Ven-Mar Neighborhood Association

Beethoven Cell Phone Information

Any further news and information will be posted right here.

[Any further news or information will be posted here, at the top of this page.]

SUCCESS! Hearing Officer announces: AT&T withdraws Application.

The Hearing (on 10/3/02) of the Application for the installation of a Cell Tower at the back of Beethoven Market turned out to be very brief. After conferring with the AT&T representative, the Hearing Officer, Lourdes Green, announced to a packed hearing room that AT&T was withdrawing its application without prejudice . When Ms Green receives AT&T’s official letter of confirmation, it will have the effect of annulling the application, as if it had never happened. (This means that AT&T or any other Cell Phone provider will not be precluded from submitting a new application at any time. If that happens, we shall have to go through this all over again.)

This spectacularly sudden result is the reward for the time and energy spent by everyone who contributed, ranging from Nelf Israelson’s extensive research downtown to Maggie Lanigan’s outstanding outreach in collecting petition signatures. Randall De Lave ably coordinated the campaign and led an organizing committee including Anni Michaelsen. Amanda Seward, Inez Baker, Kim and Christine Weil and Maud Winchester. A big “thank you” to all of you and to others not named who deserve it.

It was good to see City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski’s deputy, Kristen Montet, at our community meeting and at the Hearing. George Chung, also, showed his support of the community by his readiness to testify at the Hearing.

Our special thanks go to Steve Kane, who had led the successful opposition to the Cell Tower installation on Walgrove Ave. in the spring and who gave freely of his invaluable advice.

The letter writing, the petitions, the participation in meetings and the attendance of about 150 of us at the Hearing….these all served to empower the community and crown our efforts with success. It’s a great neighborhood – let’s keep it that way!


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A meeting took place on Wed., 9/25, with Steve Kaplan, the representative of the Owner of the Market building and with AT&T representatives. Many aspects of the cell tower application and its consequences were dicussed at the three-hour meeting, including the likely effect on the commercial success of the Market if the cell tower project is forced on the community. Both these parties agreed to consult with their principals. There are no subsequent changes in the positions of the parties to report.

George Chung and Ron Wynn have been invited to come to the Hearing on Thursday, 10/3, and testify on behalf of the community.

Please, make your views known by writing or faxing the Hearing Officer and by signing a petition. Be sure to come to the Hearing on Thursday morning.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

News Item: 9-27-02
Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski's Planning Deputy, Kristen Montet, announces the Councilwoman's formal opposition to the Beethoven Cell Tower proposal. This is encouraging news indeed! Thank you.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here is the information you have been waiting for - use it!.

(A) Your message to the Owner.

Write or fax the Owner of the Beethoven Market property or to his son, appealing to him

1) to do whatever is necessary to withdraw from any arrangement made with AT&T and/or

2) to write to the Hearing Officer that he no longer supports AT&T’s application, in view of the overwhelming opposition by the neighbors of the property. (This is what worked with the Good Faith Church on Walgrove, where the pastor wrote to the Hearing Officer along these lines.)

The Owner is Henry Kaplan:
156 So. Vista Street
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel. 323-935-1563

His son who is taking care of the estate:
Steven J. Kaplan
Rottman & Kaplan, Attorneys at law
9350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel.: 310-288-3700
Fax: 310-288-8336

Your message should be polite and show no acrimony. Remember that the owner was not aware of any opposition to the installation by the neighbors when he negotiated with AT&T. The Owner will see the extent of the opposition by the number of neighbors who send a message. You can mention your health concerns in your message to the owner. (But, you would be wasting your time if you mention any health concerns to the hearing officer.) Include your address in your message. It should be in the area, but can be a little outside the strict 500 ft radius used by the City for notification of the pending Hearing.

(B) Write or fax the hearing officer:

The Hearing Officer
Office of Zoning Administration
200 N. Spring Street, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Tel: 213-978-1318
Fax: 213-978-1334

At the top of your letter mention: Case No. ZA 2002-3287(CU) This is important.

Do not bother to mention any health concerns – these cannot be taken into account at City level. Go to (D) below to help you express your concerns about matters which the hearing officer can accept and weigh in making his recommendation on AT&T’s application.

(C) Sign the Petition.

Be sure to sign the Petition going round the neighborhood. This will be presented at the Hearing. Fill in the details asked for on the petition.


(D) Cell Tower Opposition Talking Points

The information in this section (D) is intended to give you ideas for writing to the Owner and – especially- to the hearing officer. We can call this section “Cell Tower Opposition Talking Points”. Do not copy any of it, just use it to get ideas and then put these into your own words. Do not necessarily use the order of the issues used here. We want to keep things looking spontaneous and as coming from the heart. Include other issues that come to mind.

1) Aesthetic Impact

Every federal court of appeals that has considered this issue has held that evidence of negative aesthetic impact can constitute substantial evidence sufficient to support denial of an application, as long as aesthetics are a valid basis for denial under the applicable state or local law. Therefore, substantial evidence of aesthetic concerns about the proposed tower can form a valid basis for denial.

2) Property Value Diminution

Myriad cases support that substantial evidence of possible adjacent property value diminution can form a valid basis for denial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in upholding a permit denial, found a mortgage banker’s testimony that the tower would lower residential property values to be substantial, despite a study by a real estate appraiser, that the plaintiff submitted, which concluded the tower would not affect neighborhood real state prices. Local governments, with seemingly little effort, can procure substantial evidence to rebut a provider’s claims that no diminution in property value will result.

3) Alternate Sites

Courts uniformly have held that economic or technological necessity do not mandate approval of any proposed tower site or justify a failure by the tower company to consider alternative sites upon request. The US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, for example, held that a tower company’s lack of evidence to support its search for alternative sites can constitute substantial evidence in support of a permit denial.

4) Proximity to Adjoining Homes and Residential Property Lines

Most courts have held that evidence of proximity to adjoining property is sufficient evidence to support denial of a zoning application.

5) Written Denial and Form of Evidence

Recent decisions repeatedly have recognized the proper role of constituent concern and testimony in the democratic process of tower site zoning. These circuit courts have held that where local opposition is substantial, it is the proper role of the local government to take such opposition into account, and such opposition can constitute substantial evidence supporting denial of a permit.


(E) Go to the Hearing.

The Hearing is scheduled as follows:

Date: Thursday, October 3, 2002 at 9.30 a.m.
Place: West Los Angeles Municipal Building
Second Floor Hearing Room
1645 Corinth Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Applicant: AT&T Wireless
Case No. ZA 2002-3287(CU)

It is very important to show up at the hearing. Get your spouse and neighbors to come. Anyone who gives testimony will be asked to state his/her name and street address and will likely be requested to point to his/her home on a map, which the Hearing Officer will then mark. Let there be enough of us to fill the room and make an impression!

Parking is a problem, so carpool if possible and plan to get there early.


NOTES:

Watch this page for additional information (if any), which will be posted at the top, just under the heading.

Any future Cell Phone Meetings at Penmar will be on Tuesdays - plan your activities around that. Meeting details will be posted under "Community Calendar", at the top of the Home Page.

Also, feel free to use the chat room feature on the website, by going to "Talk About It" on the home page.

AU