Report from Studio City Neighborhood Council Meting, Wed., Jan. 18, 06.

Background: Bill LaMond is the regular SC DAW. I spoke w Bill on
Jan. 17. He explained that he would be unable to attend the
monthly SCNC meeting on 1/18. I volunteered to appear.
in his place.
Bill gave me the following background in advance of the meeting:

CHOW BELLA PET SPA is located in SC at 11939 Ventura Blvd. Recently,
CHOW BELLA (CB) applied to the city for a permit to expand its operation
to include a boarding facility for pets. DAW LaMond opposed this action
by CB for the following reasons:

1. Inadequate & inappropriate space: by law, CB does not have
sufficient space to offer responsible pet boarding. Also, the
space they want to use is inappropriate because it impinges on
CB "Day Care for Pets" space.  Nonetheless, CB did apply for
a permit from the city.

2. CB's record as a pet care facility is a poor one. There have been
numerous incidents at CB. To cite a few: a dog who was in CB's
care was killed when a Rotweiller bit its head off. In another case,
CB illegally sold puppies on its premises. All the puppies subsequently
died. There have been other incidents, too numerous to delineate,
in which companion animals have been injured or suffered neglect.
A number of lawsuits have been brought against the facility by SC
customers. Also, local residents have complained that the employees
of CB have left large amounts of excrement in an alley near the
facility in the course of dog walking.  DAW LaMond feels that CB is
poorly managed and poorly staffed.

3. In the fall of 2005, both the SC Residents Association (SCRA)
and the SC Neighborhood Council) (SCRA) voted in opposition to the
granting of a permit to CB to expand to include pet boarding facilities.
The SCRA (a powerful local group) went so far as to run an editorial
on the subject in its monthly newsletter.

4. In an action taken on Nov. 2, 2005, Linn K. Wyatt, Asst. Zoning
Admin. approved CB's request for a variance that would enable it
to start offering "pet daycare." Thus written opposing positions by
both the SCRA and the SCNC counted for nothing re the action taken
by Ms. Wyatt.  DAW LaMond learned of the action by the Zoning Admin.
somewhat after the fact.  He received no notification of Ms. Wyatt's
decision nor did the SCRA and the SCNC.  When it was too late to take
such action, he learned that the period during which an appeal might
have been filed was Nov 2 -- Nov 17. But that time was already past.

5. DAW Shea made notes on his conversation w DAW LaMond and
brought them to the 1/18/06 SCNC meeting held at CBS in SC.

He arrived before the start of the meeting at 7 PM and presented
himself to the SCNC's chairman who cordially received him and showed
him the evening's agenda. It was a busy one -- slot #15 -- very near
the bottom was reserved for "Animal Welfare Concerns."

The meeting was unusually long and contentious. Almost two hours
was taken up by the SCNC dealing with a request by an incoming
restaurant to be able to include a dance floor in the restaurant. The
council finally voted unanimously to deny the request. Many witnesses
pro and conspoke to the SCNC.

It was 10:40 PM, almost four hours after the start of the meeting,
before slot #15 came up  A member of the panel apologized to Shea
for the long wait.

DAW Shea spoke for approximately four minutes on the Chow Bella
matter. He spoke from a handwrittemn condensation of his briefing
w DAW LaMond.  When he neared the end of his report, a number of
panel members interrupted to him with pertinent questions.

One member, David Burg enquired as to why an appeal had not
been filed. Shea responded that no notification of the Zoning
Admin. Office action had been given. Burg and others questioned
the SCNC chairman as to whether the SCNC had received any such notification.
Member Burg stated that since no notificatin had been given
("We should have been notified of appellate rights.")
it was his opinion that action could and should still be taken.
If the Zoning Admin. had not provided notification of appeal dates
and procedures, that was improper and the action could be challenged
and a new appeal filed.

Burg gave DAW Shea his business card and expressed his wish that
Shea or DAW LaMond be in communication with him. Other board members
also showed concern re Chow Bella.  The Chairman said he would be in
communication with the Zoning Admin. Office and enquire as to why they
had not communicated re the appeal dates, etc. Since both the SCRA and
the SCNC had taken public positions and expressed them in letters to the Zoning
Admin., the feeling was that the Zoning Admin had acted improperly and an
appeal might still be filed. Shea was also encouraged to contact Chris Olsen
from Council member Wendy Gruel's office. Also, David Burg volunteered the
name & phone # of a SC resident, Alan Diamond,  he thought could be
especially helpful w this matter. An attendee, Marilyn White-Sidell,
suggested approaching the Health Dept as another way of curbing
Chow Bella.

Note: A conversation w member Linda Wadler revealed that though a
number of complaints were brought against CB by various individuals,
none of them were noted at the hearing because they had not been
reported to the Humane Society.

A personal note: I was very encouraged by this visit to the SCNC. I was
received cordially, the problem I presented was taken seriously and the
information I was given may eventually lead to a successful outcome. The
members of the council seem very accepting of the place of an Animal
Welfare rep in the council. As a matter of fact, one of the members, Linda
Wadler, encouraged me to file to run for a seat on the SCNC. This is
something, various DAWS should consider doing -- running for seats on
various neighborhood councils. There is a nice synergy here -- with NC
members and Animal Rights advocates very much in agreement on the
matter of Chow Bella.

George Shea, Burbank DAW 818-980-6769