Cell Site Delayed
Please use the comment box at the bottom of this page to make suggestions.
Dear Altadena Residents,
I would like to bring to your attention some observations that I have made over the last few months.
1. Please see attached correspondence from Richard Ambrosini of Reliant Land Services, subcontractor of AT&T hired to build the proposed cell site. I first reported to the community after meeting with Mr. Ambrosini on June 17th, 2009. Present were Council Members Okorie Ezieme, Sarah Fuller, and myself, as this proposed project dealt directly within our community and Census Tract 4602 of which we were elected. Chairman Gino Sund has stepped into our Census Tract and it can be inferred through Mr. Ambrosini’s e-mail (see below) that they have communicated privately to discuss new locations of the cell tower.
Chairman Sund has not communicated with either myself or Hon. Ezieme regarding meetings with Mr. Ambrosini or new proposed locations within our community. (See e-mail below from Hon. Ezieme to Chairman Sund dated September 17th). According to the Altadena Town Council Bylaws, item 3 of “Duties and Responsibilities” on page 4 states that the Altadena Town Council is to “[provide] frequent fora to encourage the participation of the Altadena citizenry in each Census Tract for the purpose of determining their views and wishes on issues brought before the Town Council, all the while striving to accurately mirror in its policies and positions the desires of the community as a whole.” I have polled the community, as evidenced on this website, as well as communicated with you through e-mail regarding your opinions. The community is in enormous support of the proposed location and for better cell reception.
The question presented to Mr. Ambrosini is why was the location switched from the Lincoln Avenue Water Company to the proposed LA County Flood Control site? Mr. Ambrosini stated in the e-mail dated September 23 that I needed to speak to Chairman Sund for more information (See e-mail below). However, in Chairman Sund’s e-mail to Ken of the McNally Group listserve on September 21st, he stated that “We are not revealing the site until the County signs off on its availability”. Who is “we”? This delays better reception for Altadenans even further.
2. Hon. Ezieme and I both serve on the Land Use Committee, and to our knowledge, neither we nor other Land Use Committee Members have had a meeting since July 1st, during which the new proposed location at the LA County Flood Control site was not discussed. The meetings for August and September were canceled. How and why was the new location chosen without speaking to the community, the representatives of the community, or even to the Land Use Committee?
3. We call to question Chairman Sund acting without notice to elected reps in the proposed cell site in Census Tract 4602. Why has he not responded to inquiries from elected reps? Why were his communications with Mr. Ambrosini undisclosed and not sanctioned by the Altadena Town Council in an official capacity? According to the Altadena Town Council Ethical Standards, Section 3.4 of “Conducting Council Business” on page 2 states that “members shall not knowingly and intentionally withhold substantive information relevant to the matter under consideration, received from sources outside of the public decision-making process, from any other member, or from the public prior to taking action on the matter.”
4. Question: Why is the location such a big secret, according to Chairman Sund’s e-mail on September 21st? We live here.
From: Okorie Ezieme [mailto:oezieme@ngokconsultants.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:31 PM
To: ‘Gino Sund’
Cc: ‘Herbert Simmons’
Subject: Loma Alta / Fair Oaks AT&T Cell Site
Dear Hon. Chair,
Please kindly make the alternate cell site information / details available to all. Will this alternate site provide same or better coverage as would the original site? Is the alternate cell site in Census Tract 4602? Isn’t it true cell site(s) may be and as a matter of truth have been erected without notice or consent from ATC / LUC? Please confirm / comment.
I challenge us to exercise caution, consult with the community but most importantly not take action(s) that could be construed as imposing our will over that of the community / popular opinion.
Regards,
Hon. Ezieme
from Gino Sund
reply-to mcnally-nw@yahoogroups.com
to mcnally-nw@yahoogroups.com
cc Alice Sarkisian Wessen
date Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:10 PM
subject Re: [mcnally-nw] Fwd: FW: Proposed Cell Tower Project
mailing list Filter messages from this mailing list
mailed-by returns.groups.yahoo.com
signed-by yahoogroups.com
unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list
Sep 21 (6 days ago)
Ken,
I got the notice of withdrawal this morning. I was somewhat surprised when AT&T told me last week that they were going to do this. The original plan was to see if the alternative site would actually be workable before withdrawing. That of course was AT&T’s decision. While the alternative site is looking like it may work, nothing is official at this time.
The latest report, as of Friday is, a plan for locating at the alternative site is being prepared by AT&T with a potential co-locater, T-Mobil, and it should be ready to be presented to the community by the end of October. If the site is available, and the plan is completed by they, the new proposal could come to our Land Use Committee in November.
We are not revealing the site until the County signs off on its availability. There is no need to get excited about a site until we know it can actually be used. I will keep you informed about any new developments.
Gino
From: Richard Ambrosini [mailto:richard.ambrosini@rlsusa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:06 AM
To: ‘Herbert Simmons’
Cc: ‘Okorie Ezieme’; ‘Thomas Mundl’; ‘Graham, Stephen’
Subject: RE: [mcnally-nw] Notice of a hearing on the cell tower
Hello Mr. Simmons,
I would suggest you speak with Mr. Sund on your questions concerning opposition to the site at Lincoln Water District. I too was under the impression that the constituency was in favor of this site. However, issues were raised by the Land Use Committee and the Town Council regarding the location and aesthetics of the design of the site. These concerns prompted a new review of possible locations. The county flood control site just east on Loma Vista was selected as an alternate site and is in process for application and leasing through LA County Public Works.
The selection of the new site will provide the same coverage as the previous site at Lincoln Water District.
Thank you,
Richard Ambrosini
Zoning Manager
Reliant Land Services, Inc.
From: Herbert Simmons
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 7:33 PM
To: ‘Richard Ambrosini’
Cc: ‘Okorie Ezieme’
Subject: FW: [mcnally-nw] Notice of a hearing on the cell tower
Mr. Ambrosini, can you please forward the latest update on the cell tower. I need to inform and update the community. The majority of the community wanted the previous site. Why was this all of a sudden switched to a different location ? The community wants better cell coverage. What is the reason for the additional delay ? Please visit the website www.altadenans.com to see the very favorable community poll. Please update me with full details as soon as possible. Thank you.
From: Richard Ambrosini [mailto:richard.ambrosini@rlsusa.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 5:06 PM
To: ‘Herbert Simmons’
Subject: RE: [mcnally-nw] Notice of a hearing on the cell tower
Hello Mr. Simmons,
The notification for hearing you received concerns the Lincoln Water District site for the ATT facility. I received notification today that that site is no longer active for ATT and that ATT is no pursuing a lease with LA County Public Works for the Flood Control Site. That site is about 1 block east of the Lincoln site.
Thanks,
Richard
Richard Ambrosini
Zoning Manager
Reliant Land Services, Inc.
From: Herbert Simmons
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 7:18 AM
To: ‘Richard Ambrosini’
Subject: FW: [mcnally-nw] Notice of a hearing on the cell tower
Mr. Ambrosini, how are you ? Could you please update me on what the progress is on the cell site. The community wants better coverage. See message below. You can also go to my site www.altadenans.com and see the voting results since the site went live Aug 30.
#1 by Denise Brassard on September 30th, 2009
Quote
I’m alarmed that you are not at least cc.’d in these correspondences re the cell site, especially since you’re on the Land Use Comm. and you have pointed out numerous times the Altadena bylaws.
I very much support Altadena having it’s own cell site. Re the two locations mentioned, I think it would be best to install the site in a place that has fewer residents close by. I’m all for the new tower for safety and convenience reasons, but if one location will affect fewer people with potential radiation, then I would opt for that one. Of course, I’m assuming that both sites would provide the same coverage.
Thanks,
Denise Brassard
#2 by gloriana casey on September 30th, 2009
Quote
While fewer people are smoking these days, there does seem to be the appearance of “smoked filled rooms” (i.e.) making decisions without the public’s input. Because Altadena is such a small city, public discussion should not be a problem, and discussion is a valid, needed and important part of community. If one looks at the Windor Hills cell phone tower scenario, one could see that open communication provided a venue for the “peoples’ voice. Some members of the community objected to the way in which T-Mobile handled their end of the discussion by seeking to improve their credibility with L.A. County, It appeared that T-Mobile exaggerated and misused their claims of incomplete 911 coverage. If a company has to deceive to state its case, then all other of their comments are subject to question . Citizens, for the most part, want better coverage, but if slight of hand is involved, because trust is broken, then like Humpty Dumpty, trust can’t be put back together again. The citizens of Windsor Hills spoke and L.A. County Planning listened, and the appeal from T-Mobile was denied. Because of this case, many would like FULL DISCLOSURE from AT&T too. If there are citizens that have objections , or just want more information, then L.A. County County should be made aware of this, and the citizens have a right to full disclousre from their own city council There is a concern from some re: health hazards, and the 1996 Telecommunications Act is quoted to them; howvever, this act does not address the health issue, and 13 years ago is a long time ago in the technology area. People want and need to be able to openly discuss issues, no matter how unimportant that some think this to be. If the Altadena City Council has by-laws and if the system is in place for people to have access, then I suggest that full disclosure be used ALL THE TIME….because, after all, it doesn’t take long for” by laws” to become BYE LAWS!
#3 by Clark Hansen on September 30th, 2009
Quote
Mr. Simmons,
I really appreciate your diligence in keeping on top of this issue. AT&T has a century-long history of undemocratic, unfair business practice, and has repeatedly been sued for illegal, monopolistic behavior. It would be so easy for them to “buy” a member of the Town Council and go ahead and do what’s best for AT&T, and not what’s best for Altadena. I’m not saying that is what they have done in the case of Chairman Sund, but your exposure of exclusive conversations between Sund and AT&T will help insure that such a thing WILL NOT happen this time. Bravo, Herbert Simmons!
#4 by Steve Lamb on September 30th, 2009
Quote
This if true, and based on my experience I have no doubt it is, indicates a series of violations by the Chair and probably other members as well of the ATC ethical Code of Conduct. The code REQUIRES you as a member, and each and EVERY member with knowlege of such concerns to file a formal written complaint and REQUIRES the ATC to hear it. The rules are the rules, especially for those with the most power, or the rules are a joke and a tool of abuse.
The Country Club set just can’t get used to the idea that the rules apply to them TOO. They seem to believe the rules are only for people who do not regularly vote with them. This makes the Altadena Town Council a complet joke, and a bad one on the Altadena Community.
#5 by Equal Justice For All on September 30th, 2009
Quote
Well, here we go again….. Members of the ATC thinking that this is their community to do with as they please regardless of what best serves the community. As you may or may not know, cell sites generate revenue.
A typical cell site can produce $1500-$7500 per month for the site holder per carrier. In the case of Lincoln Ave. H2o, that income would come in handy to repair an old water system and maybe even help to offset their customers ever-growing water bills. What a wonderful partnership…
However, Mr Sund (and someone named Ken?) has apparently taken it upon himself to stick his nose into the original plan. It isn’t even in his tract! I wonder why he would do such a thing? Could it be the MONEY??? Why the secrecy? Someone should look into Mr. Sund’s behavior in this case, if he’s crossed the line, he must go. And if members of the Land Use group are somehow involved, they must go too. How much more of the back room politics will the community tolerate? It’s high time to clean things up around here..
#6 by Camille Dudley on September 30th, 2009
Quote
It is so nice to see that there are people in Altadena that really care about the community and are concerned about the misdeeds of some council members. This is a matter that has been discussed for a number of years among various community members. One of the reasons for the departure of Steve Lamb from the council was because the council became populated with various members that had their own private agendas and not that of what was best for the community.
However, until those in the community stand up and take actions to have unscrupulous members removed and are willing to participate as a member of the council as Steve Lamb did for 19 years and as Mr. Okorie and Mr. Simmons are now doing, nothing will change and Okorie and Simmons will constantly be outvoted by those with private agendas.
#7 by Bill Griggs on October 1st, 2009
Quote
I may be just an old fashioned retired gent, but I did serve my country for over 31 years in the US Navy. I always thought I was protecting my country from enemies both foreign and domestic. Now that I have retired here in Altadena (which I love by the way, and have no intention of leaving,) I am dismayed by the lack of transparency that this issue of the cell phone tower has raised. I am under the impression that the Brown Act covers any and all meetings of public figures throughout the state. I have no problem with the cell phone site being moved, but I have a huge problem with that being done and us, the constituency, not being able to discern why the decision was made! I too, thought we were in a representative democracy here in Altadena. Decisions must be above board, with relevant facts provided for discussion and public comment. I most certainly expect the Altadena Town Council to inform us of that. Thank you for your time
#8 by Eric on October 1st, 2009
Quote
I made my first comment of approval for the cell tower a month ago. Have we made any progress towards reaching a consensus?
The last I read on this website is that as a community, we were still undecided about whether to build the cell tower on the Lincoln Water Co site. I’m not surprised that AT&T and T-Mobile looked for other sites. They have specific time lines for their projects and spending and cannot put them off indefinitely while we talk amongst ourselves.
Mr. Simmons, did you ever convey that to AT&T that the community already approved the building of a cell tower on the Fair Oaks and Loma Alta site? If not, what are we waiting for? If we don’t approve, they will build elsewhere.
As we debate, opportunity slips away…
#9 by admin on October 1st, 2009
Quote
Please see Cell Site Delayed for the most current and updated information.
#10 by Holly Rundberg on October 29th, 2009
Quote
The following information may help to clarify some of the confusion re: the cell tower and Lincoln Waters position.
From: “hollyrundberg”
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:16:44 -0700
To: Mr. Hayward, Lincoln Water
Subject: [mcnally-nw] Lincoln Ave. Pocket Park Cell Tower Location-Opposition
Good Morning Mr. Hayward,
Thank you for coming to the Land Use Meeting this past Tuesday evening at the Altadena Community Center. Your clarification regarding Lincoln Waters position re: the cell tower was enlightening. As you said AT&T’s representative is ‘aggressive’ and over stated your involvement in this cell tower project. There is no contract with Lincoln Water to place the tower on the Pocket Park. I too would like to state my opposition to that location.
This has all become very convoluted. Mr. Sund states (see below) that if the County will not or cannot offer the park for lease then the original plan (Pocket Park at Loma Alta & Wapello) will be presented for approval. This makes no sense. If there is already opposition to it, and you have stated (to the group of us residents after the Oct. 6, Land Use meeting) that your company will not go forward with anything that the community opposes why even keep it for consideration? This all just further stalls the process of this community getting decent cell reception and further wastes our time trying to figure out and stay on top of this plate of spagetti.
“Where we go from here: Once the County determines if the alternative site can be leased for a cell tower the project will come back to our Land Use Committee for consideration. If the alternative site can be offered for lease by the County, a plan will be presented for a tower at that site, and the Community will be able to choose between the two site locations. If the alternative site cannot be offered for leased, then the original plan at the pocket park will be presented for approval. In any case, it will be the Community that will decide what our recommendation to the RPC will be. Hopefully, there will be large turn out of informed residents who will express their opinion.”
What I would request is that this whole issue be cleaned up so we have a valid presentation to address, not something with confusion and dead ends.
Sincerely,
Holly Rundberg