CERDAFIED - At the beginning of the year, I found myself fighting a similar eldercare project in Tarzana as the one in Woodland Hills. Both projects were surrounded by RA, both were extensively over sized, both were in animal keeping areas, both were in Baseline Mansionization areas, both had intense opposition, and both conflicted with the 5 legal required findings.
The South Valley Area Planning Commission resisted the urge to make decisions based on benefits to community as the sole guiding principle. This is required by law – Broadway Laguna Homeowners Association v. Board of Permit Appeals. This showed integrity, and good judgment.
The SVAPC did not accept the cut and paste determinations of the Zoning Administrators, who failed to make the required legal findings. They did not accept the theory that a 1500 sq ft. home could be comparable or compatible with a 50,000 or 75,000 sq ft facility. It’s the equivalent of placing 30-40 homes on one lot and expecting no impact. Who’s fooling who?
In the first determination the ZA made claims that Melody Acres and Walnut Acres were safe from an approval in their area, (as I had forewarned), because it lacked commercial intrusion.
To quote precisely, “Second fact, the project would not be materially detrimental or injurious because an approval in this area of Reseda would not create a precedence jeopardizing Melody Acres or Walnut Acres because they have substantially different land uses making them predominantly Low Density Residential, as shown in the chart.”
I had argued previously, that if developers believe they can buy land on the cheap in Low Density Residential zones, we will be a target for all such development. So far, the first 3 requests are in RA and our areas are a target.
The chart shows Walnut Acres has only 2% public facility, 3% Low Residential, and 95% very low residential. But the analysis in the ZA’s determination in both eldercare cases was faulty, biased, relied on delivering “special privileges”, and was unable to make genuine legal findings.
The argument stating that we lack adequate appropriate sites does not hold water. Since 2007, the real estate market is baring abundant fruit due to a resounding real estate market crash.
I know of 3 sites locally that would be ideal; they are near public transportation, near parks, restaurants, churches, entertainment, all with street lighting, curbs, and with adequate parking, they are appropriately zoned, and could have substantial structures on site.
Developers are not interested for two reasons; 1) They get a built in profitability by buying land on the cheap, 2) They are relying on chummy relationships with the planning department to get something passed that could never pass legal scrutiny.
The SVAPC is the filter system that removes ulterior motives from the equation. They can’t consider profitability, public benefit, or political favors when making their decision. They must, more often than not, watch projects get approved not because they are appropriate but because the appellant failed to make their case based on the legal findings. The SVAPC cannot make the case for the appellant.
But when the appellant has made their case, it should not be subverted, but allowed to stand unmolested. In less, due process was denied.
Due to the fact that agricultural areas are under constant attack by developers, residents have had to become land use savvy, committed to their community, and willing to push through to the courts for fundamental fairness if it is necessary.
The biggest issue at hand is whether the Baseline Mansionization Ordinance that currently applies to the eldercare site should be revoked. The surrounding community is held to the BMO standard; reduced sizes, reduced impacts, reduced profitability. NOT applying the BMO to the subject site while applying it the surrounding community, is to give the developer a “special privilege”, of which I believe a lawsuit would be rightfully pursued and won.
Furthermore, I believe our city residents should be outraged that the City would approve the BMO and the very residents who need its protection and supported its implementation, does not benefit from it.
Even more egregious, is that the City would hide behind the ZA’s authority to decide such matters, instead of being forth right with Los Angelino’s during public debate on the EFO. The City could have been clear and direct, and it could have conducted surveys on the future plans of the aging populace. But it wasn’t and didn’t.
Worse still, the City could undermine the authority of the SVAPC who has looked at the legal findings and found them to be a charade, a pretense, and a poor one at best. They are not easily swayed puppets, like the planning department heads, who nod to the developers on the right and nod to the politicians on the left.
No doubt, Councilman Dennis Zine was looking for a Solomon solution. But you can’t arrive at one if you’re unwilling to see the unethical aspect of the BMO applying to all the surrounding properties but not the subject property. Still, I have hope that when it is all said and done, he will protect the City from another lawsuit, and recognize that the SVAPC was correct in their findings.
The courts have generally determined that laws which are too vague for the average citizen to understand, or for which that vagueness allows the law to be applied unfairly, deprive citizens of their rights to due process.
If an average person cannot determine who is regulated, what is prohibited, and if it is fairly applied, courts may find that law to be void for vagueness.
(Lisa Cerda is a contributor to CityWatch, a community activist, Chair of Tarzana Residents Against Poorly Planned Development, and former Tarzana Neighborhood Council board member.)
–cw
CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 65
Pub: Aug 14, 2012
