Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Grievance Form
Thank you for contacting the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment regarding your Grievance. Your concerns are important to us. Please fill out this form as completely as possible to help expedite our determination. Please be aware that the information you are submitting is subject to the California Public Records Act.

We will NOT be able to respond to your Grievance unless you provide a valid email or mailing address.
Please note that once you click Save at the upper right corner, your Grievance will be submitted.

All witness statements must be attached on this form.
The Department will not process more than three Grievance Forms filed by the same person in any calendar year and no more than five Grievance Forms filed by the same individual in any three year period. All Grievances submitted through this portal are considered processed.
Kerrin
Tso
Stakeholder
(213) 709-6497
Los Angeles, California 90009-2216

Eagle Rock
Specific Violation Alleged
Failure to indicate the nature of your alleged Grievance will result in the dismissal of your Grievance.
Yes  
Article II (B)(3) and (B)(8); Article V Section II (c)(d);  Article VII Section 1 (E) and Article XI (A) and (B)
Yes  
City Charter Section 900 ad 906(a)(4)
Yes  
Article I (4) and (6); Article III Section 2 (c)(iii)(3) and (iv) and the Standard and Best Practices for Following Rule
Yes  
City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council meetings Rule 4 Pursuant to Commission Policy #2010-02, City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Communications Rule; Neighborhood Council Board Member Code of Condut Policy
 
Yes  
01-10-17
A Grievance must be filed within 30 days from the date of the event giving rise to the Grievance.  Any Grievance alleging a violation relating to Neighborhood Council funding must be filed within 90 calendar days of the date the expenditure is made.
The Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council’s failure to comply with its own Bylaws as evidenced by its not including my December 5, 2016 grievance on the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council’s January 10, 2017 Board agenda as well as the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council’s subsequent misconduct in processing my January 5, 2017 grievance, filed with the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (“Tso’s DONE Grievance”), have necessitated this third grievance against the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council (“ERNC”). 

I have presented all three grievances in an effort to void the ERNC’s wrongful support for/approval of The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit application on November 1, 2016. My primary goal in presenting the two previous grievances was to have the ERNC follow proper procedures in a determination regarding whether the local/community either support or did not support the construction of a 30,300 square foot institutional structure for religious use in a single family R-1-1 residential zone at 1554 Hill Drive, Los Angeles, CA. I challenged the ERNC’s previous procedures as outlined in the two previous grievances. 

Contrary to the ERNC’s publicity campaign on a government website regarding “The Bekins Estate: What’s the Real Story” the ERNC “news”, posted on February 1, 2017, fails to include any fact that more than 300 Eagle Rock stakeholders, including numerous homeowners and residents, who own and/or reside adjacent to The Bekins’ Estate and in the surrounding neighborhood, oppose any local support/approval of The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit application, and they have signed petitions setting forth their respective opposition. See: Print out of ERNC “news”, posted on February 1, 2017, attached as supporting documentation. 

Glaringly absent from the ERNC “news”, posted on February 1, 2017, are the following omitted facts from “The Bekins Estate: What’s the Real Story”: 

1)     The ERNC failed to follow its own previous July 5, 2016 approved action item that “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.”
2)    The ERNC’s alleged vote on November 1, 2016, to provide local/community support for religious use at 1554 Hill Drive was 3-2 in favor. Therefore, the votes of only three unknown ERNC Board members were all that was necessary to give official local support/approval for the proposed project despite the opposition of Eagle Rock stakeholders, who owned property or resided adjacent to or nearby the Bekins’ Estate.
Only three votes was all that The Bird Nest LLC needed to demonstrate local/community support in its effort to construct/operate a religious institution in a single family residential zone. 
3)    Tom Stemnock, The Bird Nest LLC's representative, in a September 7, 2016 letter to David Greene, Immediate Past President of the ERNC and Chair of the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee, stated that The Bird Nest LLC, i.e., the applicant, intends to purchase the Bekins Estate from the Kvassay Family Trust ("Initial Transaction"), that will be "followed by a transaction with the civil entity" of the California Institute of the Sisters of the Most Holy and Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary "that will have the initial title to the property on which the retreat facility would be constructed." Even though it is the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, which signed the Environmental Assessment Form as being the applicant for constructing the proposed priests retreat on the Bekins' Estate site, both Mr. Greene and Mr. Stemnock knew and knows that it is the California Institute of the Sisters of the Most Holy and Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary (now in litigation against the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to establish its ownership and control of the Los Feliz property) that will hold title to the Bekins' Estate should the Initial Transaction occur. See: Documents Regarding the Initial Sale Transaction and the Los Feliz Transaction attached in support. 


4)    In April 2014, Tom Stemnock filed with the City Department of Planning a "request for a Plan Approval in order to permit the conversion of the northerly portion" of the 7 acre Los Feliz site "from a convent and school... to a religious retreat facility for lay members of the Catholic Church..." Included in his request on behalf of the California Institute of the Sisters of the Most Holy and Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary are the Los Feliz expansion plans. In sum, two years ago Mr. Stemnock filed for a Plan Approval to expand the Los Feliz priests. As set forth in that 2014 request, Mr. Stemnock described the background of the Los Feliz priests retreat's expansion as follows: 
 
1971: Use not to exceed 50 retreatants on each day (Monday through Friday)  
1973: Expanded use to 35 full time residences and group retreat activity for 50 people
1988: City Council approval to change southernly portion of Los Feliz retreat site from R1-1 to RE9-1.
1991: Approval to construct a 2-story, 5,432 square-foot chapel, meeting room and dining facilities for priests, a 3-story 8,024 square foot apartment building with 14 guest rooms and three suites, remodeling of an existing caretaker house adding 880 square fee, remodeling of the 2-story existing prayer house, enlarging the chapel for a total of 2,999 square feet, including a 418 square-foot second floor addition.
2014: Master Land Use Permit Application to permit the conversion of the northern portion of the site from a convent and school to "a religious retreat facility for lay members of the Catholic faith." 
See: Attached Documents Regarding 2014 Permit to Expand the Los Feliz Retreat.
 
5)On December 18, 2014, Mr. Stemnock wrote to Sue Chang, City of Los Angeles Associate Zoning Administrator (Phone Number 213.978.3304) to inform her that the Archdiocese did "not wish to withdraw" its Master Land Use Permit Application to permit the conversion of the northern portion of the site from a convent and school to "a religious retreat facility for lay members of the Catholic faith". Mr. Stemnock requested that the City "hold the matter under advisement until this is resolved." See: Attached Letter in compilation of Documents Regarding 2014 Permit to Expand the Los Feliz Retreat.
 
 
6) Presently, Tom Stemnock as representative of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and as representative of The Bird Nest LLC, respectively, has pending two separate land use entitlements with the City of Los Angeles Planning Department regarding expansion of the Los Feliz Priests Retreat to permit lay members at the Catholic priests retreat as well as a conditional use permit to permit religious use in an Eagle Rock R-1-1 zone as evidenced by the following:  1) A 2014 Master Land Use Permit Application to permit the conversion of the northern portion of the Los Feliz site from a convent and school to "a religious retreat facility for lay members of the Catholic faith" and 2) A 2016 Environmental Assessment Form to construct a religious retreat for priests of the Catholic Church at 1554 Hill Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90041. The applicant on that 2016 Environmental Assessment Form is the Archdiocese of Los Angeles even though the applicant for the conditional use permit is The Bird Nest LLC. See: Attached Letter in compilation of Documents Regarding 2014 Permit to Expand the Los Feliz Retreat and The Archdiocese of Los Angeles’ 2016 Environmental Assessment Form to Construct the Priests’ Retreat in Eagle Rock.
 
 
7)    On November 3, 2016, at 2:59 pm Chloe Renee Ziegler, an ERNC board member, violated the City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Board Member Code of Conduct Policy when she wrote disparaging remarks about me to Matt Hemingway, another ERNC board member. When the vote was taken by the ERNC Board regarding The Bird Nest LLC's permit application at the November 1, 2016 ERNC Board meeting Mr. Hemmingway was the chairperson. In addition to Ms. Ziegler's comments about me that I will present to the Grievance Panel, Ms. Ziegler's prejudice against the adjacent neighbors to and surrounding neighbors of the proposed project at the Bekins’ Estate is evidenced by her statement as follows: 
 
“Basically, the neighbors dream of NOTHING ever happening there, the property to stay as is, and the current owner to continue to pour in thousands of $$ for their peace of mind and privileged life style.  I think that we should open a center for homeless people and drug users, and prostitutes, and recovering KKK and Scientology members. I hope that you back my plan when I next present it. Faithfully yours, CRZ." (Italics only added.)
 
8)    In that same writing Ms. Zielger expresses her belief that only "the Catholic Church" will prevent "all the options she fears might come true" - the "she" being me. Clearly, Ms. Ziegler was/is not an advocate for the Eagle Rock stakeholders' living adjacent to the former Bekin's estate and the surrounding neighbors of the former Bekin's Estate. Instead it may reasonably be deduced that Ms. Ziegler was/is an advocate of the Catholic Church. During the November 1, 2016 ERNC meeting Ms. Zielger also treated me with lack of respect as evidenced by her repeatedly and inappropriately asking me what I personally wanted to have constructed at the site. All of the aforementioned actions of Ms. Zielger violate 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.
 
9)    David Greene, Chair of the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee, Immediate Past President of the ERNC and ERNC Board Member, chaired the October 18, 2016 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee meeting that recommended approval of The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application for religious use. Following that meeting on October 24, 2016, Katrina Perez, a member of the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee, informed Mr. Greene that she was "impressed with the volume of signatures" - as of that date only 106 petitions all in opposition to The Bird Nest LLC's proposed project had been presented at the October 18, 2016 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee meeting. 

10)                       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 Bekins' 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.
 
11)                       On November 28, 2016, the ERNC violated the California Public Records Act by failing to provide Thomas Stemnock’s September 7, 2016  letter to David Greene that was in its possession when the ERNC responded to my November 11, 2016 Public Records Act request. In both my December 5, 2016 grievance, filed with the ERNC as well as my January 5, 2017 grievance, filed with the Department of Neighborhood Empowerment I referred to that September 2016 letter "from the potential developers of the Bekins Estate regarding the ERNC's request that HCM status be applied for..." ; however, I was not able to include that as an attachment in support of my January 5, 2017 grievance because I did not have a copy of it.
 
12)                       My specific request for this important and relevant September 7, 2016 letter from Thomas Stemnock to David Greene as well as the ERNC's false response are as follows:
 
[REQUEST 14] 12) All written communications, including any and all email messages between any member of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council's Land Use and Planning Committee and Planning Associates, Inc., including but not limited to Thomas Stemnock  and Christine Stemnock from January 1, 2016, to the compliance date of this Public Records Act request that relates to, discusses, and/or addresses in any manner and any issue in Case  ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZAD, 1554 W. Hill Dr. 90041 i.e., The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application. This requests seeks all email messages that have been sent from/to any member of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council's Land Use and Planning Committee's private email address because those members on the land use committee do not have public email addresses.
ERNC's RESPONSE 14: There are no documents responsive to this request.
 
13)                       In fact, on September 7, 2016, Thomas Stemnock sent David Greene, Chair of the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee a letter RE: Case ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZA.. The ERNC failed to provide me with a copy of that September 7, 2016 letter. 
 
14)                       [REQUEST 15] 13) All written communications, including any and all email messages between any member of the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council and Planning Associates, Inc., including but not limited to Thomas Stemnock and Christine Stemnock from January 1, 2016 to the compliance date of this Public Records Act request that relates to, discusses, and/or addresses in any manner and any issue in Case  ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZAD, 1554 W. Hill Dr. 90041 i.e., The Bird Nest LLC's conditional use permit application.
 
15)                       ERNC's RESPONSE 15: The request for written communications that do not yet exist is not a request for records in accord with the California Public Records Act. The documents responsive to your request are 11 pages. If you would like copies of the documents once they are gathered, please note that cost is $0.25 (actual commercial copy cost) for each page. This amount is calculated pursuant to the Los Angeles Administrative Code, Article 4, Section 12.40. In addition, you may also inspect the requested records once they are available for inspection during regular business hours at Eagle Rock City Hall, 2035 Colorado Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90041. If you wish inspect these documents, please contact me at lisa.kable.blanchard@ernc.la to make an appointment to view these documents. Please allow 48-hour notice so that I can ensure that I will be able to meet you.
 
 
16)                       The ERNC failed to include the September 7, 2016, letter, which Thomas Stemnock sent to David Greene, Immediate Past President of the ERNC RE: Case ZA-2016-1406-CU-ZA in its responsive documents. Specifically, the ERNC failed to provide me with a copy of that September 7, 2016 letter when it produced the 11 pages of responsive documents to me on November 28, 2016. Included the ERNC’s 11 pages of responsive documents was my lengthy opposition, which was not presented to the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee before its October 18, 2016 meeting, but was given to Tom Stemnock, representative of The Bird Nest LLC and lobbyist for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. 

See: All attached documents, supporting these facts.
I.  ERNC’s January 10, 2017 Violation of ERNC Bylaws Article XI (A) and (B)
In accordance with the ERNC Bylaws, posted on the ERNC’s public website, I “submitted in writing to the Board” on December 5, 2016 a 12 ½ page grievance with two attachments (“Tso’s December 5, 2016 Grievance”). See: Text only of Tso’s December 5, 2016 Grievance attached as a supporting document. On December 6, 2016, Lisa Kable Blanchard, ERNC President, responded that the ERNC received Tso’s December 5, 2016 Grievance. Ms. Kable Blanchard also stated “Per the agenda for the December 6th meeting, it was created at the Executive Committee last Tuesday and was posted in a timely fashion on our website and at ER City Hall. …We will not be able to change the agenda for this month at this time.” See: Ms. Kable Blanchard’s December 6, 2016 message to me attached as a supporting document. 

On December 9, 2016, I informed Ms. Kable Blanchard that I looked “forward to meeting with the ad hoc grievance panel as provided by the ERNC’s Bylaws in Article XI. In accordance with the ERNC Bylaws I understand that my grievance will be placed on the agenda of the next regular Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council meeting.” Subsequently, on December 16, 2016, I represented to Ms. Kable Blanchard “that I filed my grievance before the ERNC’s last meeting …I do expect for that grievance to be processed according to the ERNC’s by-laws.” I followed up on December 18, 2016 (before the ERNC’s January 10, 2017 Board meeting) by writing Ms. Kable Blanchard and copied both Thomas Soong of DONE as well as the ERNC officers on that message; in that message I noted “that I previously filed a grievance with the ERNC in accordance with the ERNC’s bylaws. The ERNC should follow its own bylaws with respect to the grievance, which I filed on December 5, 2016.” On January 10, 2017, the ERNC failed to follow its own bylaws. See: Emails Between Tso and ERNC RE: 12-2016 Grievance attached as supporting documents. 

The handout discussing the Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils (“The Plan”), its requirements and “suggested bylaw language for Neighborhood Councils” states “The bylaws must provide a process by which grievances are settled and disputes resolved….The procedures should state how the grievance is filed, deadlines for any committees to return to the Board with a recommendation, deadlines for the board to take action, and that the person filing the grievance may also file a complaint with DONE”, i.e., the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment. See: The Plan’s handout at page 8, attached as a supporting document. 

Additionally, the January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee agenda directs the public as follows: “For information on the ERNC’s process for board action reconsideration, stakeholder grievance policy, or any other procedural matters related to this Council, please consult the ERNC Bylaws.” See: January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee agenda attached as a supporting document.
Since the ERNC was not able to change its December 6, 2016 Board agenda the ERNC should have “placed on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting” Tso’s December 5, 2016 Grievance. On January 10, 2017, the date of the “next regular Council meeting” the ERNC failed to do that. In addition, on January 10, 2017, the ERNC did not take any action to “refer the matter to an Ad Hoc Grievance Panel comprised of three (3) Stakeholders randomly selected by the Board from a list of Stakeholders who have expressed an interest in serving from time-to-time on such a panel” as required by ERNC Bylaws Article XI (B).

II. ERNC’s January 17, 2017 Violations of ERNC Bylaws Article II (B)(3) and (B)(8); ERNC Bylaws Article VII Section 1 (E); ERNC Bylaws Article V Section II (c)(d); City Charter Section 900; City Charter Section 906(a)(4); the Plan Article I (4) and (6); the Plan Article III Section 2 (c)(iii)(3) and (iv); City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Communications Rule; Standards and Best Practices for Following the Rule and The Brown Act

On January 5, 2017, I filed with the City of Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment (“DONE”) a second grievance against the ERNC (“Tso’s DONE Grievance”). Included in that grievance were two witness statements and four separate categories of supporting documents. The voluminous supporting documents provided factual support for the statements in Tso’s DONE Grievance. 
A.Rather than initially act on Tso’s DONE Grievance the ERNC Board erroneously and ludicrously assigned my DONE grievance for initial review and recommendation to ERNC’s Land Use and Planning Committee on January 17, 2017. This action evidences the ERNC’s complete disregard for following either its own bylaws or the Plan in processing Tso’s DONE Grievance. Both the ERNC Bylaws and the Plan do not identify a grievance review procedure, which identifies that the ERNC (or any neighborhood council for that matter) should first be reviewed by a local council’s Land Use and Planning Committee. 

The aforementioned “Plan” handout, which “discuss the Plan requirement” and provides suggested “bylaw language for Neighborhood councils” specifically explains: “The initial decision on the grievance should be considered by a neutral third party that is not likely to be the subject of the complaint. The neutral third party’s recommendation on a course of action to the Board may lead to the resolution of more problems then simply having the Board, who likely are the subject of the complaint for the actions they took, hear and decide the grievance.

Since David Greene is the Chair of the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee and the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s October 18, 2016 recommendation to support The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit is a key issue in both my December 5, 2016 Grievance and my January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee was not “a neutral third party” to make any “initial decision”. See: Frank Defoe’s Witness Statement attached as a supporting document. The ERNC’s determination to have the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee review Tso’s January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance on January 17, 2017 was not specified in the ERNC Bylaws and was entirely unauthorized by the Plan. That process of initial review, employed by the ERNC is/was not supported anywhere in the Plan. Having the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee with David Greene as its Chair make a “recommendation on a course of action to the Board’ regarding Tso’s January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance ,undoubtedly, will “lead to the resolution of more problems” as evidenced by this third grievance. 
 
B.Before the January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s meeting, on its publicly funded website the ERNC posted the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s agenda for that meeting. Despite the fact that I never once used my professional title in any of my communications with anyone from either the ERNC or the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee as well as DONE, the January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee Agenda Item No. 5 publicly identified/identifies me and my professional title. That agenda item also set forth that the Land Use and Planning Committee would make a “recommendation to ERNC Board regarding Grievance # 61,” which is my January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance. See: ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s January 17, 2017 Agenda attached as a supporting document.

C.Agenda Item No. 8 included a link to the entire text of Tso’s January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance so that anyone could print-out the text of that grievance. The ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee posted the grievance on its public website for the public and local community’s review. Disingenuously, that link to my grievance does/did not include any of the voluminous supporting documentation for the facts set forth in Tso’s January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance. Even though the ERNC’s public website states “click here for a draft to the Land Use and Planning Committee’s recommendation letter”, no such letter is/was included and/or posted on the ERNC’s publicly funded website.

D.For some unknown reason in its January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee agenda, the ERNC absurdly equates my legitimate January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance with a lawsuit. As established by the January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee agenda, the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee improperly cited Government Code Section 54956.9 as authority to have potential discussion of my January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance as a “closed session” item; that statute would have permitted the Land Use and Planning Committee members to confer with their “legal counsel” regarding a litigated matter at the ERNC’s Land Use and Planning Committee meeting on January 17, 2017. No evidence exists that the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s legal counsel was present at the January 17, 2017 meeting, and absolutely no evidence shows that the grievance constitutes litigation. Consequently, in processing my January 5, 2017 DONE grievance the ERNC may have violated the Brown Act if it met in closed session to discuss that grievance without its legal counsel’s presence. 

E.The actions, identified in the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s January 17, 2017 Agenda Item 8 also should be reviewed as retaliatory actions taken by the ERNC against the Eagle Rock Stakeholders, who signed petitions’ opposing The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit application and who reside or own property adjacent to or 500 feet from The Bekins’ Estate. Rather than deny local/community support for The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit (authorized by Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.24.W.9 to build a church) and expressly find that The Bird Nest LLC did not have a “lasting interest in the completed project” (as required by law) the ERNC completely disregarded the concerns of the many Eagle Rock Stakeholders, who signed petitions’ opposing The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit application and who reside or own property adjacent to or 500 feet from The Bekins’ Estate. 
Agenda Item 8 for the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s January 17, 2017 meeting establishes the ERNC’s intent not to “make government more responsive to local needs”. ERNC failed to conduct any outreach on its own to the Eagle Rock Stakeholders, who signed petitions’ opposing The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit application and who reside or own property adjacent to or 500 feet from The Bekins’ Estate regarding The Bird Nest LLC’s proposed project. That lack of communication constitutes a separate violation of the City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Communications Rule (Charter Section 906(a)(4); the Plan Article III, Section 2 (c)(iii)(3) and the Standard and Best Practices for Following Rule. My December 5, 2016 grievance sets forth the facts, showing the ERNC’s delegation of its outreach duties to the agent and representative of The Bird Nest LLC.

To ensure a fair and transparent process regarding outreach to the Eagle Rock stakeholders, who reside or own property adjacent to or 500 feet from The Bekins’ Estate, the ERNC at minimum should have confirmed that The Bird Nest LLC provided proper and timely notice to the Eagle Rock stakeholders, who reside or own property adjacent to or 500 feet from The Bekins’ Estate. 

As evidenced by the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee’s January 17, 2017 actions taken in Agenda Item 8 instead of trying to improve outreach to the Eagle Rock stakeholders most affected by the proposed project on the Bekins’ Estate the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee announced “Suspension of LUPC policy of 500-foot notice requirement for applicants. Suspension of LUPC policy of scanning and posting paper applications online. Announcement of LUPC policy of destruction of all paper/electronic records within 24 hours of meetings, except for those required to be kept by law”. 

Consequently, should the ERNC’s decision to support The Bird Nest LLC’s ultimately be voided on January 17, 2017 the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee has implemented the aforementioned action, i.e., new policies and procedures, which violate the City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Communications Rule (Charter Section 906(a)(4); the Plan Article III, Section 2 (c)(iii)(3) and the Standard and Best Practices for Following Rule. 

Under the new policy and actions, described in Agenda Item No. 8 of the January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee meeting, any Eagle Rock stakeholder/any member of the public, who wishes to learn more about a proposed entitlement for a proposed real estate project/development in Eagle Rock, will not be able to access on the ERNC’s public website the same documents available to the members of the ERNC or the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee . Despite the fact that ERNC’s website is paid for with City funds and presumably any application will be scanned to the ERNC and ERNC Land Use and Planning members from a publicly paid for scanner, the ERNC now will not post public information, which is provided to the ERNC’s own members and members of the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee. This new policy and other acts identified in Agenda Item No. 8 of the January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee meeting violate the ERNC’s purpose to assist the local community in having as much information available to understand and take a position on any proposed land project/development in Eagle Rock that requires local/community support for such an entitlement. 

Similarly, Agenda Item No. 8 of the January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee meeting’s action to permit “destruction of all paper/electronic records within 24 hours of meetings” does not comply with the many express goals and objectives of the neighborhood council system. If that action is not voided an Eagle Rock stakeholder, who happens to be out of town or possibly hospitalized on the day the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee met and who wanted to review records regarding a land use entitlement/potential project in Eagle Rock, would be thwarted in obtaining relevant information (which may affect that stakeholder’s property interest) because all paper/electronic records would have been destroyed within 24 hours of meetings, “except for those required to be kept by law” : A complete violation of ERNC Bylaws Article II (B)(8) to have fair, open and transparent procedures. 

F. ERNC’s Violation on January 17, 2017 of ERNC Bylaws Article V Section 11 and VII Section 1 (E) 

Agenda Item No. 7of the January 17, 2017 ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee meeting addresses the ERNC’s failure to have “two (2) ERNC Directors co-chair the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee”; however,  Agenda Item No. 7 does not identify when in the past 12 months action has been taken to promote having seventeen (17) members on the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee as set forth in ERNC Bylaws Article V Section 11(A) and (B). In the last 12 months I have not received a single mailing from the ERNC regarding participation in either the ERNC or any of its committees even though I am and have been an Eagle Rock resident during that period of time. See: ERNC Bylaws Article V Section 11(D). 

III For all of the aforementioned reasons this grievance should be granted. Both the ERNC and ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee have violated and continue to violate proper procedures, mandated by the ERNC Bylaws, the Los Angeles Administrative Code, The Plan, Handout, discussing the Plan, Neighborhood Council Board  Member Code of Conduct Policy, City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Rules, Standards and Best Practices, City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council meetings Rule 4 pursuant to Commission Policy #2010-02, City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Communications Rule (Charter Section 906(a)(4); Standards and Best Practices for Following the Rule, The Brown Act and the City Charter. Most importantly, the ERNC failed to comply with its own bylaws when it failed to handle my December 5, 2016 grievance on January 10, 2017. Additionally, the ERNC’s decisions as evidenced in the January 17, 2017 agenda of the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee demonstrate the ERNC’s inability and unwillingness to properly process my January 5, 2017 DONE grievance.  

Our facts clearly demonstrate why the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee is not a neutral third party. The actions taken by the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee on January 17, 2017, now have” lead to the resolution of more problems” as presented in this third grievance against the ERNC.
Remedy
There are various remedies available. Please select from the list below the remedy OR remedies you are seeking.
Please be advised that the Department has sole discretion in determining whether your remedy conforms with your Grievance.

From the list below, which remedy or remedies are you seeking?
Yes  
Yes  
Yes  
 
 
 
Yes  
Yes  
 
Remedy:The three grievances, which I have presented, warrant the following remedy: Rather than the remedy proposed in Tso’s January 5, 2017 DONE Grievance, DONE should void the ERNC’s November 1, 2016 and December 6, 2016 actions then order ERNC to follow its previous July 5, 2016 action that either the Kvassay Family Trust and/or The Bird Nest LLC must formally apply for Historical Cultural Monument status no later than March 15, 2017. If that is not done by that date, DONE must direct that the ERNC present a letter to the City of Los Angeles Department of Planning , including pertinent and relevant facts presented in this grievance, that denies local/community support for The Bird Nest LLC’s conditional use permit application. 

Such a remedy is not a drastic measure in light of the numerous procedural and substantive violations, committed by the ERNC. Twenty-two days following the ERNC’s November 1, 2016 vote, Thomas Stemnock submitted almost the same plans to the Department of City Planning with two exceptions: Reduction of the height of the project to 38 feet and an increase of dirt removed “from 750 c.y. to 2,100 c.y.” Since the ERNC provided its December 2016 letter to the Department of City Planning and copied to “the applicant” The Bird Nest LLC has taken no action to amend its application despite being given two months time to do so: The basis for this seemingly drastic remedy. 

Additionally, DONE must void all actions taken by the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee on January 17, 2017 as set forth in Action Item No. 8. Clearly, DONE also must direct that both the ERNC and the ERNC Land Use and Planning Committee to take no action similar to that Action Item No. 8 unless expressly approved by DONE in writing; that express DONE approval of a stated new policy then must be  posted on the ERNC website.
   

Witness Information
ALL of your Witness information and Witness Statement needs to be included at this time. The Department will ONLY accept and review Witness information included at time of submission.
You can find the Witness Statement form here.
Witness 1 Contact Information
Frank
Defoe
(323) 257-5557
Witness 2 Contact Information
Witness 3 Contact Information
 
Supporting Documents
Before submitting, please include ALL supporting documentation HERE. The Department will ONLY process and review materials included at time of submission. NOTE: The Department will only review up to 10 pages submitted. Any information submitted past 5 pages will not be taken into account.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Yes  
Kerrin Tso
To SUBMIT, please click "Save" on top right corner.
Created on Feb.  9, 2017 at  5:31 PM (PST). Last updated by Briceno, Lorenzo on Sept.  1, 2021 at  9:54 AM (PDT). Owned by Anonymous.
Anonymous
Lorenzo Briceno
Show fields from Show fields from Show fields from a related table
Report Name *
Description
Reports and Charts Panel
Each table has a panel listing its reports and charts, organized in groups.
Please wait while your new report is saved...
Field label
Column heading override
Justification
What does auto mean?
Fields in:

Fields to Extract:

Name for the new table:
Items in the new table are called:

When you bring additional fields into a conversion, Quickbase often finds inconsistencies. For example, say you're converting your Companies column into its own table. One company, Acme Corporation, has offices in New York, Dallas and Portland. So, when you add the City column to the conversion, Quickbase finds three different locations for Acme. A single value in the column you're converting can only match one value in any additional field. Quickbase needs you to clean up the extra cities before it can create your new table. To do so, you have one of two choices:

  • If you want to create three separate Acme records (Acme-New York, Acme-Dallas and Acme-Portland) click the Conform link at the top of the column.
  • If the dissimilar entries are mistakes (say Acme only has one office in New York and the other locations are data-entry errors) go back into your table and correct the inconsistencies—in this case, changing all locations to New York. Then try the conversion again.

Read more about converting a column into a table.

We're glad you're interested in doing more with Quickbase!

Now we need to make you official before you share apps or manage your account.

Verifying your email lets you share Quickbase with others in your company.

Your work email
Your company