Grievance

WHEREAS the Date of the Alleged Violation in the dialogue box above limits that response to merely the commencement of the date of Alleged Violation, in this matter, the violation has endured from said date until present.  Some facts in this matter have been set forth below.

Grievants contend that the “approval” and “support” by the DLANC and its Planning and Land Use Committee (PLUC) of the Application of Texas Developer Trammell Crow (DIR – 2015- 2976-TFAR-SPR;  ENV-2015-2977-EAF) for the special entitlements it needs to build a huge, non-conforming, modern sky-scraper in the Los Angeles Historic Core (“Application”) was improper, violates stated policies contained in its Bylaws, and policies regarding Neighborhood Council conduct in general, and must be overturned for all of the following reasons  (discussed in greater detail in the attached Supporting Documents):

1.    Neither the DLANC nor the PLUC on whose recommendation their decision to “approve” and “support” the Application was based, read and/or considered the actual legal requirements for granting the Application.
2.    Neither the DLANC Board nor the PLUC are qualified to determine if the Application and the project it proposes satisfy all applicable legal requirements.
3.    Neither the DLANC nor the PLUC gave sufficient consideration and weight to written opposition, especially that of the LA Conservancy.
4.    The DLANC failed to consider and recognize that its PLUC did not follow its own policies and procedures as well as the stated interest of the DLANC at large.  
5.    The DLANC failed to consider and chastise the PLUC for inappropriately meeting privately with only the Applicant prior to the PLUC Meeting in violation of NC policy and Due Diligence requirements. 
6.    Both the DLANC and the PLUC failed to allow opponents to Application a fair chance to present their case. 
7.    Both the DLANC and the PLUC based their decisions on personal opinion rather than on the will of the majority of the stakeholders they are charged to serve.
8.    Both the DLANC and PLUC failed to recognize that they are not qualified to pass judgment on the complex legal and factual matters to which the Application is subject, and both failed their duty either to consult with and obtain the opinions of experts qualified to make those decisions and/or to decline to act on the basis of lack of sufficient information and/or expertise.

Although this Form is being filed more than 30 days after some of the objectionable actions of the DLANC and PLUC, under the facts of this case, the time limit either should be considered tolled to the date of actual notice of the DONE Grievance Process, or, alternatively, DONE should rule this filing as timely nunc pro tunc.

As set forth in the Witness Statement of Alex Hertzberg, it would be fundamentally unfair to rule this Grievance as time-barred where there was no actual notice to Stakeholders of the DONE Grievance process which is substantially different from that stated in Article XI of the DLANC Bylaws upon which Stakeholders reasonably and appropriately relied in initially stating their Grievance. In fact, requiring Grievants to first file with DONE has the effect of causing the DLANC to violate it’s stated Bylaws which in itself is grounds for a Grievance pursuant to LACC section 22.818.  

Because the actions of the DLANC and PLUC were unfair, biased and unlawful, the undersigned respectfully requests (1) that the action of the DLANC in approving the recommendation of the PLUC be declared null and void, and (2) that the PLUC be directed NOT to send any letter to the Planning Department prior to the resolution of this Grievance and Demand or (3) alternatively, that in the event any such letter has already been sent, that a letter of retraction immediately be sent to said Department with an explanation that the DLANC Letter of Support is withdrawn.