|
|
Post by Bill on Aug 30, 2006 8:36:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Aug 30, 2006 9:01:47 GMT -8
I have concerns about the fake pine tree cell tower going right front and center at our City Hall. This building and property is very nice looking and stands as sort of a center piece to Civic buildings. I think the tree compromises that "look". Can it be placed less conspicuously in another location? See page 4 of the report.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not concerned on Aug 30, 2006 11:06:16 GMT -8
From what I understand it's going in a location in the open area much BEHIND city hall (toward the railroad tracks), not in front of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Sept 1, 2006 9:04:49 GMT -8
Unfortunately, neither the proposed location, 213 E Foothill Blvd, nor the depiction of where the tower will go (see photo) shows that the tower will be by the railroad tracks. It appears to be located just in back of that building but high enough to clearly be seen from Foothill.
|
|
Still not concerned
Guest
|
Post by Still not concerned on Sept 1, 2006 15:40:34 GMT -8
Well, at least you admit it's not in front of city hall, as you originally stated. But I didn't say it would be ''by'' the railroad tracks (which I suppose you're interpreting as being off of the city's property), I said ''toward.'' Perhaps I should have said ''toward that direction'' for the sake of clarity. Yes, the proposed location is part of the city hall's parcel.
However, the photo you're looking at is just a very ''rough'' photoshop depiction. In order for that depiction to make sense, the tower would have to be placed in the building permit department and growing out of the roof - AND be somewhat taller than its proposed 50-foot height.
For example, the two prominent evergreen trees in front of city hall are around 50 feet high. Yet the photo depicts the cell tower tree as taller than the one included in the photo, even though the cell tower is considerably further back - which would normally make it appear shorter and narrower from the view. The photo is just a very general example; it really isn't possible for it to look that prominent unless it were to become a 50% larger cell tower than proposed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neel on Sept 1, 2006 16:15:33 GMT -8
still no cell tower for us?? great....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Sept 5, 2006 13:16:17 GMT -8
Again, you are wrong. Please drive by the location and view the tower for yourself - apparently already in the works. It's huge and I believe as tall or taller than the trees next to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Sept 6, 2006 8:38:46 GMT -8
I spoke to Assistant City Manager Robert Person and they are going to make sure the tower is "aesthetically pleasing". Also, I was incorrect about the existing tower - it's actually an old radio tower for the Azusa PD. Apparently that is coming down soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not concerned on Sept 6, 2006 11:42:26 GMT -8
I communicate with Robert Person, among others at City Hall, semi-regularly; I knew that it was going to look just fine. I wasn't sure how/why you were being so adamant and contradictory (i.e., the ''again, you are wrong'' comment?) about it. But I accept your apology.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bearmsw on Sept 7, 2006 5:33:15 GMT -8
What happen to the Verizon tower approved a few years ago? Where was that suppose to be located?
|
|
|
|
Post by Monica on Sept 7, 2006 9:10:31 GMT -8
I'm glad that the one in the canyon did not materialize. It would have blocked part of my view of the city lights. I also don't mind having weak cell phone coverage when I'm at home. I noticed that I use my phone less because of it...which is a good thing for me.
|
|
