Comments on: Cell Site Delayed

By: Holly Rundberg

Holly Rundberg — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:07:34 +0000

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

By: admin

admin — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:29:19 +0000

Please see Cell Site Delayed for the most current and updated information.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:14:29 +0000

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…

By: Bill Griggs

Bill Griggs — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:14:11 +0000

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

By: Camille Dudley

Camille Dudley — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:55:19 +0000

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.

By: Equal Justice For All

Equal Justice For All — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:27:37 +0000

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..

By: Steve Lamb

Steve Lamb — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:07:28 +0000

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.

By: Clark Hansen

Clark Hansen — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:10:57 +0000

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!

By: gloriana casey

gloriana casey — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:08:18 +0000

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!

By: Denise Brassard

Denise Brassard — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:04:07 +0000

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