Huge house plan clears hurdle

Council gives conditional nod after property owner seeks injunction to restore revoked approvals.The City Council gave conditional approval Tuesday of revised landscaping and grading plans for a 17,000-square-foot residential project at 31401 Mar Vista Ave. -- a plan opponents describe as a “neighborhood in itself.”

John Montgomery, director of the city’s Development Department, will be responsible for verifying that all conditions imposed by the council are met. If they are, building permits will be reissued.

The permits, temporarily rescinded in November when neighbors filed an appeal claiming that the construction plans did not mesh with the plans approved by the design review board, will be reissued pending verification of claims made at Tuesday’s meeting by developer Gerald Massineo.

The council’s decision to reissue the permits came on the heels of a request by Mar Vista Development Co. for a preliminary injunction against the city, based on an allegation that the city acted illegally in hearing a November appeal filed by neighbors who disputed the administrative approval in October of the building permits.

The petition for an injunction was filed Nov. 30 and is set to be heard Jan. 24.

Attempts to contact Massineo or his attorney, Allen Haynie, about the status of the legal action following the council decision were unsuccessful.

Critics of the project said at the November meetings, and reiterated Tuesday, that changes in the plans are of such magnitude that the project should be returned to the board for review as a completely new project.

“This project is riddled with problems,” said Anita Dobbs.

However, the agenda specified the hearing was to determine if landscaping and grading plans -- identified as Plan C -- conformed with the ones approved by the design review board, known as Plan A, not a review of the entire project. Many of the issues, such as environmental concerns aired by the opponents, are no longer a consideration, city officials said.

“The EIR [environmental impact report] issue is a year or two gone,” City Manager Ken Frank said.

Plan C was the result of the council’s demand in November for restoration of the originally approved plans. The city halted construction on the project until the revised plans were submitted.

Supporters of the appeal, including environmental attorney Mike Angel, who was hired by project opponents, tried to sway the council to reject the proposed plan.

“We know you want to confine the scope of this hearing to Plan C, but you also want to meet state and city laws,” critic spokeswoman Lisa Marks said.

Some of the testimony -- such as that indicating the inclusion in the landscaping plan of 10 more trees than the council specified -- raised questions in the minds of the city manager and council members.

“If the council says 40 trees, it should be 40 trees, not more and not less,” Frank said.

Among his concerns, Frank cited a pool wall that appeared to be three feet taller than previous measurements. On Wednesday Massineo submitted a revision regarding the pool wall to the Development Department.

Other concerns included the increased amount of dirt to be exported from the site and critics’ accusations that the cantilevered decks were larger than approved.

Frank said most of his concerns could be addressed by the property owner, but he was still troubled by the 19,600 cubic yards of dirt to be removed, about 5,000 cubic yards more than estimated. That will result in a grading operation that will take 11 or 12 weeks.

“That is frustrating for residents and the council,” Frank said. “But the question is whether that is relevant to tonight’s hearing. It would be more appropriate at a revocation hearing.”

No revocation hearing has been scheduled.

Revocation of a project approval is a complicated procedure that hinges on proof that the developer was negligent or intentionally misrepresented facts, that the approved use is a public nuisance or that one or more conditions of approval have not been met.

“That [whether conditions were met] was what Tuesday’s meeting was about,” Frank said.

Councilwoman Toni Iseman voted against the conditioned approval and moved that the city simply require the developer to adhere to the original Plan A, but could not get a second.

The council voted 4-1 to reissue the building permits, pending proof of substantial conformance.