Posts Tagged ‘Land Use’

IMPORTANT! – Mayor Garcetti’s Interim CAO, Richard Llewellyn, Is Trying To Raise Land Use Appeal Fees To Discourage Average Joe’s To File An Appeal …

Saturday, August 12th, 2017

Inline image

This may happen at the City’s PLUM Committee Meeting this coming Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM.

Under the Constitution, the people have a basic right to make a complaint to, or seek the assistance of, their government, without fear of punishment or reprisals.

Elected Officials in Los Angeles are attempting to punish those without a great deal of wealth or influence by imposing a draconian financial roadblock by increasing the appeal fees of those challenging decisions made by the City over land use entitlements.

In several appeals by Community groups, City leaders ignored written and oral warnings that their decisions did not follow the law. Instead, they followed the direction set by their pay-to-play masters, wealthy developers who knew how to grease the wheels to get things done.

When they prevailed, the Community Groups were proven right and the City Attorney and Elected officials should have taken notice.

However, instead of learning from those losses, Elected officials continued ignoring community groups and in some cases snubbed the past decisions of the Court and repeated the same illegal land use approvals.

Contrary to Councilmember Englander’s insinuation at the August 8, 2017 PLUM meeting,  Community Groups or Individuals didn’t file appeals to make money, Individuals and Community groups took on the risk of pursuing their complaints in court and won. That is, the Court agreed that the City failed to follow the law.  They didn’t do so to enrich themselves, but rather to protect the public’s interest.

It is utter nonsense and completely false for Mr. Englander to state at an open public meeting that “… you’ll see this number [appeals] drop dramatically, because often times it’s the same people that file over and over. And they do so not because they are against the City of LA, not because they want to disrupt the system or the process, they do so to try to make money. Often they’ll try to make money off of filing these appeals because they gather neighbors, they’ll try to get their law firms retained. There’s a few of them – some even attorneys that do it pro-bono when we know it’s not. And the system has turned, for a lack of a better word, for those outside this system that continuously abuse this, corrupt.” (ca. 24 minutes into the recording, see link below)

Englander’s comments show that the intent of the City is not cost recovery, but rather to stop appeals from members of the public and only allow the pay-to-play developer/applicants any voice in final land use decisions.

Now the City’s solution is to sneak through a massive increase in the appeals fee filing cost for regular members of the public to challenge the City for their failure to follow the law by making it too costly.

And, oh boy, were they sneaky! During the August 8th PLUM Committee meeting, Planning Staff admitted that they did not reach out to any Community Groups, instead they only reached out to a small number of Business Groups (VICA and Central City Association were mentioned). To top this, Councilmember Huizar’s only concern was that Staff failed to reach out to another Business interest, the Chamber of Commerce. He and his cohorts never asked about Neighborhood Councils, Homeowner Groups, small businesses, or any other Grassroots organizations.

In short, when LA is desperate enough the City’s Leaders will do anything to discourage the regular members of the public to speak up against any out-of-character development, and worse: To file an Appeal.

Some of you may remember that back in 2009 the city already tried to up the fees for those who dared to challenge the decisions of the City Council and the Mayor.

The alarm bell was rung back then when members of the public found, buried in a cost recovery memo, a City of Los Angeles proposal to raise land use appeal fees for non-applicants (read affected homeowners, associations, and community activists) to achieve the goal of “full cost recovery.”

At that time, the City was poised to raise appeal fees to tens of thousands of dollars. Such action would foreclose the ability of an average person to protect the value of their home or community from harmful effects of ill-conceived projects.

The astronomical increase in fees implicated the constitutional right of property owners, tenants, and small business owners to defend their rights from City overreach.

The response was huge and swift.  Homeowners groups, activists, and attorneys swamped the City Council with emails, calls, and letters expressing alarm that the real purpose of the fee hikes were to suppress the constitutional right to petition government for redress.

Los Angeles City Council members quickly agreed that if any City Planning “service” should be borne by the General Fund, it is land use appeals by non-applicants.

Fast forward to August 2017: The Ghost of the appeals fee’s past has returned. – And it came  right at a time when most families are out of town taking August vacations. (One can be assured that this is just a coincidence, or is it?)

The City has returned to the old 2009 fee cost recovery (Council File 09-0969)  and, at least on Tuesday, August 8, 2017, used an agenda item description, that failed to give notice to anyone in the land use, CEQA, or historic preservation world, that the Council was considering once again to raise these fees to the sky.

This newest proposal is being carried out by Richard Llewellyn, Eric Garcetti’s Mayoral Office attorney, who is currently serving as “Interim CAO”.  Thus, responsibility for this fee increase can be traced right back to the Mayor himself.

The CAO’s report claims, that it costs roughly $13,000 to respond to a land use appeal. – Hold on a second, and let’s question for a moment the legitimacy of how this cost was compiled.

We all know that staff frequently does not even prepare a written response, and Councilmembers only give land use appellants an insulting five minutes to try to communicate complex land use objections to them, while they are looking at their phones or eating a late lunch. To prove the point, here is a recording from March 22, 2016, when community members, as well as staff from Councilmember Mitch O’Farrell’s office, addressed the PLUM Committee with comments regarding the yet to be completed Target store on Sunset: (Notice Mr. Cedillo leisurely eating away on a banana …)

Going back to the current issue at hand, how many people can afford $13,000 to protect their property or tenant interests?  This is a very serious issue and it should not be taken lightly.

Once again, we face an effort of extremely monied interests rigging the system to squelch anyone who would dare ask the City to comply with its own laws or comply with such concepts as constitutional due process.

At the August 8, 2017 PLUM hearing Councilmember Mitch Englander spent most of his time essentially saying the fees should be raised to silence the City’s critics.

(Please note that Item 2 starts at approximately 00:08:55 into the meeting.)

Fortunately, Councilmember Englander asked the City staff to come back next week with suggested criteria for “hardship” applications, so certain persons can beg on their knees for a reduced appeal fee.

Therefore, those of you who are outraged by the way the city is conducting its pay-to-play type of business, may want to mark your calendars and rally as many as possible to the PLUM Committee on August 15.

Let’s not forget that Councilmember Englander needs help from homeowners and activists in his own district to understand the issues — since he clearly appears headed toward taking the City in an unlawful direction.

Also, if the City is too “poor” to subsidize the cost of processing a land use appeal, why didn’t the City consider imposing development fees on developers who trigger the need to appeal, and then cross-subsidize the cost of appeal processing?

Richard Llewellyn and Mayor Garcetti have not suggested or even considered this concept.

Again, those of you out there who are able, mobile and willing to stand up again, as you did back in 2009, to tell your elected officials to stop twisting your wallets and start following the law, please make yourselves available on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM, and join the Councilmembers during their PLUM meeting in Room 350 at Los Angeles City Hall.

For your convenience, here is the link to the 08-15-2017 PLUM Agenda, and the item in question is Item 3 (CF: 09-0969):

Added Bonus:

Here is the link to the “Council Directory Page”, which shows all the contact info for your LA City Council representative. Please don’t hesitate to call, tweet, email, or fax them with any concern you might have regarding this Issue BEFORE the Committee Meeting …

Good Luck to All of Us!


Is Target on Sunset targeting more litigation?

Thursday, March 24th, 2016

For almost two years the looming skeleton structure that once was thought be an operating TARGET store by the Holiday Season of 2014 might have to remain looming in place for a while longer.

The shadow it casts from the sun reaches the nearby residences, but the shadow is not the fault of the sun.

The sun, in fact, has nothing to do with it. The shadow, however, has everything to do with it.

The shadow over the Target on Sunset project was cast by Mayor Garcetti, who was the Council Member and City Council President when the project was approved in City Council several years back. A major project that could have been bringing in money to the Target Shareholders and the community. (link to video)

However, none of the current LA City Council Members are blameless either. They were back then and still are now all in favor of the project to proceed as is. The current Council Member for CD 13, Mitchell O’Farrell, has made it abundantly clear that the project needs to move forward, so that it can bring in Jobs and improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. (Link to video)

The only people who have a problem and, well yes, a legitimate concern about this Project are the so called “NIMBY’S” (Not In My Back Yard).

Their main concern is the fact that Target on Sunset is being built in Non-Compliance with the current laws, mainly: The SNAP Ordinance that governs, or rules, the area this Target store will be located in.

Guess what? The Court agreed with them when they sued the City and Target about the Height, amongst other things. Judge Fruin, in fact, had the construction of the project halted back in 2014. (Link to video)

So, why not blame the court then? – Simple: One cannot put blame on those who uphold the law.

Instead, one has to make changes to the Law! … And that is exactly what the City is now doing … without any regard to the community or its members or even the employees of Target, who apparently have lost out on a Child Care center, which SNAP requires.

When a community becomes the target of TARGET on Sunset, which apparently is backed by the back-room-deals of our City Leaders, then what’s left to do? Sue!?

Yes, in Hollywood it has become a standard practice as community members stand up to the seemingly corrupt system Los Angeles has turned in to.

Some, including City Leaders, call the opponents of projects NIMBY’S, but I think these fighters are the “guardians” of communities who are being taken for a downhill ride with developments that bring more traffic, less services and yes: more back-room-deals. When people feel that their back is against the wall and that their objections and concerns are not being heard or taken seriously, the only tool these people have left is to sue the City. That’s the last resort, but it seems to be the ONLY resort left in order to fight the machine we call City Hall. (link to video)

Sitting back and doing nothing is not an option when thousands of written pages and countless spoken words can’t seem to reach anyone in the Council Offices or even the Mayor’s office. The efforts of trying to work with the city leaders and their representatives are being disregarded and wasted by the same people who they are supposed to reach. (Link to video)

In Hollywood one lawsuit after another is filed, with quite a number of them being won in court. Yet, nothing ever changes as far as the business as usual in Los Angeles is concerned. – Instead, City Council Members and the Mayor put their heads together to figure out a way to make development easier for developers.

Instead of upholding current laws, rules, and guidelines they (The City Leaders) change these laws, rules and guidelines as they please without any regard to what the consequences would be.

In the case of Target on Sunset: They are amending the Vermont / Western Station Neighborhood Area Plan (SNAP), which is accompanying Ordinance 173749 just so that Target can be built taller and does not have to provide any real services to the community and its employees. SNAP requires delivery service to the community and child care facility for employees.

In this instant, though, Target got away with not having to do any of the above. (Link to video)

The city’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) held a hearing on March 22, 2016 in order to give the people and appellants of the project an opportunity to address the members of the committee in regard to the Target on Sunset Project.

These “public hearings” are mandatory by law, but from the looks of it this hearing was nothing less of an unnecessary “courtesy” extended by the overwhelmingly tired looking and tired acting council members.

Council Member Felipe Fuentes set back in his chair, not to be heard one spoken word from, while Council Member Jose Huizar, who is the chairperson of the committee, had several yawning “attacks” and apparently had a hard time staying awake.

Council Member Marqueece Harris-Dawson just plainly closed his eyes for seconds at the time, if he was not wandering around to speak with someone at the sidelines of the meeting, and Council Member Gilbert Cedillo needed food to stay awake, which he so gallantly devoured during the statements given by Staff from Council District 13 and one last public speaker, George Abrahams.

Granted this has almost nothing to do with the Project, but it has everything to do with the fact that the Committee Members, who are also City Council Members, were all in agreement BEFORE the meeting even started.

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 the LA City Council sent the issue of “Target on Sunset” back to Committee due to technical error, as the “Ordinance was not included”.