Property petitions not appealing to all

Deirdre Newman

Resident Pamela Frankel felt it was well within her right to protest

another two-story house replacing an old one-story on her quaint,

rural street.

She hired an attorney to help her craft restrictions she wanted

the developer to abide by if the project was approved. And Councilman

Chris Steel appealed the project to the City Council on behalf of

Frankel and her neighbors on Myran Drive. The street, which is

actually an easement, is one of the last remnants of the city’s early

days -- a small stretch devoid of concrete, where four one-story

houses sit side by side.

But when Steel made motions on each of Frankel’s concerns at the

meeting on July 19, Councilman Allan Mansoor criticized what he

considers the high rate of appeals lately.

While the two-story project was ultimately upheld, Frankel and her

neighbors won two protections. And despite Mansoor’s criticism, many

residents feel appeals are an inherent part of the democratic

process, and they should not be denied their last recourse at City

Hall.

“They’re necessary,” said Lori McDonald, who appealed a project

across the street from her house at the Planning Commission meeting

July 26.

“I think we should expand the appeals process and get rid of the

$150,000 they’re wasting on the shopping-cart program, allowing

people to steal shopping carts and paying for it,” McDonald added. “I

don’t want to pay for that. I’d rather pay for people to appeal

problem buildings.”

The emotional cost

The appeals process begins when someone takes issue with a

decision made on a proposed project by Zoning Administrator Perry

Valantine. The first step is to appeal to the Planning Commission,

which costs $470. If the appellants’ concerns aren’t remedied, the

next step is to appeal to the City Council, which costs $810 because

of the extra time and staff members involved, Valantine said.

Myran Drive resident Pamela Frankel said she spent about $1,500 to

appeal two projects on her street -- which is really a private

easement with only four houses -- after the cost of the appeals and

attorney fees. That doesn’t even include the emotional distress, she

said.

“This has nothing to say about the months and months of pain and

suffering of losing my rights one by one,” Frankel said. “The amount

of mental stress of not being able to sleep and going to the City

Council and asking them to protect your old neighborhood and your

privacy is like asking [President George] Bush not to fight a war.”

Since January, there have been five appeals to the Planning

Commission and seven to the City Council. The appeals to the

commission were brought by a diverse group including neighbors of

projects, property owners and commissioners. The majority of appeals

to the council were brought by Steel, mostly representing neighbors

of proposed projects.

Steel said he takes on the appeals because he sees them as part of

his duty as a councilman.

“I’m elected to satisfy not the City Council but the electorate,

to help people whether they voted for me or not,” Steel said. “If

City Council members don’t like that, that’s their problem.”

A divisive appeal

Steel has earned the wrath of some of his City Council colleagues

for his frequent appeals. At the June 21 City Council meeting,

Councilman Mike Scheafer criticized an appeal brought by Steel,

saying it did not have enough substance. The appeal addressed 13

issues, suggested 11 conditions for approval and contained additional

recommended council actions.

And on July 19, Mansoor said appeals by Planning Commissioner

Katrina Foley and Steel “have lost their appeal.”

“I think we need a renewed focus on property rights and less red

tape,” Mansoor said.

But many residents appeal to protect their own property rights and

the character of their neighborhood, Councilwoman Libby Cowan said in

her defense of appeals after Mansoor’s comments.

“We allow [appeals] by code,” Cowan said on July 19. “While

certainly this parcel [on Myran Drive] is this person’s property, so

it is the neighbors since they are all connected through a private

easement.”

Foley also adamantly defended the appeals process.

“The appeals that we actually do have in our city process are

really only those projects where there is strong community viewpoints

about them, and isn’t that what the whole public process is about --

getting input from our community, so we can make decisions that our

community can live with?” Foley said.

McDonald said she is tired of Mansoor criticizing the appeals

process. Frankel said Steel is the only City Council member who cared

enough to call her back to discuss her concerns about her recent

appeal of the Myran Drive project.

“Not one of those [other] guys even had the courtesy to call me

back or listen to my side,” Frankel said. “They had already decided

for the developer. They literally hate [Steel] for bringing [appeals]

up. They want you to just shut up and go away. They don’t want you to

have a voice at all.”

* DEIRDRE NEWMAN covers government. She may be reached at (949)

574-4221 or by e-mail at deirdre.newman@latimes.com.