Last but not least, you can show up at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting (time and location to be determined).
The sooner you make your opinion known, the better.
–
Hon. Herbert Simmons
Altadena Town Council – Census Tract 4602
“Linking Altadenans Through Technology to Make Our Community a Better and Safer Place”
#1 by Holly Rundberg on September 1st, 2009
Quote
This is some good information from my son-in-law who as a lawyer deals with this issue often. Please see the 3rd to last paragraph whre he says ” Note that it would be a big mistake…” regarding health issues. We should not even mention it (not that it is not a concern) if we want to be effective we are better off on other issues about the tower.
Hi. Please see below and feel free to forward to your people if you like.
Attached is a legal summary of cell site regulation. It is a bit old but the law is pretty much the same. Your situation is similar to the El Cajon case in which the court upheld the city’s denial of a cell site application. The biggest obstacle you face is the gap-in-coverage issue. Under the TCA, if AT&T can show that denial of their application would be a gap-in-coverage, they would have a good argument to assert that the County may not deny their application.
This begs the question: How much big must the gap be before this provision is triggered? There are few cases which have addressed the gap-in-coverage question. AT&T will likely argue that any gaps will trigger this provision, but cases which have addressed this question would do not support that position. If other providers are able to cover the gap, you have a good argument that there is no gap-in-coverage. Alternatively, if you can show that there are other feasible locations which AT&T could site their tower which would cover the same gap, that would likely be a sufficient basis to deny the application (i.e., the gap is caused by AT&T’s siting decision, not the County’s denial).
AT&T’s application addresses this somewhat. They say they have spent over a year to locate a suitable site and the proposed location is the only site that is feasible. I would have your people scrutinize this … it seems there are many public facilities in the area that antennae could be located on, and other sites might be feasible (just more expensive). This is a technical question, not a legal one. Notably, in their application AT&T also states that they will be installing or collocating with T-Mobile on the site … I find this reference odd and it may indicate that the pole is unnecessarily oversized or that other sites would be feasible if collocation was not planned (since T-Mobile is not one of the applicants, their role is not relevant for this application). One option may be to investigate how the other provides which currently provide effective service in AT&T’s “dead zones” locate their sites. Is it feasible for AT&T to collocate at their sites? Are there other locations available?
If there are residents who are adequately served by other providers, I recommend that you get them to attend the hearing and state that they have no cell phone problems and no coverage problem exists. I don’t know what (if any) providers already adequately serve that area, but if 20 residents speak at the hearing and say they already get adequate service from Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, etc., then AT&T would have a very weak claim for gap-in-service exemption. (In lieu of speakers, you can also submit letters, e-mails, petitions, etc.)
Additionally, some of the more recent cases have held that a service gap must be truly “significant” and “not merely individual ‘dead spots’ within a greater service area” in order to trigger the gap-in-coverage provision. It has been held that the TCA does not guarantee wireless service providers coverage free of small “dead spots.” This may be a strong point for you to raise with the County: just because a small area cannot be serviced by AT&T does not trigger the gap-in-coverage provision. [See MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. Cal. 2005) 400 F.3d 715 at pp. 733-734 and fn. 10.]
There is authority for the assertion that the cell service provider bears the burden of proof to show a gap-in-coverage. You may also want to raise this. If they don’t produce the evidence to substantiate their gap claim, the provision is not triggered. If they do produce some evidence on this point, you should be prepared to produce your own evidence to counter this. That could be in the form of alternate sites, evidence of satisfactory coverage by other cell providers, evidence that the gap is small or confined only to specific “dead spots,” etc. In reviewing their application, it does not appear that they have provided any evidence to support a gap-in-coverage claim. I suspect they will have that evidence at the hearing in September.
The El Cajon case noted that aesthetic/visual impacts were sufficient to justify denying the cell site. Your situation may provide an even better basis for denial because it is proposed at an awkward intersection and may create visual barriers that impact traffic. Thus, there may be an additional public safety element that you can raise.
It is very important to produce substantial evidence of aesthetic impacts. AT&T’s application attempts to address this by stating that they have selected a “monopine” cell tower, etc. It is important to counter this by showing that this huge fake tree will be out of character in the area. The photo they use on the cover of their application attempts to cast this issue in their favor. If you can submit alternate photos from different angles, views from homes and streets nearby, etc., it may help demonstrate the negative impacts. I would also go far beyond this by even counting the number, height, and location of similar sized trees in order to show that the monopine will be out of place at the corner (there are many tall pine trees around, so you would need to show why it looks bad at that particular spot). Also, if you can show data comparing the size and scale of the pole with surrounding structures, it would likely emphasize that it is out of character with the community (e.g., AT&T’s application lists monopole size as 73′ high x 30″ diameter; the surrounding the site is mostly single-story homes … what is the average roof height compared with the pole?). If there are any historic or natural resources that would be impacted by the tower, they should also be listed and explained. For may, the tower may obstruct views of the mountains … you should consider identifying specifically where those residences are, how big the obstruction would be, etc. (that may include lay testimony as well as maps, photos, drawings, etc.). Evidence can also include testimony from residents about how bad it would look, how it would affect their property values, how it would ruin the character of the neighborhood, etc. You may want to circulate a petition also and get residents to sign-on to oppose the application, and submit it at the hearing. The more people who show up against it, the better. But you should try and make sure that their comments are focused and not vague. A court will look at the evidence, not generalities.
Both spoken comments/verbal testimony, as well as written comments (letters, e-mails, diagrams, drawings, petitions, etc.) can count as evidence. You may want to address the impact on home values caused by an unsightly tower. If there are real estate agents who can be enlisted to support your cause, they can be invaluable in providing evidence of both the financial impact that the cell tower may cause, as well as its impact on the character of the neighborhood. Because their business is knowing the character of neighborhoods and home values, they can have a lot of valuable and specific information. They might even be able to give real-world examples of how other neighborhoods have suffered when cell towers like this one have been installed.
Also note that California has a law called the California Environmental Quality Act (”CEQA”) which requires the County to do an environmental study for most projects that it considers. For a project like this, the County must do an initial study to determine whether it has the potential of causing environmental impacts. Environmental impacts include not only things like pollution, but also intangible things like visual impacts, impacts on traffic, etc. You may want to ask the County to give you all CEQA documents produced for this application thus far. At the very least, the application will impact park space (the site is currently a park, albeit very very small), which must be addressed in CEQA documents. Often, challenges to a project involve not only substantive objections to the application itself, but also technical challenges to the CEQA analysis that is prepared for the project.
I would also ask the County planner to provide you with the General Plan (or link to General Plan on the Internet). Under California law, no approval may be given to a project that is inconsistent with a local agency’s General Plan. AT&T’s application references the General Plan in passing, but it would be interesting to see if there are any provisions which might impact the application.
I also recall that a couple years ago the County adopted a hillside ordinance for Altadena which restricts development that impacts ridgeline views. Even the photo on the cover page to AT&T’s application depicts the cell pole obstructing ridgeline views. I suggest that someone contact the County to inquire whether the ordinance relates to this project.
Similarly, I would determine from the County or elsewhere whether the County has any rights in the property to maintain it as a public park. The AT&T application states the current use of the property is designated as “residential/park” … under the Public Park Preservation Act of 1971 [Public Resources Code 5400, et seq.], local agencies are restricted in converting parks to other uses. There are exceptions for public utilities, but the exceptions do not always apply. It is a long-shot, but if the site is subject to this Act, it could trigger many requirements that might stop the project.
Note that it would be a big mistake to argue that the health effects of radio frequency emissions from the site justify denying the application. The TCA expressly exempts this as a basis for denying a cell company’s application. Thus, AT&T would have a good basis to refute these claims, and would probably point to such assertions as the true reason for the denial, which would ultimate torpedo the effort to stop the site. In one case, residents argued the cell site was out of character with their neighborhood and would create aesthetic blight, but they also claimed the RF emissions would be harmful. The court pointed to this (the RF emissions) as the true issue that concerned the residents, and because RF emissions are an unlawful basis upon which a cell site may be denied, the court overturned the county’s denial of the application. [AT&T Wireless Servs. of Cal. LLC v. City of Carlsbad (S.D. Cal. 2003) 308 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1158-1161.]
This case is instructive because, if the residents had focused on aesthetic and other issues, the cell company would have a much weaker basis to challenge the denial. But by raising RF emissions, the residents “opened the door” to the exemption under the TCA, and the cell company exploited this, ultimately overturning the denial. Thus, I would not raise RF emissions at all when this comes up for review … it would only give AT&T a “foot in the door” to assert that the denial was based on improper grounds.
Finally, the AT&T application states that the site is owned by Lincoln Ave. Water Company. Obviously, they will be entering into a lease to locate the cell tower there. I believe Lincoln is a mutual water company which means that all residents which receive water from them are “shareholders” which should have the right to inspect their records, including any lease agreement. Lincoln should also have a board of directors and a general manager which would have to approve the lease. You may want to push that end of the problem, because it is unlikely that AT&T could do anything at the site without first getting approval from Lincoln. You could consider lobbying the board members and general manager to change their position or stop the lease, for example.
These are my initial thoughts. Feel free to follow-up if any further questions.
Thanks
Matt
#2 by Holly Rundberg on September 1st, 2009
Quote
Also Herbert, I like your idea about polling the community, but I feel I need much more information before I could make a decision. I am an AT&T user but do not want to look at a fake pine or palm tree for the next 30 years. Lincoln Water made the park look so lovely and a tower of any kind there would be a shame. I am waiting to hear of their alternate plan.
Holly
#3 by Kathryn on October 20th, 2009
Quote
Well, let my opinion be heard, I strongly oppose proposed cell tower!!
#4 by barbara mcalpine on November 3rd, 2009
Quote
I think we need the tower in our area. To the lady who said a tree would not look good in the little park, all they have to do is add two or three other trees there like they had before and after awhile, when you pass the area, you would not even notice the tree tower. Its true that we have a lot of NIMBY’s in the area, but over 95% of us would benefit from it.