CERDAFIED-Thursday, September 11th the South Valley Planning Commission held a “Special Meeting” to “reconsider” their approval of the appeal on the West Hills Eldercare project (23200 Sherman Way). No notice was given to the appellant Allan Dietel or their community. Fortunately he received a heads up from an insider. But little did it matter.
Reconsiderations rarely happen, and when they do, it rarely changes the outcome. Thursday night, not only did the South Valley Area Planning Commission give in to the political pressure applied by Councilman Mitch Englander to reconsider the case, the SVAPC voted on the entire matter of the case without posting a notice and without taking testimony from the appellant or Neighborhood Council. Nor were the appellant and those impacted, who were in attendance, given the opportunity to view the "revised plans" presented to the commission. Yes that’s right.
Allan Dietel had to witness Councilman Mitch Englander’s irrational about-face without ever having a prior conversation. Let’s not forget that Englander’s representative stood by the community at the prior SVAPC hearing.
Englander himself had stated at a public town hall that he would not 245 an eldercare case and take it to City Council like Dennis Zine had, because he believed the eldercare facility ordinance needed review and changes. Perhaps he was trying to avoid the lie and hypocrisy of then turning around and using a 245 to force the case to PLUM and City Council for vote.
“Besides questioning the legality of the proceedings, the councilman presented inflammatory, misleading and at times purely erroneous statements to the commission that no one was permitted to refute.” stated Nicole Thibadeaux, who lives near the planned project.”It was evident to me that the commissioners were not happy with the proceedings any more than we were.”
The SVAPC gave way to the political pressure of Englander who gave way to the pressure asserted by Fred Gaines and his lobbying dollars. So on Thursday evening Englanders district suffered a loss as well. Farewell trust, farewell voters.
Even if it is legal to hold a special meeting to reconsider and then hold a regular meeting within the same meeting to revote on the issue, it was a disgusting display of political slight of hand and as unethical as it comes.
How can you be told in writing on the hearing notice that the case has no other recourse after the conclusion of the SVAPC hearing other than legal means, and then turn around and grant a special meeting, only allowing the Councilman to speak. All of this WITHOUT notification of the appellant, WITHOUT public comment and WITHOUT viewing new changes submitted for approval.
Does the Planning Commission even have the authority to alter a decision from a previous meeting at a Special Meeting? The Commissioners no longer benefit from the presence of a legal advisor. Any questions they had were addressed by Englander himself.
The two meetings have different agenda posting requirements under the Brown Act. The Agenda for a Regular Meeting is required to be posted 72 hours in advance, while the Agenda for a Special Meeting is only required to be posted 24 hours in advance.
Why would Englander take this action? Perhaps it keeps the project under the radar because it is difficult to get people to come to a hearing with only 24 hours notice. Also, he waited too long to exercise his 245 power. Section 245 only allows the Council member to call a project up for review within 5 regular Council meetings, which had already passed. This makes his actions before the SVAPC even more suspect.
Our commissions are suppose to be unmolested by political pressure. Their decisions must be based on the five legal findings, fair and square. When the commissioners asked the appellant and applicant if they were willing to have the case voted up or down, based on what was before the commissioners, and everyone agreed to those terms at the first hearing, that decision should have been iron clad.
After all the community had already faced one postponement of the SVAPC hearing, multiple neighborhood Council meetings, and very little had changed about the massive institution.
I have always believed that the commission is the last stop where some level of sanity and justice is supposed to be found. We counted on that! Our commissioners DO NOT sign up for this willful disregard of their opinions. Everyone has an opportunity to let the commissioners know how they feel about the project at the SVAPC hearings; The community, the Neighborhood Councils, the City Councilman, the applicant, the appellant, and other leaders and organizations.
Unfortunately for “Ditch Mitch” Englander, the community is madder than a nest of provoked hornets.
They are steamed over the thought that “Ditch Mitch” would set out to negotiate a deal with the developer without even consulting the appellant on the issues in question. Why wouldn’t he hold a meeting with the appellant? Why would he dictate the conditions of an agreement to the West Hills Neighborhood Council instead of asking the community what they wanted? The concessions he asked for did not dent the massive 200,000 sq ft facility on this low density lot. They did not create equality of scale and use, or make the project compatible to existing residential.
This isn’t the first time Ditch Mitch let down his constituents. Nor the first time he sold out in favor of Fred Gaines. See other articles below.
Due to the fact that incumbents consistently get reelected, and Ditch Mitch keeps his election till full, his district really has to look closely at his character now. They must ask themselves if they want someone who won’t protect the district from extremely dense and speculative investments in low density zones. Do you want someone who would render our commissioners, our protectors, useless and powerless?
Ask yourself if you can afford 3 terms of this kind of back door dealing. I think one term is too long. Perhaps you will also, after reading the letter below, from Michael Klein.
Dear Council Member Englander,
I was in attendance of tonight's South Valley Area Planning Commission meeting regarding the Eldercare Facility project located at 23200 Sherman Way. While I appreciate the "history" of the project you so eloquently provided the Planning Commission, I felt compelled to provide you with my personal "history" of this project. Let me first state that I am a city planner (although I do not work for the City of LA) and have a solid understanding of zoning codes, due process, general plans, CEQA, etc. I also respect the rights of property owners and developers, and welcome positive change in our community. After having dealt with NIMBY types over the past 9 years in this field, the last thing I would want to be is an obstructionist type NIMBY myself. But that does not mean I welcome poor and misguided decisions.
I first found out about this project over a year ago when I received notice that the West Hills Neighborhood Council was going to consider this project and make a recommendation to the ZA. After reading the notice I went to the Planning Department and discussed the project and the Eldercare Ordinance with planning staff. I then sat down with my father, who was also a city planner and had worked for Los Angeles for nearly thirty years before retiring seven years ago, to analyze the project with respect to the Eldercare Ordinance. While we did not start this process with the intent to oppose the project, our analysis lead us to only one conclusion, the project simply did not conform to the community plan (i.e. density, scale, neighborhood compatibility, etc) and therefore should not be approved as it cannot meet the necessary finding required for an approval. With this information, I decided that my position should be to oppose any project that grossly exceeded the allowed density established by the community plan.
During the time that I received notice of the West Hills Neighborhood Council meeting to discuss this project and the actual date of the meeting, my father was in a serious car accident. His condition was on and off critical leading up to the night of the meeting, and I was struggling with what to do. He wanted me to go, he wanted me to be there to present our argument and ultimately protect my rights as a property owner who will be impacted by poor planning decisions. I went to that meeting and the room was packed with people who opposed the project. In fact, the only person there in favor of the project was the applicant. The WHNC let each member of the public speak one by one, and as I suspected most people just said they were concerned about the height, the size, the noise, the construction, the traffic but did not provide adequate if any legal reasons why the project should or should not be approved. Then it was my turn, I brought up the community plan, I talked about CEQA and a asserted that the findings could not be made to approve such a project at this site. I believe my comments provided some focus to the community as I also made it very clear that I do support a project at this site, but only if it complies with the community plan.
Even though the WHNC did not vote that night, I felt the evening was a success ... until I got a phone call. My wife called me moments after the meeting ended and said I had to come to the hospital. My father had taken a turn for the worse while I was at that meeting. By the time I reached the hospital he had been placed on life support and was unresponsive. I don’t even know if he could hear me, but I told him about the meeting, I told him how much I looked up to him, and I told him how much I love him. He passed away that night. And for the past year I have been dealing with this project.
I sent my analysis and findings to the Zoning Administrator and to your Planning Deputy Hanah Lee. Neither followed up with me regarding the legal arguments I presented. I unknowingly spent the last few moments I had with my father preparing something that apparently fell on deaf ears and was completely ignored. I guess it was my mistake for having faith in LA's system. Maybe that is the final lesson my dad wanted to teach me. Despite years of building a professional and respected career with LA, I now see why he opted for early retirement. He was distraught at the "politics" of the process, and after tonight's meeting I can see why.
That is my "history" with this project. Your actions tonight proved to me that you don’t care, but I still felt compelled to share it with you.
Sincerely,
Michael Klein
PS. I probably would have been satisfied if you had brought up at least one real argument as to why the PC's decision to deny this project would have been illegal, but you didn't.
(Lisa Cerda is a contributor to CityWatch, a community activist, Chair of Tarzana Residents Against Poorly Planned Development, VP of Community Rights Foundation of LA, Tarzana Property Owners Association board member, and former Tarzana Neighborhood Council board member.)
-cw
