Chandler Blvd. Homeowners Battle Chabad Expansion

A recent state appellate court ruling in an ongoing dispute between a Chandler Boulevard homeowners group and Chabad of the Valley has sent Chabad’s plans for new construction in Sherman Oaks back to the City Council.

Opponents of the development for Chabad of the Valley’s North Hollywood Chabad at 13079 Chandler Boulevard say the precedent-setting ruling validates their assertion that the City Council violated the City Charter when it overruled a decision by the City’s Zoning Administrator and approved a larger building in 2009.

“There are checks and balances in the city council’s authority and an entire procedural system, but the council has ignored city planners, administrators, committees and commissions,” said Noel Weiss, attorney for the West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association. “For the first time, this decision says you can’t do that.”

But attorney Bejamin Reznik, who represents Chabad of the Valley which has already begun construction, said the ruling merely calls for “a procedural technical correction” by the city council.

“The court of appeals said it’s not enough to say you think your proposal is better, you’ve got to explain it,” Reznik said, adding that the issue will simply be referred back to the council for the appropriate language which, though not directly stated, was implied in the council discussion.

The dispute centers on a new building proposed by Chabad of the Valley, which operates 25 religions centers in the San Fernando Valley. Chabad of North Hollywood, located on a triangular-shaped parcel in Sherman Oaks next to the Orange Bus Line, sought in 2007 to build a 16,100 square-foot, three story building. It requested variances to allow a height of 45 feet and five parking spaces instead of the required 83.

The new structure would accommodate Chabad programs. Only minimal parking would be required because synagogue members would walk to services.

But those who live in the surrounding residential neighborhood objected to the project’s size and organized against it. Approvals seesawed back and forth. In 2008, the city’s Zoning Administrator reduced the project’s size to 10,300 square feet with 40% of the square footage in a basement level and a 2,4000-square foot assembly space. In 2009, the South Valley Planning Commission denied the project altogether, saying it was too large for the lot and would harm the neighborhood.

The building plans would have died there but for the City Council’s action in June 2009 when it invoked Section 245 of the City Charter, which empowers the council to exercise authority over actions of various boards. The City Council revised plans for the building yet again, approving a 12,000-square foot building, a 3,370-square-foot assembly space, and a height of 28 feet with 20% of the building square footage in the basement.

Those changes became the basis for a lawsuit brought by opponents who argued that the council cannot simply create afresh new building proposals and overrule decisions by other city boards but must examine past deliberations and indicate where those decisions have been in error or constitute an abuse of discretion. The Aug. 16 ruling from California’s Second District Court of Appeals, which overturned a lower court ruling and sided with opponents, requires Chabad’s plans to go back to the city council for the appropriate findings.

Jeff Gantman, one of the founders of the West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association, says the ruling has wider impact because it provides a legal basis to constrain the council from ignoring decisions that restrict or limit building and, under Section 245, allowing larger structures and illegal uses or granting other approvals without legally justifying them.

“Are we a city of laws or little fiefdoms where people get to do what they want?” Gantman said. “We’re doing this out of principle. It has everything to do with what’s right.”

Reznik, however, dismissed such claims.

“The City Council steps in and utilizes 245 many times with the Harbor Commission, the Airport Commission, DWP and the Planning Commission,” Reznik said, “They do that when they feel they need to correct a mistake.

“That’s what they’re elected for,” he added, “that the city council will ultimately have the final say on these matters.”