Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council
Land Use Committee
April 17, 2014
Minutes
Present:  Ron Ziff, Chair; Jeff Kalban, Vice-Chair; Tom Capps, Jackie Diamond, Art Fields, Mikie Maloney, Sue Steinberg
Absent:  Alicia Bartley, Craig Buck
•	Call to order at 6:35 pm
•	Roll Call
•	Minutes approved with amendments.  Motion by Jackie, second by Art, unanimous
•	Elected Officials:  Jonathan Brand, CD4; Arthur Pond, Library Manager; Lisa Petrus and Jason GervaY new Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council Board Members; Sidonia Lax, current NC Board Member; Ron Merkin, Advisory Board Member, Van Nuys Airport
•	Public Comment:  Speaker addressed the issue of insufficient transit options for Sherman Oaks; the difficulty of taking public transit to Griffith Park; and the poor timing of the signals on Ventura Blvd.  
•	Chairs Report:  the Athenae Restaurant on Ventura Blvd has gone back to operating as an illegal night club.  The have been cited by Bldg. & Safety and the City Attorney has filed revocation proceedings against them.  The SONC Board voted to oppose the Mobility Plan because it only briefly mentions the Sepulveda Pass problem, and offers no solutions, and it envisions an increase of 20% in D and F intersections.
•	New Business:
•	Discussion and possible motion for a CUB for Type 86 Beer & Wine Tasting license for the Sherman Oaks Ralphs Market.  Ron Ziff recused himself.  Brett Engstrom presented a proposal to offer limited, instructional wine tasting for customers in a designated area of the store.  Art moved that LUC approve the request subject to stipulation that only 2 tastings are held per day.  Sue seconded.  Vote was unanimous to approve.
•	Discussion and possible motion to allow a cell antenna array at 14748 Burbank Blvd. by AT&T.  Judy Moss presented the plan showing the roof top, panel antennas, screened walls.  The following members of the public spoke:  Kenn Wilder, Jon Burk, Zarek Dietz, Jennifer Mercede, Soke Fincioen, Dale Voelker, Rick Gellavan, Eugenia Mendez, Judy Vallette, Leslie Young, Joshua Weathersby, David Rankell, Jan Treibachs, Vicken Dashjian, Regina Waber, Sidonia Lax, Nahtahna Cabanes.    

Their concerns were:  lack of notification; health issues; lack of information on health issues; lack of alternate sites; worry that it would harm the property values; lack of benefit for the neighborhood; cell reception already adequate and wondered why more is necessary; over saturation of cell towers in the area; aesthetics and visual blight of the antennas and screens; already deteriorating condition of proposed host building; worry that antenna would collapse; building already poorly maintained – who would maintain antennas; only one maintenance man for the whole building; lack of cooperation between carriers to share antenna sites; utility’s own website shows that coverage in the area is good, so why do they need more; residents have already protested these projects in the area – they have been clear that they do not want them; only one who benefits is the host landlord; other countries have identified this as a health issue and so should the United States; it should be in a commercial area; there are already 4 towers within a half mile.

Council District 4 Planning Deputy, Jonathan Brand thanked the speakers for their cordial presentations, and added that those within the 500 radius of the proposed project will receive notice of the public hearing.  He reminded speakers that the issue of health is not a valid reason for the project to be denied, as the city has no jurisdiction over health.  He added, that while aesthetics are open to interpretation, the issues of height, location, visibility and visual impacts, and the condition of the host site are important.  He suggested the tenants of the proposed building site work with the owner and share their feelings, and he asked if AT&T looked for other sites.

The committee objected to the aesthetics; the visibility had a negative impact on neighbors; asked for number to be placed on roof; suggested combined coverage with other carriers; felt that health issues should be a consideration; asked for AT&T to return with more information on health issues; objected to the reported condition of the roof and the property; questioned the maintenance plans; questioned the purported gap in coverage; asked for a more aesthetically pleasing design; asked if there will be a power box in the public right of way; asked where the meter box will be; asked about the types of signals; and asked for a tour of the site.

AT&T responded that alternate sites had been looked at and rejected; that the property will be thoroughly inspected as an appropriate site; that all types of signals will be used; that they will revisit the design; that they have a monthly maintenance program for sites; that carried can share pole sites, but not roof sites; that having them positioned in the middle of the roof and therefore less visible on the edge would require them to be higher and more visible, and that there will be three antennas.
 
Art moved that LUC table the project discussion and request that AT&T return with more information on the need for more coverage in the area; on the other possible site locations; on the placement of the meter, and provide improved drawings to make the site more aesthetically pleasing.  Tom seconded.  Board vote was unanimous.
•	No Committee Business
•	No Announcements
•	Meeting Adjourned at 8:00 pm.
•	Next Meeting:  May 15, 2014

Respectfully Submitted,
Mikie Maloney