| AN OPEN LETTER TO COUNCILWOMAN GREUEL AND OTHER CITY AND COUNTY OFFICIALS REGARDING THE SUNLAND-TUJUNGA DIALOGUE AND THE PROPOSED HOME DEPOT PROJECT Background In 2006, the Sunland-Tujunga Alliance (STA), a grassroots neighborhood group, appealed ministerial building permits for the construction of a Home Depot warehouse in Sunland. In August, 2007, the Los Angeles City Council determined the construction of the Home Depot in Sunland to be a Project and subject to the regulations of the Foothill Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan. Home Depot subsequently filed a $10 million lawsuit against the City and City Council. In March, 2008, a Stipulation and Order Staying Litigation While Permit Application is Processed was filed in Superior Court. The Stipulation includes a clause that requires the City to facilitate discussions between Home Depot and the Sunland-Tujunga community. Simultaneously, Home Depot’s Project Permit Compliance application is being reviewed by the Los Angeles City Planning Department. In May, 2008, the Sunland Tujunga Alliance requested that the City Attorney extend the 5-month Stipulation period to allow adequate time for community input into the process as it relates to the Project Application Review and the mandated Dialogue. Additionally, the STA sent a letter to Mr. Popoola dated June 9, 2008, requesting clarification of the agreed-upon start date for the 5-month period as stated in the Stipulation. As of this date, we have not received a response to either letter. The Stipulation Order It appears that neither the City of Los Angeles nor Home Depot is in compliance with the Stipulation Order. As mentioned above, we requested information regarding any agreement between the City and Home Depot to extend the date of application submittal, as the Stipulation clearly stated that Home Depot would file their application in March 2008. However, their first Project application was not submitted to City Planning until April 22, 2008. The Stipulation states the 5- month period begins at the date the application is filed. Since sending our letter to Mr. Popoola, the Home Depot has filed a revised application, dated June 19. It is now the end of July! Councilwoman Greuel and her staff were sent copies of those letters, as were many other city officials and staff. The late Project Application is the first instance of non-compliance. We have been told by Council Office staff that the Stipulation is a legal agreement and there must be a court order to amend it. If there was a court order with an approved extension for the Project Application, it has not been made public. The second area of non-compliance to the Stipulation is in Part 5, which directs that the “City shall facilitate discussions between Home Depot and Sunland-Tujunga community leaders under the auspices of the City Attorney’s community mediation program to act as a forum for constructive discussion as the settlement process moves forward”. The community at large has already participated in the “Dialogue” on April 26, 2008, but we were told that was not the “Mediation”. The results of that “discussion” where overwhelming opposition to the proposed Home Depot was demonstrated are being ignored by the Dispute Resolution Program (DRP). The DRP is trying to set up another dialogue session with “smaller, more limited groups”. The Stipulation Order clearly states “community leaders” not “groups” or individuals. This is discussed more fully below in the Second Dialogue section. The April 26, 2008 Dialogue and the Dispute Resolution Program File There was strong consensus by the participants of the Dialogue in April that Home Depot is not the appropriate business for that location per our Specific Plan and Community Plan, and the community wants the proposed warehouse operation to go through a scrupulous environmental review; a full EIR would be appropriate. The Dialogue was a 3-hour process with approximately 250 stakeholder participants and approximately 300 people attending. We sincerely question the need for another “session”. Ms. Ridley-Thomas, Program Director of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office Dispute Resolution Program, had previously stated that the DRP would catalogue, review, and evaluate all email, faxes, letters, phone calls, and materials collected pertaining to the April Dialogue, and the process would be transparent and public. The materials were held for two months before being made available to the public; a heavy work-load being cited as the reason. At the time the Sunland- Tujunga Alliance reviewed the file on June 30: •There were no records of the many telephone calls received on the "dedicated" phone line. •No analysis of the actual content of the discussions has been done. •There was no evaluation, analysis, or summary of anything from the dialogue. It is particularly significant that the “Table Notes” written up by the individual groups as they worked with the facilitators, were not included in any analysis. Based on even a cursory viewing of these, the priorities for the participants are stated repeatedly: •Require a full Environmental Impact Report. • Community wants adherence to Community Plan and Specific Plan. •Noise, traffic, and safety concerns. •Proximity to school and flood control channel. •The community wants and needs a general merchandise store. The STA requested a copy of the Dialogue file on June 30. We did not receive the copy of the file until July 18 and it included a new component, an “evaluation”. This slapdash summary does not even address the actual issues discussed in the Dialogue. It is based solely on the “Dialogue Evaluation and Survey” form participants filled out at the end of the Dialogue, focusing on Question #7: “On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the best) please rate the work of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Dispute Resolution Program in planning and executing the Sunland-Tujunga Dialogue: 1 2 3 4 5 Comments __________________________________” The DRP summary contains only a tally of the answers from the participant Evaluation and Survey Summary forms, and poorly transcribed comments in answer to Question #7. In other words, the DRP is portraying the participants’ view of the process as the result of the Dialogue. The contents of the “Table Notes” described above, are completely ignored. The City must not accept this shoddy 5-page “Evaluation & Survey Summary”. It completely disregards and conceals the real outcome of the Dialogue held on April 26, 2008 and shifts the focus to the performance of the DRP. It does not justify another Dialogue session. It does not justify the continuation of the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Dispute Resolution Program to facilitate more discussion with the Sunland-Tujunga community. In our opinion, this entire process has become a farce and a waste of the community’s time and resources. A Second Dialogue On July 14, a letter from Avis Ridley-Thomas announced that another dialogue/mediation session is being planned. The letter asks recipients to recommend “stakeholder groups” who should be represented in “the next, more limited, discussion”. In the same paragraph she states, “Residents of Sunland-Tujunga who have expressed some support for Home Depot should be represented.” This alters the intent of the Stipulation by effectively allowing the inclusion of any individual who expresses support for Home Depot. The Stipulation actually states, “(5) the City shall facilitate discussions between Home Depot and Sunland-Tujunga community leaders …”. A few random Home Depot supporters cannot be considered “community leaders” and certainly do not constitute a “group”. The Sunland-Tujunga Alliance is receiving reports from residents who have been contacted by Ms. Goldfarb, a volunteer with the DRP, and it appears she is attempting to screen out opponents and is actively seeking Home Depot supporters. This appears to be an attempt to limit the participation of organizations or people that are known to oppose Home Depot. It is alarming and disturbing that Ms. Goldfarb, acting on behalf of the City Attorney and the DRP, is apparently casting about for confirmation that there’s got to be more support for Home Depot out there somewhere. The April Dialogue file includes over 300 pieces of returned mail due to bad addresses. Many of the returned mail pieces are stamped by the Post Office - “No Such Address”, “Not Deliverable as Addressed”, or “Insufficient Address”. It is evident that the DRP is not functioning in an efficient manner and is wasting taxpayer dollars. The source of the large number of bad addresses should be examined. All this leads the community to believe that the Home Depot may be creating more phony “groups”. The Home Depot used this tactic last year, creating groups called “Stop Racism” and “Friends of Sunland-Tujunga”. The community will not be surprised to see the Home Depot show up at the next “Dialogue” with “community groups” no one has ever heard of. Who is In Charge and Who has Authority to make a Project Determination? The Sunland-Tujunga Alliance has questioned the purpose and procedures of the Mediation and we have not received a satisfactory reply. Mr. Popoola has simply forwarded emails from the STA to Ms. Goldfarb, and Ms. Ridley-Thomas responds to emails with automatic replies. Telephone calls to Ms. Goldfarb are not being returned. Ms. Goldfarb, a volunteer facilitator, is in the DRP office only 1 or 2 days a week and is shouldering the burden of responsibility for the City Attorney and the DRP. It appears there is a lack of oversight at the DRP. It appears no city official is willing to be accountable for the implementation of the Stipulation. As stated in previous emails and telephone conversations with Council Office staff, this is either a matter for the courts, or a City Planning land use and CEQA issue. We are told the mediation process is non-binding and it will not decide whether or not Home Depot opens. The application is currently being reviewed by City Planning, which is the appropriate authority to make a determination on the Project Application. Neither the City Attorney nor the DRP have knowledge or authority regarding applicable regulation and policy regarding land use and CEQA. This is not a dispute between neighbors that needs “settlement”. There is nothing to be mediated. Conclusion This entire process is objectionable for many reasons - the community is compelled to participate in the Dialogue, as a condition of the Stipulation, even though we are not party to the litigation. Ms. Ridley-Thomas informs the community their participation is voluntary, yet the Stipulation between the City and Home Depot states, “(5) the City shall facilitate discussions between Home Depot and Sunland-Tujunga community leaders …” (emphasis added). It is a waste of time and resources and should be stopped. Both the Dispute Resolution Program and the community are being used to further Home Depot's attempt to avoid CEQA review. Again, it appears Home Depot wants it both ways – they filed a lawsuit to reject the Project determination by City Council, and at the same time, agreed to file a Project Permit Compliance Review application. By applying for Categorical Exemptions with their Project Application, they are again attempting to avoid careful environmental review of the impacts their project will have on our neighborhood. The 5-month period in the Stipulation is not adequate time for the required level of environmental review. The Stipulation Order and the City Attorney’s DRP Dialogue process appear to dictate a preconceived outcome. The Dispute Resolution Program personnel are acting in a non-transparent and biased manner. There is no justification for any further dialogue. The Sunland-Tujunga Alliance respectfully requests Councilwoman Greuel take the following actions: 1) initiate an immediate investigation of the Dispute Resolution Program regarding the structure, implementation and usefulness of further dialogue sessions, 2) investigate the objectivity and neutrality of the DRP staff, 3) find another contractor to assume the assignment, or 4) put an end to the Dialogue/Mediation section of the Stipulation. Respectfully, The Sunland Tujunga Alliance, Inc. We are sending this letter to: Councilmember Wendy Greuel Supervisor Michael Antonovich Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney Laura Chick, City Controller S. Gail Goldberg, AICP, Director City Planning Dale Thrush, Planning Director, CD 2 Cynthia D. Banks, Director, County CSS Josie Marquez, Assistant Director, County CSS Christine Frau, Acting Program Manager, County DRP Avis Ridley-Thomas, Director, City DRP LeeAnn Pelham, Executive Director, City Ethics Commission Mark G. Sellers, Attorney Maya Zaitzevsky, City Planning Millie Jones, Deputy, County Supervisor Fifth District Jeri L. Burge, Asst. City Attorney Tayo Popoola, Deputy Attorney The Honorable Judge James C. Chalfant Return To STA |
| THE NO HOME DEPOT IN SUNLAND-TUJUNGA CAMPAIGN WEB SITE |