Proposed Cell Tower at Lincoln Water Company, 3406 Fair Oaks Ave, Altadena

From the emails I have gotten, there is a strong desire to get better cellular coverage. But it is balanced with concern for the impact on the community.

I share so folks can make an informed a decision as possible. Know that there will be another Land Use meeting with this cell tower issue Aug 4th, 2009 at 7PM
PDF Documents from applicant are here: Download Lincolncell

•    In Altadena, 375 emergency 911 calls had been made, and 75% were dropped.
•    There are few places in northwest Altadena that are not heavily residential.
•    Overwhelmingly the public comment has been that folks want better cellular coverage.
•    With the IPhone using AT&T, there is more demand for AT&T.
•    AT&T likes 25-30 year leases.
•    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.
    o     The first is called stealth, in which the cell tower is disguised as a tree (This is the method that is proposed for Lincoln Water).
    o    The second is concealment, in which the cell tower is hidden in the architecture of a building (Pasadena prefers this method).
    o    The third method is the construction of the cell tower in plain view.

Notes from Land Use:
Mr. Ambrosini is the consultant representing AT&T and gave a summary of the project.
He explained that there is very poor coverage for both AT&T and T-Mobile in that area.
The location was strategically chosen to not overlap with other towers in the area and to
fit the uses in the area. T-Mobile will co-locate on the monopine and be the second
carrier on the tower. The applicant provided an electronic copy of the CUP application at
the meeting.

Member Goldschmidt asked how many carriers could be co-located on a tower. The
applicant explained that the height of the tower determines how many carriers can be colocated.

With the 65’ height limit set by the County for our area, only two carriers could
be co-located. MetroPCS could possibly sit below the two carriers due to its different
technology.

Member Sund asked whether the applicant is open to any other sites in the area. The
applicant stated that this application is for this particular site. After doing much research,
this site is the most optimal of the properties that are available for leasing. Member Sund
asked for clarification as to exactly where on the site the monopine would be located and
the applicant pointed it out on the old simulations distributed via email.

Member Sund stated he would only support an approval where the applicant will be
prohibited from using barbed wire on the project.

Member Wessen stated that she needs to have a full set of documentation before making
a decision because the plans have been changed since the version distributed via email
before the meeting to Members.

Member Fuller asked whether reception would be improved significantly by the tower for
T-Mobile and the applicant replied yes.

Member Ezieme stated he had met with the applicant beforehand and that he was alarmed
by the number of dropped 911 emergency calls currently at 350 so the tower would be a
welcome means to alleviate such a problem. However, the materials distributed are
outdated since the plans are different. He also commented that he inquired with the
applicant regarding the health issues of the EMF radiation and that given the distance of
the transmitters, the health risk is minimal He reiterated that it would have been more
helpful had the applicant come with a more robust presentation.

Member Cheng read the original resolution barring the ATC from approving future cell
phone towers. The Committee agreed that the next steps to take would be to hear cell
phone projects and still make recommendations to the ATC. The ATC can take steps to
rescind the resolution that automatically denies all cell tower projects, and make
recommendations on future cell tower projects.

Member Wessen stated she hopes the Committee does review these cell phone tower
projects and provide feedback since these towers definitely impact our community and
provide communications safety especially being a high fire hazard zone.

Member Goldman stated she would have recused herself from a vote since AT&T is a
client of hers.
================= 
Note Land Use delayed any action until applicant brings in current paperwork.
Next Land use is Tuesday Aug. 4th at the Altadena Community Center.

Comments

[Alice Wessen]

Dear John:
Town Council has been informed that AT&T has withdrawn its application for a Conditional Use Permit for a cell tower at the corner of Fair Oaks and Loma Alta. AT&T is pursuing a new location for that cell tower which is on County property in the near vicinity of the original site. While this new site has not yet been approved by the County for lease, the Public Works Supervisor is seeking an expeditious review and approval of this new site. It is expected that the approval decision on the new site will be made in the next few weeks. If the site is approved by the County, the new site plan will be presented to the Land Use Committee as soon as it is feasible.

Thank you for your interest

[John]

I very much welcome such a cell tower. I'm so frustrated with coverage in Altadena. I'm a person who does not want a land-line phone, and where I live near Fairoaks between Altadena Drive and Loma Alta, there is no carrier who has consistent good coverage. None. I've tried them all.

Please support this new tower.

Thank you.