CERDAFIED-In last week’s edition of Mitch Englander’s E-News, he boasts about his latest motion “instructing the City Administrative Officer, the Planning Department and the City Attorney to report back in 30 days with recommendations to fund City Attorney staffing at Area Planning Commission meetings.”
As he explains, “The City’s seven Area Planning Commissions are quasi-judicial agencies that are responsible for making important decisions on a variety of land use issues.” Part of the budget cuts by the city of Los Angeles included reducing our City Attorney staff, who among other things, advice the commissioners on legal matters and policies that arise during a hearing.
The irony here should not be lost on you. As I reported previously, Englander himself saw fit to advise the South Valley Area Planning Commission at a “Special Meeting” to “Reconsider” the previously approved appeal for 23200 Sherman Way. Of course, his advice paved the way for an impromptu “regular meeting”. This requires a 72 hour notice according to the Brown Act. A full rehearing of the matter should have been scheduled, allowing the Appellant, Neighborhood Council and community to view relevant material, and the right to speak on the issues according to the commissioners policies. None of that happened.
The September 11th hearing had so many twists and turns in it, it was like Montezuma’s Revenge.
- Englander supports the community at the original hearing … reverses himself.
- Englander misses his opportunity to legally 245 the case and have it heard by PLUM and the City Council.
- Englander finagles a “Reconsideration” of the granted appeal by the SVAPC with no notifications to the appellant with a “Special Meeting” and 24 hour notice.
- Englander advices the SVAPC on the appropriate procedures, which they act on.
- Englander presents a convoluted premise where Fred Gaines, the applicant’s attorney, sues the City and the cost of the suit prevents the City from hiring additional police officers. A form of coercion.
- He then advices the SVAPC to hold a regular meeting following the vote to reconsider. No 72 hour notice given.
- The SVAPC does not take testimony from both parties, does not take testimony from the Neighborhood Council, does not share relevant info, or any new information presented.
But I particularly love the twist where Englander rides in with plans to save us from the type of situation he created. How thoughtful! Does this somehow resurrect his image and make his actions seem any less appalling? Not to the community who was robbed of a fair hearing.
It’s not like he has made amends to his community by resolving the issue appropriately. Nor has the city overturned the S.V.A.P.C. reconsideration. While the community navigates the proper channels for redress, he just goes about business as usual. Englander is forcing the community to seek legal recourse.
He is busy racking up lawsuits. One was filed by a former staff member claiming sexual harassment in the work place. The unnamed female claims that inappropriate remarks by both Englander and another male staff member forced her to terminate her employment. Englander claims he was unaware of any issues until the lawsuit was filed.
Usually when a Councilman is proud of his actions and decisions he covers the matters in his weekly newsletter. Absent from his newsletters, is his action to support the 200,000 sq. ft. West Hills Eldercare facility, and an explanation for being a turn coat. I suspect he won’t cover the pending lawsuit by his former staff member either.
For further information also read: ‘Ditch Mitch. Englander Has a Change of Heart’
(Lisa Cerda is a contributor to CityWatch, a community activist, Chair of Tarzana Residents Against Poorly Planned Development, VP of Community Rights Foundation of LA, Tarzana Property Owners Association board member, and former Tarzana Neighborhood Council board member.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 11 Issue 85
Pub: Oct 22, 2013
