ENSNC: Encino NC Planning & Land Use Committee Meeting Minutes

CITY OF
LOS ANGELES
MAIL: P. O. BOX 260439
ENCINO, CA 91426-0439
OFFICE: 4933 BALBOA BLVD.
WWW.ENCINOCOUNCIL.ORG
APPROVED MINUTES
Planning & Land Use Committee
Thursday Dec. 11, ‘08 - 7:OOPM
Encino Chamber of Commerce
4935 Balboa Blvd.
Page 1 of 10
Officers
ROB GLUSHON
President
LAURIE KELSON
Vice President
JESSE WOODS
Treasurer
SHELLEY RIVLIN
Secretary
GERALD SILVER
Sergeant at Arm
LIST OF VOTING PLU COMMITTEE MEMBERS and ALTERNATES: (Total 15)
ENC Board Members (5): Nareg Kitsinian, Louis Krokover, Peter Noce, Diane Rosen,
Gerald Silver.
Alternate ENC Board Members (3): Greg Martayan, Laurie Kelson, Jesse Woods
Stakeholder Members (4): John Arnstein, Michel Kaufman, Norma Landau, Paul Kelson
Alternate Stakeholder Members (3): Bill Cartwright, Al Mass, Sue Tuberman
*****
(Dec. 11, 08 Agenda Items are listed in numerical order)
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, and DETERMINATION OF A QUORUM.
CHAIR REQUESTED THAT ALL CELL PHONES BE TURNED OFF.
VOTING MEMBERS: Total of 9 voting members; (no more than 5 ENC Board members).
Item #1 -- The PLU Committee was called to order at 7:02 PM by the Committee Chair Diane
Rosen. The committee sign-in sheet was passed and determined a quorum was present. (5 Voting
Members represent a quorum.)
1. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
ENC Board Members (5): Nareg Kitsinian, Diane Rosen, Gerald Silver.
Alternate ENC Board Members (3): Laurie Kelson, Jesse Woods
Stakeholder Members (4): Michel Kaufman, Norma Landau, Paul Kelson
Alternate Stakeholder Members (3): Bill Cartwright, Al Mass,
EXCUSED COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Greg Martayan, Peter Noce, Sue Tuberman

Page 2 of 10
UNEXCUSED COMMITTEE MEMBERS; None
The guest sign-in sheet was also passed around as well as speaker card GUESTS
PRESENT; Tanya Chan, Sherry Kassiv, Tom Levin, Ben Reznik, Roberta Wiser, Andy
Heyman, Katherine Light, Brett Holestone, Theodore Pappas, Henry Eshelman, Jason Goshen,
Michael Greenwald, Brian Koggs, Allen Klein, Sally Briden, Barbara Linden, Erwin Linden,
Roberta Lester, Westly Lester, Greg Greenwood, Mollie Chambers, Joe Bernstein, Jeffrey
Kalban, Valentina Allen, Houshag Lavian, Deborah Kern, Brett Kauffman, Don Ikeler.
Copies of the ENC-PLU Committee Rules & Procedures were available and passed out to
visitors upon request.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Committee approved the minuets as written for Nov 6, 2008.
Motion by Laurie Kelson 2 nd by Jesse Woods
3. APPROVAL OF NEXT MEETING DATE:
A Thursday – Jan. 8, 2008 (2 nd Thursday of month)
4. PRESENTATION:
A. 15903 Ventura Blvd. Chick-Fil-A: (“By-Right” Project) Landscape &
lighting plans.
PRESENTATION BY: Don Keller
Reported that the following changes to the Burger King site have been
made Chick-Fil-A:
1) Color of building changed to a mute color.
2) Roof tile now matches the community more by using mission-
style tiles
3) It has opened up the seating area on Ventura to make it more
pedestrian
friendly and less restrictive.
4) They have added shields to all exterior lights to shield property
line residents.
5) Landscape: Architect has added more landscaping to soften the
rear wall.
RESIDENTS:
Henry Eshlman:
• Opposition, if at all, stems from prior Burger King conduct.
• Chick-fil-A is doing it much differently.
• Residents’ issue is:
• Can stadium lighting be converted to more residential or
decorative lighting?
• Residents would like the landscaping to do a better job of
concealing the property.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Jesse Woods:
• Chick-Fil-A didn’t have to ask permission for their plans. They
are making an honest effort to make changes.
MOTION #1 by: Jesse Woods 2 nd: Diane Rosen

Page 3 of 10
“This board approves based on efforts to work on lighting, coloring,
landscape”.
VOTE: Unanimous – send to consent calendar
SUMMARY: (Why Committee came to this conclusion)
Chick-Fil-A has dealt with the residents and the PLU Committee in a
forthright manner. They have been very responsive to concerns and,
collectively, we are pleased with its plans.
B. #2 15739 Ventura Blvd. Valley Beth Shalom Synagogue: Expansion
plans.
CPC-2008-3937-29,CU-Sep 08, ZV-SPR-SPP-SPPA,CU-CONDITIONAL USE
ZV-ZONE VARIANCE;
SPR-SITE PLAN REVIEW;
SPP-SPECIFIC PLANPROJECT PERMITS COMPLIANCE;
SPPA-SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT PERMIT ADJUSTMENT, IMPROVE
EXISTING WORSHIP;
EDU AND PARKING FACILITIES MAKE ADDITION AND
RENOVATIONS to EXISTING BUILDINGS;
DEMO AND CONSTRUCT NEW BUILDINGS AND NEW PARKING
STRUCTURE.
PRESENTATION BY: Ben Reznik
Focus has now come down to the parking structure: The Temple’s plans
regarding the structure‘s effect on adjacent properties on Moorpark,
Dens more and next to Temple.
• Structure is 24 feet from grade, above it there will be a screen (6ft
high) so only 30 feet is above grade.
• Will look like one story since Moorpark drops 7 feet.
• Subterranean parking from Densmore to Gloria.
• Set- back of the parking structure 10 feet to 40 feet.
• 1 story on west side, 2 story on east side.
• Screening pushed back entrance on Densmore and
exit on Gloria- status quo as in the past.
• All use is for parking, except for High Holidays. Lot off Densmore
for handicapped use only.
• Other concerns at prior meetings dealt with trash. VBS has told
trash company not to pick up earlier than 7:00 AM. Caterer has
agreed to make food drop offs by midnight. Thus, no early drops.
• Day school has put notices out to all families via e-mail
Indicating they cannot park on Moorpark any longer and VBS will
enforce this decision.
• New design allows for a very long cue of cars dropping off.
The drop-off pick-up will happen on site and not on the streets.

Page 4 of 10
Bottom line, VBS has taken measures to respond to neighbors
complaints
RESIDENTS:
Henry Eshelman:
• Sees landscape of mature trees everyday- now the VBS landscape
will change the landscape view.
• Re variances, Temple wants full economic benefit of the land, but
permit was conditional use only.
• This is really an economic issue. Temple is doing this to
increase economic space.
• Currently there are 25 year old trees across from his house- they
will be cut down.
• The roof top of the parking will be leased for late night events.
That will increase usage of space at all times.
• Reasons opposes project: Parking, visual pollution and lighting.
Theodore Pappas:
• In 86 he wrote a letter to the zoning administrator objecting to
CPU. Now 23 years later, they want to double the capacity of
school.
• Regarding parking, recently Temple had a Hanukkah
Boutique from 9-4 and they parked on the streets. Claims that
VBS has an arrangement that parking enforcement will not
ticket folks parking on the street.
• VBS was supposed to stop trash being picked up not earlier than
7-8 a.m Two weeks ago the trash was picked up at 6 a.m. with the
truck making noise.
• This project will change the neighborhood.
Ofer Nisimov:
• Concerned about parking. States that the NO PARKING signs are
not being respected by VBS.
• Catering trucks cause problems. Concerned that the new
development will make the neighborhood more commercial.
Linda Parksman: (Has lived in same house since 1971 and has seen a lot of
changes.)
• Economic impact and increased pollution.
Molly Chambers:
• Cares about the Temple, but it bothers her that with the new
development her view of the Temple will be obstructed from her
house. She is also considerate about her neighbor’s complaints.
Aitan Hillel:
• Lives 7 houses away from VBS.
• Traffic is bad, and is getting more commercial.
• If VBS adds more parking, it will add more traffic and he doesn’t

Page 5 of 10
think the streets can handle it.
• ALSO CONCERNED WITH DEVALUATION OF PROPERTY.
REBUTTAL: Ben Reznik
• Regarding activities at night: VBS is willing to have ENC
recommend CUP for roof top.
Do not intend using it for weddings or other events.
• The variance for use of the parking does not have a condition
that says VBS can’t have people parking on Moorpark. It has
conditions on the operations of the park itself. The Temple had
the city put up “NO PARKING” signs which they try to enforce
during events.
• Re delivery trucks, the new plans provide a “Loading Zone” off
Ventura Blvd. on VBS side.
• Pedestrian Bridge can be built from parking lot to structure to
alleviate crowding. The temple is willing if the building and safety
agency would approve it.
• Reznik encourages the ENC to look into this and provide a
recommendation.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Bill Cartwright:
• Asked if all mature trees will be left intact.
Reznik: yes.
• Why build so many parking spaces?
Reznik: Code requires it depending on the use.
• Playground on roof will be used by kids for playground during
school hours.
Reznik: They now play next to houses, this way they will be
further away.
Paul Kelson:
• Re parking structure: Will VBS agree to “NO RIGHT TURN” or
North turn, out of the parking into the neighborhood?
Reznik: Now you can turn right or left with 260 spots, VBS
doesn’t see the right turn being the issue, the real problem is
parking on the street when the lot is not in use.
Norma Landau:
• Re handicapped parking on Densmore: what’s its fate?
Reznik: It will be taken away and those spots will be moved
closer.
Jesse Woods:
• Would VBS be willing to add in more mature trees to help create
better beltway from the neighbors?
Reznik: There are 34 new trees being planted and they are
willing to plant taller trees.
John Arnstein:

Page 6 of 10
• What is construction time line?
Reznik: 1 year, but it will be built in phases. Most plans are
interior. Budget is not certain yet.
Laurie Kelson:
• What percentage of carpooling and busing are required of the
parents?
Nareg Kitsinian:
Advise that there be a meeting between VBS and neighbors.
MOTION #2 by Jesse Woods 2 nd: Nareg S. Kitsinian
“It is now Mandatory that these two sides get together, have 2 people
represent each side, creating list of demands, if in fact a mediation is
needed someone from this board or a professional mediator will
mediate”
No action taken: tabled to next meeting Jan 8, 09.
C. #3 4726 PETIT AVE – Small lot subdivision - Property between Rubio
and Petit, (parking lot behind B/A, & Uncle Chen’s).
PRESENTATION BY: Joe Burnstein with Brad Rosenheim Consultants
“11/12/2008 ENV-2008-4572-EAF
CONSTRUCTION OF 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES –
ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS- PER SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION –
UP TO 33 FEET IN HEIGHT
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF APPROX 19,363 SF, APPROX 1,614 S.F. PER
HOME EAF-ENVIRONMENTAL / ASSESSMENT”
Joe Burnstein:
• Here to represent owner: they are very early in process. Owners
Have filed environmental, but not case yet.
• They are early, here to inform and tell us why property is unique.
Jeff Calvin / Architect; also on land use in Sherman Oaks:
• Reason we’re interested is because of uniqueness of site. Its
south of Blvd, currently it’s a parking lot. It’s a nice gateway to
Ventura.
• Please note there are parking lots on both sides of this site.
• Reason to propose small-lot subdivision: it’s appropriate
because there has never been a well designed transition like this.
• There will be townhouses with elegant land use, allowing
young families to purchase a house in Encino
RESIDENTS BY:
Wesly Lester:
• Lives on Rubio. Inquired if there was an easement.
• Thinks it’s an unnecessary intrusion into this neighborhood.
• This should be classed as an apartment with the common walls.
Douglas Drew:
• Lives on Rubio.

Page 7 of 10
• Lived here since 1984. During this period has been deeply
distressed to see what’s happened in immediate neighborhood.
• Concerned that a neighborhood which only had 3 houses now
with this project will have 19 homes.
• Also concerned with noise pollution.
Micahel Greenwald:
• Lives on Petit
• Petit is a thoroughfare. It looks like low-income housing similar
to an airplane hangar.
Tom Levine:
• Lives on Rubio and concerned about traffic impact.
• Exit to Rubio has a covenant to maintain 48 parking spaces. You
can’t get an egress. Architect says 48 spaces will be maintained.
Greg Greenwood:
• Lives on Morrison
• In-laws live adjacent to Petit.
• Recommends that it be denied in total.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Jerry Silver:
• It’s roughly 41,000 sq. ft. It used to be R-1, now its R-9.
• After May 18, 03 it was rezoned to RE-9, meaning you’d be able to
get roughly 3, 4, 5 units.
• Why more restrictive zoning?:
Tidball (architect): In ‘98 there was concern that the area to the
south /east, was in danger of being subdivided leading to
more traffic.
• What will be discretionary actions to city?
Tidball: General plan calls for generalized land uses over
certain areas in community; those uses correspond to certain
zones. If there is a corresponding zone change, it’s just a zone
change. But if the zone change doesn’t correspond to land
use designation, then you must request a change to land use
designation.
• Are you asking city for increased density?
Tidball: Yes, current RE- 9 low 1
• This project requires a subdivision of property, so it’s a
Discretionary action.
Tidball: We’re trying to stay within the plan.
• Under new zoning, what’s side yard?
Tidball: We’re allowed up to 0 foot side yard. Present calls
for 20 ft side on Petit.
• We’re trying to minimize density, not increase, in Encino.
Concerns with adequate water, electricity supply for increased
density.

Page 8 of 10
• I’m against these kinds of properties. This property was 5,000
square feet, then went to 9,000 square feet, reducing it to 3-4
units.
John Arnstein:
• Level of development here is below what’s allowed. The density
has been reduced, so why support it?
• If current zoning allows for 3-4, then it’s consistent.
Al Mass:
• Be consistent with neighborhood and this project doesn’t do
that.
Norma Landau:
• Doesn’t think this belongs in this neighborhood.
Bill Cartwright:
• Out of character with Community plan.
• What trees in landscaping? (Oaks.)
Laurie Kelson
• Anything sought that changes city plans?
Architect: there may be a modification or a reconfirming of
zone variance. City doesn’t know which one of the process
which we’ll have to go to.
Upon inquiry: They are open to fewer units.
MOTION #3 by Jerry Silver: 2 nd: Paul Kelson
Motion to: “Oppose general plan amendment and the rezoning from re-
9 to small lot designation as project is presented located at 4726 Petit
because it is inconsistent with the adjacent neighborhood and will add
density”.
VOTE: For: 7 Against: 2 Motion passed
***
d. #4 15800 VENTURA BLVD – LAND ROVER DEALERSHIP: Remodel of
showroom and service bays.
PRESENTATION BY: Brendan Huffman
Larry Tidball (Architect for project);
• Proposed project is an expansion of showroom and the building.
• Proposing to expand showroom by 3,000 sq feet and a ride up
canopy.
∗ Entrance under proposal for service would be off Ventura not
Densmore.
∗ 8100 sq feet of total expansion.
• Functionally, rear lot is going to be storage, cars waiting for
service etc.
• Cars will no longer be delivered to this dealership taking up
middle lane off Ventura, but will instead be delivered off site and
driven over individually.

Page 9 of 10
Sirus Nazaheri (general mgr):
• This project will widen how people come into the dealership.
• This will be a larger parking lot.
RESIDENTS:
Carl Blow:
• Inquired as to how many spaces from service entrance to getting
someone in proposed project. Mgr. says 10-15. His concern is
traffic on the street.
Roxy Esterly:
• Lives on Densmore
• Has followed this project for years and appreciates Rovers
moving the storage space.
Letters of approval for new project submitted:
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Bill Cartwright:
• Inquired as to entrance and exit of lot and believes that, since the
hours of using each entrance change, it may be confusing.
• Inquired as to landscaping changes;
Rover: Will be greener around Densmore.
Jerry:
• Delighted with project. Compared to what their old plans were
years ago, this is a good plan.
MOTION #4 by: Jerry Silver 2 nd: Nareg Kitsinian
“Move to support project as proposed.”
VOTE: Unanimous – Send to consent calendar
E. ENCINO COMMONS GATEWAY SIGN REPORT:
Re. ENC Ad Hoc Committee’s suggestions regarding PLU actions.
Report By: Jesse Woods - None
5. CHAIR’S “PIPELINE UP-DATE “
A. Ventura/Cahuenga Blvd. Corridor Specific Plan (PRB) Report,
M. Kaufman; Need to establish “Design Review Board” for
Encino.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Michael Kaufman:
• We have a proposed form for review that other NC’s are using. To
our understanding, it’s advisory and not mandatory.
MOTION #5 by: Diane 2 nd: Gerald Silver
“Motion to create a subcommittee called the Design Advisory Committee to
prepare and develop a set of voluntary advisory guidelines and architectural
Recommendations for new and/or renovated projects in the Encino portion of
the Ventura Cahuenga specific plan”.
VOTE: For: 9 Unanimous – Send to consent calendar??
***
6. OLD BUSINESS:

Page 10 of 10
A. OAK PARK DOWN-ZONING Report by: John Arnstein
Letter was drafted and sent to Weiss’ office, but no response we
should move forward.
Laurie Kelson:
• Have Dax write the motion regarding Oak Park on the ENC
Letterhead to be signed by Rob or Laurie and send to Weiss’
Office and the planning department
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Michael Kaufman:
∗ Were trying to create a mechanism to deal with uniformity.
Laurie Kelson:
∗ This is a guideline for us to keep in mind.
7. NEW BUSNISS:
A. Request ENC Finance Committee fund PLU a monthly amount of money for
postage.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
Goes to Executive Committee.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Comments from the public on non-agenda items within
The Board’s jurisdiction.
None
9. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Comments from the Board on subject matters
within the Board’s jurisdiction.
None
10. Meeting adjourned at: 10:17 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
Nareg Kitsinian – Secretary Pro-Tem