Build Now, Sue Later!
This Thursday, community leaders from Sunland-Tujunga and members of the No Home Depot Campaign will meet with L.A. City Planning and the Department of Building and Safety to discuss why building permits were issued to Home Depot on July 24th. After the community presented a mountain of evidence and an analysis by a structural engineer that the proposed "Tenant Improvements" to a former K-Mart building did indeed rise to the level of a "Project", City Planning ruled otherwise, and issued permits to Home Depot to allow them to proceed.
It matters not whether you are for or against a Home Depot opening in this small foothills community, the real issue is whether City Planning is following their own rules in issuing permits to a proposed project that should be subject to the litmus test that any major project of this size, and even many small residential projects are required to undergo.
"Tenant Improvements" usually means cosmetic changes to an existing building that will serve the new owners needs. This could include remodeling the checkout aisles or upgrading the restrooms. In this particular case, Home Depot is seeking to rip out the entire floor of the building and replace it with specially reenforced concrete to support the weight of their heavy shelving units. They also want to remove a few
rooftop air conditioning units and replace them with dozens of forced air units. This will require structural modifications to the roof to support their weight as well.
Home Depot sought the "Tenant Improvements" designation because they would not be subject to undergo environmental impact studies such as traffic, air quality, noise assessment, nor would they have to consider the public's concerns with operating hours, delivery times, or any other issues that would affect their operation.
Now that the City has issued Home Depot their permits, the whole process becomes
way more complicated and ultimately could cost the City a bundle if the Sunland-Tujunga comunity can prove that City Planning is ignoring their own rules in not giving this proposed store the "Project" designation that it deserves.
Consider this; for every dollar that Home Depot now spends to alter this former K-Mart building, the City may find itself liable to provide Home Depot compensation should their permits be pulled.
And here comes the Catch-22;
The further along the Home Depot project progresses,
the more the City will object to revoking the permits due to
the monetary repayment that Home Depot could demand.
If only City Planning had the foresight to see the potential
legal entanglement that they could be involving the City in.
For that matter, if only City Planning had realized that there were way too many unanswered and/or debatable questions about Home Depots intentions to make such
a hurried decision.
And just how hurried was City Planning's decision?
The No Home Depot Campaign was told at a previous meeting with City Planning, that they would be able to fully examine and respond to any new changes in Home Depots ever changing plans before a decision was made. The response to the latest changes were submitted on a Wednesday. City Planning issued Home Depot their permits that Friday.
If you have ever seen the City move this fast on any other issue, please let me know!
Posted by Unknown @ 8/06/2006 06:17:00 PM
34 Comments:
The answer to your last question about the city moving this fast on any other, is NO. I built a 920 sqft addition to my existing stone house and the city took a year to pass the plans. I changed a simple ridge beam on the porch and added railings to my original plans. They made me get engineering at done at every turn and it never changed my plans.
I have come to the conclusion that LA building and zoning care about one thing, money. Ever since they closed the Tujunga office to the public safe guarding the Sunland-Tujunga city has completely fell off the map.
Unfortunately for the city of Sunland-Tujunga We are sliding off the cliff and the Building and Zoning dept is pushing.
This is a no-brainer. Reinforcing a floor and replacing air conditioners are clearly tenant improvements. From the way you've described it, the building's footprint won't change. Nor will it go from one-story to two-story.
If you're serious about the only issue being whether the remodeling constitutes "tenant improvements," then the initial decision will stand.
Walter,
If you would only knew what you were talking about, perhaps your comments would be more than just a blathering distraction.
To answer your question, yes, I have seen the City work this fast before. This is a classic case of thinking "you" (a community) knows what's happening with a project, only to discover what they had been told, expected to see, etc., was in fact not the reality of the situation.
I have seen Planning and Building and Safety make "discretionary" decisions just like this time and time again. Sure, they might expose themselves to legal problems, but they go on their merry way knowing that most citizens don't have the legal fees, tools and resources at hand to fight them. It takes an inordinate amount of time and energy to follow a project through which most volunteers just don't have.
However, after visiting wwww.no2homedepot, I think the City could be meeting its' match.
The underlying question is, of course, what is Wendy Greuel going to do versus what has she committed to the developer?
The work being described in the post doesn't sound like anything that special. Re-doing the flooring and adding large A/C units is exactly what "Tenant Improvements" is used to describe. The building permit process would have to be completely out of whack to deny such requests to improve a building.
Joe B., I'm no lover of big-box retailers, but where is your sense of property rights and individual freedom?
ubrayjo2,
Individual freedom?
What in the hell are you talking about?
he means individual freedom of the property owner, which is what Home Depot has, so leave them alone.
Joe B --
Now is THAT the example we want to set for civil discourse, young man? I think not. Anger and name-calling is no substitute for analysis.
You yourself framed the debate in your posting: you said this is a question of law regarding whether replacing the floor and air conditioners constitutes tenant improvement. Right? Did I get that right?
Well, if I did, then I answered the question based on my knowledge and experience as a lawyer and real estate broker. I have, in my lines of work, had to deal with the issue of tenant improvements, fixtures, trade fixtures, etc. In my opinion, based on my education, licenses and experience, the items you described are garden-variety "tenant improvements."
Now, if you have some authority indicating this is incorrect -- e.g., definitions from a statute, or other cases where reinforcing a floor or replacing an HVAC system were deemed to constitute more than tenant improvements -- then by all means, share them with the rest of us.
But if you don't have something to support your position, calling the other guy names and labeling his comments "blather" isn't terribly convincing. That someone disagrees with you doesn't necessarily make him stupid or evil. Rather, he simply may not be aware of certain facts that you are. In that case, why not share the facts and THEN decide whether he has a good-faith basis for his disagreement?
Walter, the only name I called you was Walter. If that offends you I can't help you there, buddy.
The question here is does the level of Tenant Improvements rise to a Project?
A structural engineer and many mid level city planners thought so.
This is not simply reinforcing an existing floor or throwing a new air conditionor on the roof.Of course you filtered it down to that simple concept as you do with most of your posts.
These are structural alterations to a building.
Actually, if you had ever even bothered to respond to our invitation to visit our community, you would already have known
the technical issues that you are now
asking for clarification on.
- "A structural engineer and many mid level city planners thought so." Is that the best answer you have??
Walter, looks like you won this one.
1. "If you would only knew what you were talking about, perhaps your comments would be more than just a blathering distraction."
Yeah, you're right. That's not name-calling, denigrating or insulting in the least. And, by denying that it's name-calling, you really bolster your credibility. Good point, Joe.
2. "These are structural alterations to a building."
Tenant improvements usually are. Tenant improvements can involve, for example, putting in windows or doors; remodelling a bathroom; adding an interior loft; adding interior walls, stoves, hods, drainage floors for kitchens, refrigeration, etc., etc.
All "tenant improvements" really means is improvements made by the tenant rather than the lesssor. In this case, from what you've said, Home Depot isn't the lessee in any case, but is itself the owner. So presumably you mean to use some other term?
What is the legal definition of a "project" that, you feel, requires more of Home Depot than the City is requiring?
3. "Of course you filtered it down to that simple concept as you do with most of your posts."
Thank you for noticing. It's called "Occam's Razor." In any event, read your own post: "the real issue is whether City Planning is following their own rules in issuing permits. . . ."
4. "A structural engineer and many mid level city planners thought so."
Great. Can you explain why? Have they written down their opinions somewhere so the rest of us can see them?
5. "Actually, if you had ever even bothered to respond to our invitation to visit our community, you would already have known the technical issues that you are now asking for clarification on."
So the only way for you to explain your position is for someone to come to Sunland? And what do you mean "our invitation"? I don't even know who you are, and, having checked your profile, I see that you prefer to hide in anonymity. Do you have any particular training, licensing or experience in land use issues?
In any event, sorry, but you still haven't convinced me that City has failed to follow its own rules. I doubt you've convinced anyone else. As Ubray and I both pointed out, floors and HVAC are exactly the kind of thing "tenant improvements" refers to.
...it appears you're back to the blathering again Walter.
You are also using terms and associations that show me that
you know just enough about this subject to blather and that's about it.
Look, I got a day job and alot better things to do than play in Walters Imaginary Courtroom. ("Now, if you have some authority indicating this is incorrect -- e.g., definitions from a statute, or other cases ....) I'd like to save my energy and information for the real one.
So Relax Walter, or go hang out with Ubray or something.
Walter is like Zorro on this thread, his logic slicing right through joe b
joe b. - your "trailer park" is showing... Walter is bringing out your true colors. I can't beleive the people of Sunland even let you live there.
Joe --
If that's all you've got to support your position, you won't be in that real courtroom for much more than five minutes, during which the judge will sustain the City's demurrer to your complaint.
I stand by my prediction: if, as you indicated, the issue is whether the City can issue building permits to Home Depot to reinforce floors and replace air conditioners without first getting a permission slip from the neighbors, then the City is going to win this one hands down.
Your inability to support your assertions pretty much tells us all we need to know about the validity of your argument.
I happen to agree that Home Depot is a bad fit for this site. I applaud Joe B. and his S-T brethren for their fight.
I must admit, though, that there is little to stop Home Depot now. Mr. Moore is right; "tenant improvements" are considered minor changes that don't require discretionary review, i.e. public hearings and an environmental review through CEQA.
As much as I agree with the assertion that a Home Depot, a "mega" hardware store with industrial clients, is fundamentally different than a ]Target, a general merchandise store that serves all, I know that zoning laws see them as one in the same. Maybe zoning laws need to change.
Joe B., I hope I am wrong, because then you'll be able to bring this fight to the next level. Yet I believe that us naysayers are right.
The issue is way more involved than simply reinforcing floors or putting in air conditioning. In fact this weeks post was simply citing those two building issues, there are many many more.And I'm not going to spend hours posting building code here. Actually, this weeks post was about how fast City Planning rushed to their decision, but that got lost somewhere
in Walters epic blathering.
Loosen up Walter, you're scaring the children.
Weak.
"Ever since they closed the Tujunga office to the public safe guarding the Sunland-Tujunga city has completely fell off the map."
My comment is why doesn't someone ask the questions: 1. where are the N.C.'s, are they being bypassed, or just ignored. and, 2. The Tujunga office opened with much political fanfaire, where were the politicos when it ceased operation. Was there a valid reason for the closure?
Building and Safety is envolved in it's own pay for play - REMEMBER VILLARAIGROSA'S CAMPAIGN PROMISE:" I will not appoint commissioners who have business before the city."\\
Will anyone have the balls or whatever, to hold him accountable for this corruption???
Walter, you are clearly on solid legal ground in your analysis of the B & S / Home Depot issue. However, if Zine can obtin council approval to remove the FRISKY KITTY, they can also review (and modify if necessary) any zoning issue.
If homeowners/ residents have legitimate concerns over this project what is the N.C. role in the matter.
Walter, you answer Joe's quesion as a lawyer - correctly. But the point here is that that special interests, pay to play, and corruption are alive in L.A.
Example: "heres another "no brainer": The law is clear requiring America to secure our borders" ... It's a case of disrespect for the law.
Joe is a resident of the Sylmar, he has a right to speak and influence others to block H.D., or anything else. He lives there.
Walter, you are a well educated lawyer, who is expressing an indefensible point. You refer to City "experts" planners and other city employees or consutants" who have written their opinion on this issue. Ok, true: BUT THEY ARE ONLY OPINIONS. I am sure you have seen the "expert witness" directory. You can find an expert witness for any occassion, and if you don't know this you should. this is the real world, it's about money, power, influence, and corruption. Isn't that why you ran for Mayor? Your posts are legally sound, but you are missing the issues regarding the way a city should really be run, with long term planning, thoughtful, and prioritized community objectives, Etc. The corporate owner who left k-mart a decrepit local eyes sore for all who passed by is entitled to due process, but sholuldn't the overall area planning and community interest have the priority?
By the way, I go to home depot all the time, and personally have no objection to the project myself.
I have seen L.A.corruption at work, in one case an animal slaughterhouse was allowed to continue operating next to a elementary private school. Parents came to testify at the PLUM committee with proof that the feathers from slaughtered birds caused respiratory injuries to their children.
You may think this was a "no brainer" but the fact was the business has a lot of money and retained city hall planning advisors, who operate as unlicensed lobbists, and offered 10K in cash to the school each year if they did not object to his continued operating. The city councilman was so understanding and in agreement with the school,children, and parents, but his own testimony urged the PLUM committee to allow the business to continue.
Isn't that kind of thing the reason you do this important blog?
Remember when we used to love UBrayJ? Damn what were we thinking? Developer dolt. He said one or two good things last year and now he's said 50 bad things to over shadow that love we had for him.
What the fuck individual rights does Home Depot have? Please explain yourself.
11:52 - My friend.
Of course we remember the slaughterhouse on Sepulveda. Now,let me see -- who was the "consultant, lobbyist" on that project?
Was it LAMISHAW???
The guy who tried to write the Planning MOU?
We at the No to Home Depot campaign should not waste our energy on corporate/fascists who haven't the slightest knowledge of our particular project and do not care about the questionable process on the part of the city.
We are more than aware that the city's laws need changing and maybe we will be instrumental in requiring that stores that stock lumber, cement, rebar, blocks, railroad ties, chainlink fencing, roofing, dry wall, and hundreds of large and heavy items much of which is sold to contractors at a discount for resale to their customers should not be compared to stores that retail mecantile goods. It is the forklift vs the shopping cart.
How remarkable it is, Walter, for you to argue fervently in favor of this decision without laying one eye on any of the paperwork.
There is no question whatsoever that 1) Home Depot has no desire to open a store on the present footprint, and 2) now that one solitary City Planner whose bias toward developers is much rumored has made a pro-Home Depot decision, Home Depot wants a meeting to tell the community what it will give to them in order to open a larger new store outside of and beyond the present footprint (without an EIR, of course.)
If you would research Home Depot's national actions, Walter, you would be aware that Home Depot is vicious. They frequently open stores in communities with no intention of remaining open - the purpose being to put all of the local competition out of business which includes all of that community's contractors as well as their stores.
Laisser Faire or free enterprise is the best way to allow ordinary business to flourish and become vital, but when a corporate entity having the rights of an individual, but acting without conscience has vast monetary resources and evil intent not just toward its' competition, but equally towards the community where it wishes to locate, it is no longer free enterprise. Think about it!
Walter:
In my experience as a lawyer (over 45 years) doing real estate deals and leasing, the term "Tenant Improvements" (often just referred to as "TI's") usually just means improvements to the space, whether performed or paid for by the Tenant or the Landlord.
In many leases I have seen or drawn, the TI's will be listed or described, and the party charged with the performance and/or the payment of the cost will be listed.
Thus, even if the Home Depot actually owns the property, I believe that the use of the term "Tenant Improvements" by Building & Safety is a proper use in light of the colloquial definition that has developed in the industry over the past fifty years or so.
Also, as a former judge, I think that any court of law would so rule; probably, if properly requested to do, it would take judicial notice of the term based upon common usage. (despite lack of a "Tenant", in the true sense of the word)D
Walter Moore "is" clueless and will never win any mayoral election as he doesn't listen!!!
Phil --
Why don't you weigh in here? Specifically, given the information Joe B set forth in his original post, and Joe B's subsequent comments here, do you predict the City's issuance of permits will be upheld or set aside?
Walter,
Dude, are you like obsessed
with this Joe B or what?
FYI
Home Depot is a tenant. They have a forty-year lease, but Tenant Improvements have nothing to do with the status of the occupant. Rather, Tenant Improvements relate to a specific definition in city code which our structural engineers interpret as considerably less improvements than the structural renovations which Home Depot has planned - from shopping cart to forklift.
And Phil, before you spew forth legal/judicial opinions, it would behoove you not only to see what those so-called improvements entail, but you, also, overlook that this project is located within Major Activity Two of the Foothills Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan. It might be a good idea to relax on making legal predictions when completely uninformed.
I think this is the prob, the definion of tenant imrovrments, and the definition of projects. Walter is not seeing the thrshold that defines their
differnce. A tenant impro can rise to a level of project and then it has do
the planning dance, with the city,
Walter just went on the info that Joe said. Joe clammed up didn't want to let the cat out of the bag.
Joe is playing a game. and Walter took the bait. good fun!
Sorry folks reconstructing the floor for excessive weigh loads and reconstructing the loading docks for more truck deliveries and changing A/C units which involve the reconstructing of the roof supports, all which calls for engineering to pass inspection is a project. This project needs to have the environmental impact report done. Why the city is not asking for that is the question and is probably why they passed this as a tenant improvement permit. Its black and white as to what it is going on here and you all are doing exactly what they want you to do, waste your time barking up the wrong tree, while they slip this by.
I had to do this already with a project so BS on all these reasons why Home Depot and the Building and Zoning is right. BS on the issue of Property rights. Talk about the real issue and why…
If you are for the Home Depot or you are against it, it shouldn’t matter to the city, but what should matter is the environmental impact report, the City should and has an obligation to the property owners in this town, talk about property rights… Again they got you spitting at the wrong tree
Over at the FoothillsForum.com website in the "Proposed Home Depot in Sunland" thread, right at the end in post #324 I'm wondering if anybody can assist with the following...
I'm trying to find some answers to the following questions regarding Home Depot, and in addition to searching the web, I am wondering if anybody here can assist with some historical figures?
Since Home Depot was formed in 1978...
(1) How many Home Depot stores in total have opened across North America? (US, Canada and Mexico.)
(2) (a) How many Home Depot stores WERE PLANNED to open in a town, but subsequently did not, and (b) what was the reason(s) they did not open?
(3) (a) How many Home Depot stores DID OPEN, but were subsequently closed some time later, and again (b) for what reason(s) did they close?
Question (1) should be fairly easy to ascertain, (2) and (3) maybe not so.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home