CROSS TALK CONTINUES - “Dennis Zine did that? To US?!” It was as if those calling and e-mailing were reading from the same script, wave after wave.
What had so stunned the residents of Walnut Acres, an area Councilman Zine himself had dubbed “a unique jewel in the West Valley” in his own newsletter?
In late June, neighbors turned out in droves to a South Valley Area Planning Commission appeal, to make the case that a Zoning Administrator (ZA) had erred in approving a commercial, institutional eldercare structure at least three times as large as the law allowed for this acre-and-a-half of land.
Surrounding the property were single-family homes, much of the acreage also zoned residential-agricultural (RA) to allow agrarian pursuits including horse-keeping.
Focusing on the massiveness of the proposed structure, neighbors pointed out that second-story windows would destroy their privacy and an eight-foot-high “estate wall” would turn their yards into canyons.
They contended that the developers (who didn’t even own the property) had seriously skimped on parking and in turn seriously underestimated the number of staff required to safely care for elderly residents, including those with dementia.
In reality, neighbors maintained, staff, visitors, and private caretakers would be forced to park on Walnut Acres side streets, which due to RA zoning were not allowed to have curbs, sidewalks, or streetlights.
With the required 24/7 staffing, night-time shift changes would involve treacherous hikes. Neighbors predicted that allowing such a massive commercial institution would seriously alter the character of Walnut Acres and lead to “commercial creep.”
Currently, the residents noted, you would need to travel nearly a mile or more to find any multiple-family housing. And it would be nonsensical to use the small commercial corner a few blocks away to bootstrap approval of a massive, 24/7 commercial enterprise.
Neighbors never would have envisioned the mom and pop convenience enterprises, some in business since the 1950s, as the opening wedge to mass commercialization up and down a street of residences.
Neighbors explained that they did not oppose use of the property for eldercare; they had unsuccessfully sought a compromise that would reduce the structure to one story and add underground parking.
However, there was simply no way that the developer could meet the legal requirements for approval of the project as-is. Even a failure to meet one requirement would, by law, be fatal.
The Area Planning Commission agreed. While recognizing generally the need for elderly housing, it voted nearly unanimously that the law did not support “the scope and size” of this particular project in Walnut Acres.
Abiding by the legal requirements, the SVAPC concluded that the project would be “materially detrimental or injurious to the properties … in the immediate area.”
The Commission further found that the project was not “compatible with existing and planned future development on neighboring properties,” noting that the project would introduce “a massive commercial venture” into “the middle of a viable residential neighborhood” that the city itself characterizes as very low density, fails to minimize negative impacts on surrounding residences, and degrades the viability of low density uses, including animal-keeping.
Walnut Acres residents left the SVAPC meeting confident that they had saved their “jewel of the West Valley.”
They hoped next to meet with the long-time owners to find “common ground” regarding development of the last parcel of a horse farm that had, according to legend, once been home to Seabiscuit.
But not so fast. Enter Councilman Dennis Zine. It would seem that the SVAPC’s decision was precisely in synch with Zine’s sentiments about Walnut Acres. And hadn’t Zine, referring to Walnut Acres, vowed to protect a neighborhood that is “unified and committed”? Something had changed.
Months before, as the developers went door to door warning residents that they’d better get on board, neighbors frantically contacted Zine for help. But the termed-out Councilman, who had recently announced a run for city controller, appeared to tear up his newsletter promises and instead take a page from The Wizard of Oz.
For months he avoided his constituents, offering no glimpse of his position at various hearings and dangling out only the possibility of support, much less even a meeting.
In the end, it would have been easier to bring Zine the broom from the Wicked Witch of the West. And while Oz turned out to be only a mere mortal behind a curtain, “the great and powerful” Zine had something far more useful than levers and microphones. Invoking Section 245 of the City Charter, he handily convinced his fellow council members to toss out the SVAPC’s determination that the project violated the law, to allow them to reinstate the ZA’s approval.
Why would Zine bother? What would Zine care about a small piece of dusty land in a corner of Woodland Hills, unique jewel or not? After all, it’s not a Costco.
And why would Zine squander a legacy carefully built over a decade of protecting Walnut Acres while his constituents repeatedly gave him their votes?
When questioned about years of campaign contributions, the developer’s expeditor merely shrugged, “It’s public record.”
In far less time than it would take to read this article, everyone contacting me went from “I always thought he was a good guy,” to “what can I do to make sure he never holds another office?” Wow. Sadly, the “great and powerful” Zine may find out next spring that he is mortal after all.
Or perhaps Zine’s fellow council members will swoop in to preserve his legacy by voting, today and tomorrow, that the law must be followed. As Walnut Acres residents make the ninth trek to a government hearing on this matter, today and tomorrow, we sincerely hope.
(Donna Schuele is the co-founder and former president of the Walnut Acres Neighborhood Association. She has served as the spokesperson for Walnut Acres residents fighting an eldercare institution proposed for the neighborhood. Her views are her own and do not reflect those of CityWatch or CityWatch staff. She can be reached at [email protected].)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 65
Pub: Aug 14, 2012
