Before filing this grievance with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (DONE) I raised my concerns with the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council (ERNC) on December 6, 2016 at the ERNC Board meeting. A primary issue dealt with the ERNC’s proposed text in its December 7, 2016 draft letter. At the December 6, 2016 ERNC board meeting David Greene, Immediate Past President of the ERNC and ERNC Board Member, moved to approve the text of a December 7, 2016 draft letter to the City Planning Department regarding Case No. ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZAD that was New Business Item No. A on that agenda. Case No. ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZAD is The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit (CUP) application regarding a proposed religious retreat at 1554 Hill Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90041.
The ERNC’s December 7, 2016 draft letter regarding Case No. ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZAD sets forth that the ERNC voted 3 yes; 2 no vote on November 1, 2016 that passed the October 18, 2016 Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council Land Use and Planning Committee (ERNC LUPC) recommendation to support that case. The recommendation in the ERNC's December 7, 2016 draft letter to the Department of City Planning differs from the approved minutes of the ERNC November 1, 2016 meeting that described the motion brought by Matt Hemingway "to support the CUP, oppose the 40' height and request that CD 14 (or someone) file a cultural designation before the CUP is granted." According to the November 1, 2016 ERNC Board minutes the motion passed 6 in favor and 4 opposed. The approved minutes properly reflect what I observed was the vote on November 1, 2016. In his witness statement Richard Kvassay confirms that fact.
Subsequently, on December 9, 2016 the ERNC sent Mary Richardson in the Department of City Planning a letter regarding Case No. ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZAD without identifying the applicant for the conditional use permit application. In order to demonstrate why both the ERNC’s December 7, 2016 draft letter and the December 9, 2016 letter evidence the ERNC's failure to follow the ERNC By-Laws, The Brown Act, Los Angeles City Charter Section 900, City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Rules, Standards and Best Practices and the Neighborhood Council Board Member Code of Conduct Policy it is necessary to relate back to that case's being heard at the ERNC LUPC on October 18, 2016 and at the ERNC on November 1, 2016. The ERNC's December 9, 2016 letter to Ms. Richardson refers to both the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting "at which a quorum was present" and "the Land Use and Planning Committee of the ERNC ... where community members had a chance to speak on the application and hear from the applicant" that occurred on October 18, 2016.
A. Lack of a Quorum at Both the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC Meeting and the November 1, 2016 ERNC Meeting
First, on December 6, 2016, the ERNC failed to explain why 5 ERNC members, who voted on The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit application on November 1, 2016, were ineligible to vote. Additionally, both the ERNC’s December 7, 2016 draft letter and the December 9, 2016 letter fail to address the ERNC’ violation of Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council By Laws Article VII Section 1 (E) because it failed to have two ERNC Directors, "as nominated by the Board" to co-chair the ERNC LUPC on October 18, 2016. Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council By Laws Article VII Section 1 (E) also sets forth that the ERNC LUPC "shall consist of up to seventeen members." Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council By Laws Article VII Section 1 (E) fails to establish what constitutes a quorum for any ERNC LUPC meeting. As a result, given the aforementioned provisions a proper quorum would be nine members. Accepting the ERNC LUPC's "eventually declared' quorum of seven members on October 18, 2016 as stated in its approved minutes has no supporting basis. For example, if the ERNC LUPC only was comprised of five members would the quorum then be limited to three members in order to vote on any and all land use recommendations?
On November 28, 2016, Lisa Kable Blanchard, President of the ERNC, informed me that one of the voting members at the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting was not authorized to vote. Even though Ms. Kable Blanchard expressed her opinion that it would not change the vote she is incorrect. The ERNC December 6, 2016 minutes refer to Mr. Greene’s statement that five ERNC members, who voted on this issue on November 1, 2016, were ineligible to vote. Consequently, a quorum did not exist when the ERNC voted on November 1, 2016 to approve The Bird Nest LLC conditional use permit application. Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council By Laws Article V Section 2 sets forth: "The quorum shall be ten members of the Board." If even one person, who voted at the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting, was disqualified from voting no quorum existed when the vote occurred. "Thus, in general, no action may be taken when a quorum has been lost or never achieved." Both the ERNC's December 7, 2016 draft letter and the ERNC's December 9, 2016 letter to the Department of City Planning reflect the lack of a quorum on November 1, 2016. How is it that 5 ERNC members are able to pass the local community's "official recommendation" when The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application involved almost 1000 signed petitions? The ERNC's By-laws Article V Section 3 specifically refers to a"simple majority vote by the Board members present and voting..."See Also: The Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils Articles II (3) and III (2)(c)(iii)(4)(b).
B. ERNC's Failure to Address a Brown Act Violation Relating to Case ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZAD at its December 6, 2016 ERNC meeting and the ERNC’s December 6, 2016 Ratification of the Improper Act
1) On December 5, 2016, I filed a grievance with the ERNC and referred to David Greene's October 26, 2016 written explanation to Ms. Kable Blanchard, the ERNC,members and the ERNC LUPC members that extensively describes what Mr. Greene inaccurately believed occurred at the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting. Mr. Greene is the Chair of the ERNC LUPC, , and he chaired the ERNC LUPC meeting on October 18, 2016 that recommended supporting The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application "for religious retreat use".
By way of background, on October 26, 2016 at 2:19 pm Mr. Greene sent the ERNC and ERNC LUPC members improperly distributed information, which he previously sent to the "Boulevard Sentinel about the Bekins case". In his improper communication Mr. Greene gave his opinion about the 106 petitions, which opposed the project. He stated as follows:"At the meeting, we received 2 different sets of written petitions. One that was a straight up objection to the case, and another that included language about a hotel/homeless shelter use, which was misleading and not helpful to the discussion....In the end, after talking to many neighborhood residents, it seemed that on the whole, they wouldn't mind the retreat use, if there were no major construction on the site, and if the size of any new building matched what the Archdiocese has been saying -- which is that it will be used for 8-10 priests at a time. Building 25 hotel-like rooms doesn't match that claim, and the developers had no good reason for why it was necessary, other than saying that it was 'what the Archdiocese wanted.'" Rather than address Mr. Greene's violation of the Brown Act on December 6, 2016 the ERNC essentially ratified Mr. Greene's October 26, 2016 improper explanation of "what the recommendation the ERNC Land Use committee made after the meeting last week".
In contrast to Mr. Greene’s improper communication the minutes of the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting reflect that the only petitions presented regarding The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application were the 106 petitions presented by Frank Defoe, an Eagle Rock stakeholder who also filed a witness statement to this grievance. On December 6, 2016, the ERNC ratified Mr. Greene's October 26, 2016 statement by its voting to approve the text in its December 7, 2016 draft letter, stating its "recommendation" as follows: "The community objects to the building of more than 10 new living units on the property, and denial of the Director's Determination is the only tool they have to enforce that objection. The applicant has stated that no more than 8-10 priests will be on retreat on the site at any one time, so the number of built units must reflect that." Even though Mr. Greene's improper October 26, 2016 communication refers to "8-10 priests at a time" the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC minutes do not reflect any such finding or discussion of that issue at the ERNC LUPC meeting. The first ERNC statement regarding only 8-10 priests at the site "at any one time" is in the ERNC December 7, 2016 draft letter, which essentially mirrors the text in Mr. Greene's October 26, 2016 written representation to the members of the ERNC and ERNC LUPC before the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting. In fact, the October 18, 2016 approved ERNC LUPC minutes state the "potential buyers, the archdiocese, requests... a 28' 25-bedroom house."
Mr. Greene's written October 26, 2016 explanation, provided to the ERNC (and ERNC LUPC) members before the ERNC November 1, 2016 meeting, violated The Brown Act. On October 26, 2016, Mr. Greene extensively discussed his point of view and argued his personal opinions. Two other ERNC LUPC members, James Panozzo and Brian Bowman, sent out additional follow-up communications to both the ERNC (and ERNC LUPC) members regarding Mr. Greene's improper communication, thus constituting two additional Brown Act violations. The Brown Act prohibited/prohibits Mr. Greene, Mr. Panozzo and Mr. Brown "from engaging in any form of communication among one another outside of a public meeting that leads to a majority developing a concurrence on an action to be taken." Consequently, on December 6, 2016, the ERNC failed to address this violation of the ERNC Bylaws Article XIV before it voted on the draft text of the December 7, 2016 letter.
The ERNC knew and knows that the "purpose of the Brown Act is to avoid secrecy in government. Neighborhood Council board members and committee members are representative of the stakeholders in their area. The discussions and actions of the Neighborhood Council must be conducted at publicly noticed meetings." Government Code Section 54952.2. "Government Code Section 54950 states: 'In enacting this chapter the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created." Mr. Greene's October 26, 2016 improper written communication distributed information to the ERNC in order for that governmental body to "gather information or formulate a point of view on" The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application, i.e., "an issue that is within the subject matter jurisdiction" of the ERNC before the ERNC's meeting on November 1, 2016 to address that specific permit application.
Facts establish Mr. Greene's erroneous information to the ERNC, the ERNC LUPC and the press on October 26, 2016. First, Frank Defoe rebuts Mr. Greene's assertion that on October 18, 2016 at the ERNC LUPC meeting the neighbor residents wouldn't mind the retreat use. The October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC approved minutes also support Mr. Defoe's rebuttal; those minutes do not identify a single neighborhood resident, who "wouldn't mind the retreat use." The Eagle Rock stakeholders, referred to in the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC minutes, set forth their respective opposition to the proposed project.
Additionally, on April 25, 2016, shortly after The Bird Nest LLC filed its conditional use permit application and after the Archdiocese filed its Environmental Assessment Form on April 24, 2016 (curiously for the same project) Weston Pringle, a City Department of Transportation staffer, identified the proposed facility on the Eagle Rock Property as a “Hotel” in the Traffic Study Assessment by the City Department of Transportation. On April 21, 2016, Katheryn Hudson filed an application on behalf of The Bird Nest, LLC for the City to grant The Bird Nest,LLC a conditional use permit “for the construction and operation of a Religious Retreat Facility in the R1-1 zone” located on the “irregularly shaped” 2.8 acre “Single Family home site” at 1554 Hill Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90041. Neither The Bird Nest, LLC nor Ms. Hudson nor the Archdiocese of Los Angeles currently owns the Eagle Rock Property, located at 1554 Hill Drive.
The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit application seeks the City’s authorization to construct in a “R1-1 Zone” a three story 30,300 square feet hotel with 23-25 bedrooms and 23-25 separate baths; a large kitchen, two dining rooms, meeting rooms, offices, two chapels and 27 covered parking spaces; however, on December 6, 2016, (despite my December 5, 2016 request) the ERNC failed to consider that the Environmental Assessment Form for that same project identifies The Archdiocese of Los Angeles as being the applicant "requesting the conditional use permit" for the Project at 1554 W. Hill Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90041.
On April 14, 2016, both Robert Kvassay and Tom Stemnock swore and stated that the Project at 1554 W. Hill Drive was not a "Residential project". The Project was listed as a "Commercial, Industrial or Other Project". Included in that Commercial, Industrial or Other Project Section was a category labeled "Number of units if hotel/motel". Under that "Number of units if hotel/motel" Mr. Kvassay and Mr. Stemnock marked 23-25 guest rooms, 3 stories, 40 foot height, 27 parking spaces, 9-5 hours of operation, 5 days a week, 2 Chapels- 15 seats and 50 seats, 6-8 employees per shift, Security lighting, gated driveway. Contradicting the Archdiocese of Los Angeles representative's sworn statement set forth in the April 24, 2016 Archdiocese's Environmental Assessment Form, the approved October 18, 2016 minutes of the ERNC LUPC state that the Archdiocese "requests:...A 28' 25-bedroom house."
2) On December 5, 2016, I informed the ERNC that on November 28, 2016, I became aware of the following:
a. On July 6, 2016 Mr. Greene sent Thomas Stemnock, representative of The Bird Nest LLC, Robert Kvassay and The Bird Nest LLC, the applicant, a letter, informing them that on July 5, 2016, the ERNC "voted unanimously to request that the owner(s) and applicant in this case formally apply for Historic-Cultural Monument status for the property and grounds, as per Sec. 22.171.10 of the LAMC.... The application for HCM status must be made before" the ERNC LUPC and ERNC "will schedule a vote on this case, and therefore before a formal recommendation is made to the Planning Department about the Conditional use Permit and Director's Determination being requested." Mr. Greene copied the Office of Councilmember Jose Huizar on that letter.
Two months later on September 8, 2016, Mr. Greene wrote: "Hi all, Forwarding you a letter from the potential developers of the Bekins Estate, regarding the ERNC's request that HCM status be applied for...I went ahead and highlighted the relevant sections, amid the chaff and misdirection. (Spoiler: They said No.)" That same date, Kevin Ocubillo, one of Councilman Huizar's staff personnel, responded, "Hello, Thanks for sharing David. I just gave it a read." The ERNC provided me with no documents to indicate who "all' were in Mr. Greene's September 8, 2016 message so it is unknown if Mr. Greene’s September 8, 2016 writing constituted another Brown Act violation. I also brought this issue to the ERNC’s attention on December 5, 2016. A review of both the ERNC and ERNC LUPC minutes following Mr. Greene's receipt of this letter "from the potential developers of the Bekins Estate" do not establish that Mr. Greene shared either the letter or the specific text of the potential developer’s letter with the public at any meeting. On December 6, 2016 rather than address whether Mr. Greene posted the "letter from the potential developers of the Bekins estate" on the ERNC website as I requested on December 5, 2016, the ERNC simply reiterated its previous July 5, 2016 action in the approved text of its December 7, 2016 draft letter.
Since there was a response to the ERNC's July 6, 2016 letter, which said "No" the ERNC and the ERNC LUPC failed to comply with its own July 5, 2016 representation, which stated: " The application for HCM status must be made before the Land Use and Planning Committee of the ERNC and the ERNC board will schedule a vote on this case..." Questionably, on December 6, 2016, the ERNC failed to produce the September 8, 2016 response from "the potential developers of the Bekins Estate" at that meeting.
C. The ERNC's December 6, 2016 Erroneous Finding that the "ballot count" of the Petitions "supporting and opposing the archdiocese's acquisition of the property at 1554 Hill Drive... is nearly equal".
The ERNC November 1, 2016 approved minutes and the agenda of the ERNC November 1, 2016 meeting relate back to the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC recommendation regarding Case No. ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZAD. Consequently, the petitions presented on October 18, 2016 at the ERNC LUPC are a key focus. The ERNC December 6, 2016 minutes describe that the ERNC November 1, 2016 meeting as being "chaotic". Even though the December 6, 2016 minutes state that "Cyndi" Otteson, Vice President of the ERNC, explained that the December 6, 2016 "vote is to clarify what the November 1, meeting meant" I recall that on November 1, 2016 at the ERNC meeting Ms. Otteson was not present when The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application was discussed and when the ERNC Board voted on it. Matt Hemingway was the chair person. At the December 6, 2016 ERNC meeting Mr. Hemingway publicly apologized for how he handled that meeting as the then chairperson.
On the important matter of the petitions, following the ERNC LUPC October 18, 2016 meeting Katrina Perez, a member of the ERNC LUPC, informed Mr. Greene on October 24, 2016, that she was "impressed with the volume of signatures". As of that date 106 petitions (all in opposition to The Bird Nest LLC's proposed project) had been presented at the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting. On October 24, 2016, Mr. Greene wrote to Ms. Perez the following: " A straight up NIMBY vote will not get the neighbors what they want, which is the status quo." (Italics only added.) Mr. Greene's describing the adjacent neighbors and surrounding neighbors of the former Bekin's Estate as simply presenting a "not in my backyard" position demonstrates Mr. Greene's lack of respect for each one of the petitioners in opposition to the project in violation of the City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Board Member Code of Conduct Policy, City Charter Section 900, the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council By-Laws and the City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Rules, Standards and Best Practices.
Before the November 1, 2016 ERNC members' vote regarding The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application over 290 petitions in opposition to the ERNC’s approving the permit, had been presented to the ERNC:
1) On October 18, 2016, Frank Defoe, an Eagle Rock stakeholder, presented 106 petitions in opposition to the conditional use permit application at the ERNC LUPC meeting.
2) Before the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting I sent to each of the ERNC members 125 scanned petitions in opposition to the conditional use permit application.
3) At the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting I presented an additional 59 petitions in opposition to the conditional use permit application. Since Councilman Huizar's deputy had the 106 petitions, presented on October 18, 2016, in the back seat of her car on November 1, 2016, despite my request to inspect those 106 petitions I was not given access in order to determine which petitions were duplicates before the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting.
On December 5, 2016, I wrote to the ERNC that the aforementioned petitions, which all opposed The Bird Nest LLC's permit application, set forth the local needs of adjacent owners, residing next to the property at 1554 Hill Drive, Los Angeles, owners/ residents within 500 feet of the property at 1554 Hill Drive, Los Angeles, the surrounding neighborhood of the property at 1554 Hill Drive, Los Angeles, Eagle Rock residents, retirees, realtors, teachers, and others in the Eagle Rock community; all of the 290 petitions opposed/oppose approval of The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit. Rather than deny The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application (allegedly authorized by Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.24 W.9 to build a church) the ERNC voted to conditionally support The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application as reflected in its draft December 7, 2016 letter, On December 6, 2016, despite my earlier repeated requests the ERNC failed to make any finding that The Bird Nest LLC had a "lasting interest in the completed project" (as required in the application). The ERNC's conditional approval of the permit evidences complete disregard for the stated concerns of the Eagle Rock stakeholders that are required conditional use permit findings:
• The project will not "enhance the built environment in the surrounding neighborhood".
• The project will not "perform a function or provide a service that is essential or beneficial to the community, city or region".
• The project's "location, size, height, operations and other significant features" will not be "compatible with the adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood".
D. The Petitions Presented on October 18, 2016 at the ERNC LUPC Meeting
Previously, on October 16, 2016, I wrote to David Greene and requested that he set forth on the record how many Eagle Rock stakeholders were in support of The Bird Nest LLC conditional use permit application at the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting; I also advised him that the names of those supporters should be included as part of The Bird Nest LLC's permit application. Mr. Greene did not comply with my written request. Even though speakers cards were filled out at the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting the ERNC currently has none of those speakers’ cards, which are public documents. Included in the ERNC LUPC meeting minutes of October 18, 2016 is only one reference to "106 petitions... submitted to the LUPC". No mention is made that the 106 petitions submitted were all in opposition to The Bird Nest LLC's permit application. On October 18, 2016, no petitions were submitted in support of The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application.
Even though David Greene informed Frank Defoe in writing that Mr. Greene would bring the petitions presented (to the ERNC LUPC on October 18, 2016 in opposition to The Bird Nest LLC's permit application) to the ERNC November 1, 2016 meeting Mr. Greene did not attend the ERNC November 1, 2016 meeting. NO ONE from the ERNC LUPC brought the 106 petitions, which Mr. Defoe presented on October 18, 2016. Before the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting I asked to see the petitions, which Mr. Defoe presented, and I was told to contact Sean Starkey, field deputy to Councilman Jose Huizar because Councilman Huizar's office had the 106 petitions. On November 1, 2016, when I spoke with Mr. Starkey he told me that I would not be able to see the opposition petitions because they were in the backseat of another one of Councilman Huizar's field deputies' car. I was not able to inspect the 106 petitions, which Mr. Defoe presented, until November 28, 2016.
In contrast, on November 28, 2016, I learned that on October 21, 2016, Mr. Greene scanned all of the 106 petitions, presented to the ERNC LUPC members on October 18, 2016, and sent those scanned petitions to an unknown person (name redacted from my copy), Kevin Ocubillo, Sean Starkey, Zenay Loera - all field deputies of Councilman Jose Huizar. Therefore, City Council District 14 received scanned copies of all 106 petitions even though Mr. Greene provided the original 106 petitions to Councilman Huizar's office. On October 26, 2016, Mr. Greene implied to the ERNC, ERNC LUPC and the Boulevard Sentinel that Mr. Greene reviewed the 106 petitions at the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting; however, that was not the case as evidenced by the following:
1) On October 19, 2016, Tom Stemnock, representative of the applicant The Bird Nest LLC and lobbyist to the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, wrote to Mr. Greene, "David, Just a reminder regarding the petitions that were submitted last night.Could you please forward them to me? Thanks, you run a good meeting!" In stark contrast to Mr. Greene's lack of response to me, Mr. Greene responded to Mr. Stemnock's message six minutes later! Mr. Greene provided Mr. Stemnock with not only my opposition to the conditional use permit application but also "a blank copy of the petition, that was presented to the LUPC last night". That petition, is the one, which I drafted.
2) On October 21, 2016 at 3:32 pm three days after the ERNC LUPC meeting, Mr. Greene wrote to an unknown person (name redacted on my copy), Kevin Ocubillo, the executive team of the ERNC, Sean Starkey and Zenay Loera the following: "Follow up: I just noticed that the paper petitions include additional language that was not on the emailed version. Attached is a scan. These are the petitions that were signed by residents. Copying to Zenay and Sean at CD-14. David". Based upon this representation, it is clear that Mr. Greene failed to review and consider the petitions, presented on October 18, 2016, until he scanned and forward the petitions and my opposition (without redacting my mother's name) to unknown persons and Council District 14 three days after the ERNC LUPC meeting.
Mr. Greene's bias in favor of The Bird Nest LLC and The Archdiocese of Los Angeles is demonstrated by his quick response to Tom Stemnock regarding the petitions - unbelievably 6 minutes from the time of his receipt of Mr. Stemnock’s request. In stark contrast, it was necessary for me to present a Public Records Act in order to inspect the same scanned 106 petitions, presented on October 18, 2016. I was not given access to the 106 petitions until November 28, 2016. In addition, the ERNC required payment from me for copying the petitions under that same act even though the same had been scanned and presented to others.
E. Robert Kvassay’s Petitions Presented on November 1, 2016
It also was necessary for me to present a Public Records Act request to inspect the petitions, which Robert Kvassay presented to the ERNC on November 1, 2016. Even though I requested to see those 600+ petitions on November 2, 2016, the ERNC failed to provide them until the evening of December 1, 2016, after the ERNC consulted with the City Attorney's Office.
Richard Kvassay is Robert Kvassay's brother, and Richard Kvassay signed his witness statement in support of my DONE grievance. In his statement Richard Kvassay represents, "no later than October 29, 2016 to date that Katy Kvassay, Christine Kvassay, Jon Kvassay and Vicki Kvassay are not Eagle Rock stakeholders" as each respectively represented in their petitions in support of The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application. Additionally, Richard Kvassay is one of three beneficiaries of the Kvassay Family Trust, which owns the property located at 1554 Hill Drive. After the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting Richard Kvassay contacted me, and he has since signed the petition in opposition to The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application.
When reviewing my grievance it should be noted that after Mr. Greene provided Mr. Stemnock, Council District 14 and an unknown (to me) person with the 106 petitions, presented to the ERNC LUPC members on October 18, 2016, St. Dominic's Catholic Church in Eagle Rock included a flyer in its October 30, 2016 church bulletin regarding "The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles House of Prayer's" open house that same day at 1554 Hill Drive. A cursory review of the petitions, presented by Robert Kvassay on November 1, 2016 that he obtained on October 30, 2016, show a similarity in format to the petition, which I drafted, as well as the format of the petition in opposition to the project with text Mr. Greene stated in his improper October 26, 2016 communication were "misleading and not helpful to the discussion".
Pointedly, it was/is absolutely unfair and inconsistent for Mr. Greene to comment on the stated concerns of 106 petitions' opposing the project because they were extremely concerned that their property will be devalued and traffic will increase. The Eagle Rock stakeholders, who oppose the proposed project, also are very concerned that a conditional use permit could be amended in the future to allow rental apartments, a substance abuse treatment center or even a homeless shelter despite its being in a residential zone. Instead the approved October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC minutes focus upon the following: "The Kvassay Family Trust currently pays $20K/ month to maintain this property. Years ago they received an offer to tear down the house and develop the property to become 20 to 25 houses." Rather than bringing both concerns to the public discussion it was unfair for the ERNC LUPC to address only the potential development of 20-25 homes on the site as a basis for the ERNC LUPC’s recommendation regarding The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application.
F. The ERNC’s Violation of Article II (B)(8) of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council By-Laws by its Failing to Have Fair, Open and Transparent Procedures Regarding Its Review of The Bird Nest LLC's Conditional Use Permit Application
All of the aforementioned actions demonstrate that the ERNC did not act in a fair, open and transparent manner with respect to the procedures involved in the business of reviewing The Bird Nest LLC's permit application in violation of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council By Laws Article II (B) (8).
As a result, the ERNC failed to comply with both City Charter Section 900 and its own mission statement. The ERNC did not assure "effective Stakeholder participation and interaction" regarding "the decision-making" involved with The Bird Nest LLC conditional use permit application. The ERNC did not comply with City Charter Section 900 and Article II (B) (1) of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council By-Laws because the text of the ERNC's December 9, 2016 letter to the Department of City Planning did not "make government more responsive to local needs" when the ERNC wrote that it conditionally approved The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application.
1. ERNC’s Failure to Communicate With Adjacent Neighbors and Neighbors Within 500 Feet of The Project, a 3-Story 30,300 Square Foot Hotel at 1554 Hill Drive
Shortly before the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting to consider The Bird Nest LLC’s Conditional Use Permit Application my mother, received a Notice of Public Meeting. That notice was mailed on October 10, 2016 from Santa Clarita, CA, and succinctly informed my mother that the ERNC "will discuss and vote on the entitlement of the application above" on October 18, 2016, and November 1, 2016. On October 26, 2016, David Greene, Chairperson of the ERNC LUPC and Immediate Past President of the ERNC informed me, "The notice you received in the mail was sent by the applicant. The ERNC requires this of all applicants."
Since the ERNC seemingly made no inquiry it remains unknown if the applicant provided notice to all adjacent neighbors to the property and other neighbors within 500' of the property at 1554 Hill Drive. It also is unknown if any board member of the ERNC asked the applicant for any proof as to who received notice. Additionally, the ERNC also has yet to explain why the applicant provided such late notice to adjacent neighbors to the property at 1554 Hill Drive and possibly other neighbors within 500' of the property at 1554 Hill Drive.
The ERNC's lack of communication and lack of outreach regarding The Bird Nest LLC's proposed project to construct a 3-Story 30,300 Square Foot Hotel at 1554 Hill Drive did not "occur in a timely manner, allowing stakeholders enough time to learn about issues and provide feedback" to the ERNC. As a result, the ERNC violated the City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Communications Rule (Charter Section 906(a)(4); Plan Art. III, Sec. 2 (c)(iii)(3)) and the Standards and Best Practices for Following the Rule. The ERNC's lack of any outreach to improve stakeholder involvement in this important land use issue also should be considered in this grievance: No forum was conducted by either the ERNC LUPC or the ERNC before October 18, 2016 and November 1, 2016, respectively, and no door to door outreach was conducted by either the ERNC LUPC or the ERNC before October 18, 2016 and November 1, 2016, respectively. On December 5, 2016, I raised this issue with the ERNC, and I have yet to receive a response.
Additionally, the ERNC itself did not provide relevant communication to many Eagle Rock stakeholders "with facts about" the 3-Story 30,300 Square Foot Hotel "an issue of concern" to Eagle Rock stakeholders "and possible action by city government" before the ERNC LUPC October 18, 2016 meeting and the ERNC November 1, 2016 meeting. That lack of communication constitutes a separate violation of the City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Communications Rule (Charter Section 906(a)(4); Plan Art. III, Sec. 2 (c)(iii)(3)) and the Standards and Best Practices for Following the Rule. Instead the ERNC delegated its outreach duties to the agent and representative of The Bird Nest LLC, the applicant of the conditional use permit application at issue.
Given Mr. Greene's terse response to me regarding the late notice I wrote to Tom Stemnock of The Planning Associates, Inc. on December 1, 2016, and asked him why The Bird Nest LLC sent late notice to adjacent neighbors to 1550 Hill Drive, 1554 Hill Drive and 5332 N. Dahlia Drive and other neighbors before the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting. Mr. Stemnock is the agent and representative of The Bird Nest LLC as well as the lobbyist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. As a land use planner Mr. Stemnock is undoubtedly very familiar with the strict notice requirements set forth in Section 12.24 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the ERNC's similar notice requirement. I also requested an explanation from Mr. Stemnock as to why the circle on the radius map, depicting the former Bekins Estate at 1550 Hill Drive, 1554 Hill Drive and 5332 N. Dahlia Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90041, did not extend 500 feet beyond the "boundaries of the property" i.e., 1550 Hill Drive, 1554 Hill Drive and 5332 N. Dahlia Drive, Los Angeles CA 90041 as represented in the scale on his map.
Mr. Stemnock previously provided my mother with that radius map. I asked Mr. Stemnock to confirm that The Bird Nest LLC used this radius map to provide notice to adjacent neighbors as well as certain other neighbors, who reside 500 feet beyond the extensive "boundaries of the property". To date I have not received any response from Mr. Stemnock. The radius map, provided by Mr. Stemnock to my mother depicts Portion of Lot 2, Tract No 532, and portion of Lot 59, Watts Subdivision of a part of the Rancho San Rafael M.R. 5-200-201, i.e., the former Bekin's Estate. Notwithstanding The Bird Nest LLC's obligation to provide notice to neighbors within 500 feet of the boundaries of the former Bekin's Estate the ERNC failed to address the procedural flaws with Mr. Stemnock regarding the late notice given by The Bird Nest LLC to adjacent neighbors to 1550 Hill Drive, 1554 Hill Drive and 5332 N. Dahlia Drive and neighbors within 500 feet from all exterior borders of the large 124,319 square foot property.
To have a fair and transparent process the ERNC should have confirmed that The Bird Nest LLC provided notice to all adjacent neighbors to the property as well as other neighbors within 500' of the exterior boundaries of the property at 1550 Hill Drive, 1554 Hill Drive and 5332 N. Dahlia Drive. Since the ERNC delegated its obligations to The Bird Nest LLC the ERNC should have at minimum questioned why the notice was mailed from Santa Clarita on October 10, 2016 when the ERNC LUPC meeting was scheduled on October 18, 2016 to discuss and vote on this important issue, involving the property rights of adjacent neighbors and surrounding neighbors of the property at 1550 Hill Drive, 1554 Hill Drive and 5332 N. Dahlia Drive.
Included in my grievance is an issue as to whether the ERNC posted the meeting agendas regarding The Bird Nest LLC conditional use permit application in 5-7 physical locations before either the ERNC LUPC October 18, 2016 meeting or the ERNC November 1, 2016 meeting. On December 5, 2016, I also brought this issue to the ERNC's attention, and I have yet to receive a response. The ERNC's failure to do so would violate City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Meetings Rule 4 pursuant to Commission Policy # 2010-02.
2) David Greene's Failure to Post My Opposition at
info@ernc.la Before the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC Meeting
Mr. Greene's previously described NIMBY characterization of Eagle Rock stakeholders and my alleged "fishing expedition" for "perceived shenanigans" also must be considered when addressing violations of the ERNC By-Laws. The "applicant's notice" mailed out to my mother on October 10, 2016, from Santa Clarita specifically stated that I could send my comments regarding The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application to
info@ernc.la, and I did so on October 16, 2016 as soon as I was able to prepare an opposition. Please see the attached notice below. My October 16, 2016 opposition was based upon facts with supporting documentation that I will present to the grievance panel.
For over two months I have been trying to determine if Mr. Greene posted my "comments"/opposition sent on October 16, 2016 to
info@ernc.la before the ERNC LUPC October 18th meeting. I was at a work conference on October 18, 2016, and I was unable to attend the October 18th meeting; however, I assumed that my opposition would be included for consideration. Three members of my family attended the October 18th ERNC LUPC meeting, and they believed that the land use committee members present at the meeting chose to ignore my lengthy opposition with 6 attachments. I have contacted many of the ERNC LUPC members to determine if any member received my opposition, and I contacted all seven of the ERNC LUPC members, who attended the October 18, 2016 meeting. Five of the seven members of the ERNC LUPC, who attended the October 18, 2016 meeting, did respond to me; those five members of the ERNC LUPC replied that they did not receive my opposition and the supporting documentation in the 6 attachments. Therefore, at least five of the seven ERNC LUPC members, who attended the October 18th meeting, did not review my opposition and the 6 attachments before the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting.
On October 26th, 2016, Mr. Greene and I exchanged a few email messages in my attempt to determine if he posted my opposition. Mr. Greene responded," I'll have to check to see what I forwarded to whom... I know I forwarded your email and materials, and redacted your name and return address, but not sure who all received it." To date Mr. Greene has not provided me with any additional response.
On November 28, 2016, I learned the following:
a) On October 19, 2016, Tom Stemnock, who presented The Bird Nest LLC's position at the ERNC LUPC October 18, 2016 meeting sent David Greene an email requesting "the petitions that were submitted last night".
b) On October 19, 2016, six minutes after Mr. Stemnock sent his request Mr. Greene forwarded to "Tom" my opposition, which I sent to Mr. Greene on October 16, 2016 before the ERNC LUPC meeting. Mr. Greene did not redact my mother's name from the first sentence in my opposition when he improperly forwarded my opposition to Tom, who is the lobbyist for the Archdiocese as well as agent and representative of the applicant, The Bird Nest LLC. The opposition, which Mr. Greene sent to Tom, was my opposition that I addressed to the ERNC LUPC members only on October 16, 2016. As required by the notice I addressed that opposition to
info@ernc.la for posting and for all the ERNC LUPC members to review before the October 18, 2016 meeting: NOT the Archdiocese's lobbyist and the representative of The Bird Nest LLC.
c) Mr. Greene posted the agenda for the October 18, 2016 ERNC LUPC meeting on October 18, 2016 - two days after he received my opposition as evidenced by his email to Tom when he forwarded my opposition to him. Questionably, Mr. Greene failed to include my October 16, 2016 opposition when he posted the ERNC LUPC October 18, 2016 agenda on October 18, 2016.
d) On October 21, 2016, Mr. Greene then forwarded my opposition to an unknown person (name redacted from my copy) with copies to Kevin Ocubillo, Transportation and Planning Deputy of Councilman Jose Huizar,
Executive@ernc.la, Sean Starkey, Field Deputy of Councilman Jose Huizar and Zenay Loera, another Field Deputy of Councilman Jose Huizar. Rather than post my opposition to The Bird Nest LLC's permit application to the members of the ERNC LUPC (to whom I directed my opposition) Mr. Greene unilaterally and improperly decided to send my opposition to Tom, the agent and representative of The Bird Nest LLC and lobbyist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles; an elected City politician's office, i.e., City Councilman Huizar's Office and some other unknown person or entity. "The Charter's purpose of creating a Neighborhood Council system was to promote more citizen participation, i.e., private .community members." Mr. Greene's forwarding my opposition to City Councilman Huizar's Office on a "politically" charged permit violated the primary purpose of the City Charter as it relates to neighborhood councils in Los Angeles.
Mr. Greene's improper disclosure of my mother's name to Tom Stemnock and City Council District 14 members also constitutes an unwarranted invasion of her personal privacy. Without either my permission or my mother's permission Mr. Greene provided my mother's personal information as set forth in my opposition, which I addressed only to the members of the ERNC LUPC before that committee's October 18, 2016 meeting.
For the same reason that elected City officials are excluded from serving on the ERNC Mr. Greene's actions did not promote more citizen participation. Instead the current Chair of the ERNC LUPC, Immediate Past President of the ERNC and ERNC board member took it upon himself to unilaterally forward both a private community member's opposition to the project to an elected politician's office as well as petitions signed by private community members, on an issue, which Mr. Greene acknowledged as involving "so much political power". Facts establish that the ERNC validated the bias against the Eagle Rock stakeholders' living adjacent to or nearby to the former Bekin's Estate. Favoritism, extended to "political power" and a powerful religious organization, tainted what should have been a fair and transparent process of reviewing The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application.
This grievance should be granted given Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 22.80: DONE shall be charged with the goal of promoting increased public participation in government and working to make government more responsive to local needs. For all of the aforementioned reasons both the ERNC and the ERNC LUPC did not address the local concerns when the ERNC's approved the text of its draft December 7, 2016 letter to the Department of City Planning regarding The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application.
The four attachments provide factual support for the statements in my DONE grievance.
