Planners OK Zoning for Controversial Development

Rejecting their staff’s advice, Los Angeles city planning commissioners on Thursday approved a zone change needed for an Encino apartment project sought by a chief aide to Mayor Tom Bradley.

The commission’s 4-1 vote sets the stage for development of up to 215 rental units on a six-acre White Oak Avenue parcel owned by Doris (Dodo) Meyer, Bradley’s longtime deputy for the San Fernando Valley.

The action outraged nearby Encino homeowners, who have sought for months to block the project. They denounced the vote as political, and vowed to press City Council members to overturn it.

The apartment site is the former Four Oaks Farm, located between the Ventura Freeway and Ventura Boulevard. There are other apartment developments nearby along White Oak, but there are single-family ranch-style homes behind the empty lot.

Previous zoning for the parcel allowed 96 units, and the commission’s action increased that to 171 units. However, Meyer and her husband, Stanley, plan to sell the land to a developer, who is expected to seek a “density bonus” of 44 units. Extra units are sometimes permitted by the city if a project contains enough moderate-rent units to qualify as “affordable housing.”

Staff Urges Limit

City planning staff members had urged the commissioners to limit the project to 96 units, a density approved 10 years ago when condominiums were proposed for the site.

The staff contended that the larger project would add to traffic congestion on busy White Oak and intrude on the nearby single-family homes. That viewpoint was shared by residents and Encino-area City Councilman Marvin Braude.

When it appeared that other commissioners were split 2-2 on the apartment issue, Braude and the homeowners had hoped for support from commission member Suzette Neiman, an Encino resident and former president of a local homeowners group.

But they were disappointed Thursday when Neiman, who said she knows both the Meyers and the protesting neighbors, came out in support of the 171-unit apartment plan.

“One of the things I have learned . . . is that people have property rights,” Neiman said.

She said she is convinced the apartment project has been designed to buffer neighboring homes from tall buildings, noisy recreational areas and driveways.

“I think they’ve answered a lot of the problems that came up during the many public hearings we’ve had,” Neiman said.

The only disagreement came from commission Chairman Daniel Garcia.

After the vote, homeowners blamed the zoning approval on City Hall politicking.

“The mayor appoints the commission,” said Richard Smith, president of the Encino Property Owners Assn. “If the mayor’s truly opposed to excessive growth like he’s said he is, he should speak out on this case.”

Smith complained that commissioners “judged this as if it was a parcel in the Simi Valley or the desert some place. . . . It’s on one of the most congested streets in the city, and it’s going to add 500 or 600 more cars a day on that street.”

Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino, also argued that politics was behind the approval.

“Arm-twisting is exactly the right word,” Silver said. “The mayor’s going to have to come out on this and take a clear position.”

But Braude said it was not a case of strings being pulled because of Meyer’s position.

“The fact of the matter is the Meyers owned this land for 26 years. I don’t want this to be considered political,” he said after the hearing.

Braude asked homeowners to “regroup” with him to defeat the apartment plan before the City Council. He also urged them not to complain about politics when they appear before council members.

“That argument will be counter-productive,” he said. “I’ve heard from no one from the mayor’s office on this matter.”

Meyer did not attend the Planning Commission hearings. She has declined to discuss the project, saying she has not been personally involved in the zoning application.

A spokeswoman for Bradley said Thursday that the mayor “is not involved, nor will he get involved” in the zoning issue.

Although they may know Meyer, the appointed planning commissioners are not barred from voting on her project. Officials of the city attorney’s office said last month that is a conflict of interest only if commissioners have a financial stake in a case they are hearing.