(The following is the text of the 80 acts listed in the claim against Los Angeles County, continued from the entry page)

August 2001: Regional Planning employees attempted to change the zoning of the property at 1909 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., Topanga, from C-3 to A-1-5, without specifically notifying the owners. The County employee, Ronald Hoffman, claimed he had no knowledge of a business being conducted on the property and that his department was implementing aspects of the pending North Area Plan. After a brief negotiation, Mr. Hoffman said he would designate the property as C-2. However, that would not allow an amphitheater, which was a central part of the business being conducted there. The owners engaged the services of an attorney, who negotiated with the office of LA County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. The LA County Board of Supervisors eventually amended the C-2 zoning code to allow a ninety-nine seat amphitheater.

March 2002: When the owners submitted building plans for review, LA County Building and Safety, Calabasas office, did not inform the owners of the time limits for review and approval of permits (30 days), as required by Califormia Code: Government Code Section 65941.5. Each public agency shall notify applicants for development permits of the time limits established for the review and approval of development permits pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section65940) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 65950), of the requirements of subdivision (e) of Section 65962.5, and of the public notice distribution requirements under applicable provisions of law. In fact, Building and Safety employees gave the owners false information pertaining to permit reviews, stating that it usually and normally takes six to eight weeks to complete the plan review. Subsequently, Plan checkers consistently and habitually took more than the code mandated thirty days to review submitted plans.

September 24, 2002: Owners submitted deck addition plans for a plan check to the Calabassas office of LA County Building and Safety. Thirty days later, On October, 24, 2002, after inquiry by the owners, Shazain, the plan checker, said he could not find the plans. Owners submitted a new set of plans. By law, permitting agencies must respond in writing within thirty days. Government Code Section 65943. (a) Not later than 30 calendar days after any public agency has received an application for a development project, the agency shall determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the development project. If the written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the application, and the application includes a statement that it is an application for a development permit, the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter. Building and Safety employees made no attempt to obey the law. They delayed permits and construction of the theater, adding to costs and lost revenue.

September 24, 2002: Owners submitted hydrology report for review. The review was not finished until January 24, 2003, one hundred and twenty three days later, when the plan checker asked for corrections to the report. The Building and Safety plan checker disregarded Government Code Section 6593, which states that If the written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the application, and the application includes a statement that it is an application for a development permit, the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter.

November 2002: The plans for the deck addition were approved by Brian Valentine, the plan checker at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, but he refused to issue a building permit for the deck until the building plans were approved. The deck addition was a separate application, not connected with the building application. Mr. Valentine's capricious decision to not issue a building permit for the deck addition held up construction on the project until October 22, 2003. When asked for the basis of his decision, Mr. Valentine said the deck addition was part of the total project. The owners submitted to Mr. Valentine that if the deck addition was part of the building plan permit then they should not have been charged a separate permit fee. Illogically, Mr. Valentine insisted that the deck addition was both a separate permit and part of the building permit. Even if the plan checker believed the deck addition was part of the building permit, the plan checker had opportunity and building code authority to allow construction on the deck addition to go forward while the building plans were being reviewed. Los Angeles County Building and Safety Code Section 106.5 Permits, states, The Building Official may issue a permit for the construction of part of a building or structure before the entire plans and specifications or the whole building or structure have been submitted or approved, provided adequate information and detailed statements have been filed complying with all pertinent requirements of this Code. The holder of such permit shall proceed at his or her own risk without assurance that the permit for the entire building or structure will be granted. (Ord. 95-0065 § 3 (part), 1995.) The deck plans were approved for permit, so they indisputably complied with all the requirements of the building code. Brian Valentine knew that delay in the construction of the facility would delay the owners' use of the facility for their business and resultant loss of income. His decision was deliberately indifferect, negligent, arbitrary, capricious and abuse of power under color of authority.

December 4, 2002: Owners submitted building grading plans for review by the Calabasas office of LA County Building and Safety. The grading plan checker took until January 24, 2003 (fifty days) to complete the review. Building and Safety disregarded Government Code Section 6593, requiring a written response within thirty days.

January 21, 2003: Building plans were approved "ready for permit," in a meeting at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, with BrianValentine, Building and Safety plan checker; Vic, Building and Safety official from Alhambra office; two of owners' architects, Manfred Schlosser and Mohan Joshi; owners' structural engineer, Mort Newman; and owner, Jeffrey Forward. Mr. Valentine told the owners that a building permit would not be issued until the grading plans were approved and rough grading is completed.

January24, 2003: Laren Bunker declared the one hundred feet by fifty feet area next to the stream to be a flood hazard area, even though it was not listed as a flood hazard area by LA County or FEMA. Prior to beginning the process of creating building plans and applying for permits to build the school and the amphitheater, the owners had asked Regional Planning and FEMA if their property at 1909 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., was listed as a flood hazard area. They were told by both Regional Planning and FEMA that their property was not in a flood hazard area. When Laren Bunker was told by the owners that the property was not listed as a flood hazard area, Mr. Bunker told them he was personally declaring it a flood hazard area. This action by Mr. Bunker was an arbitrary and capricious abuse of his power, and subsequently added substantially to the length of time required to obtain permits and complete construction, as well as adding significantly to the cost of the project.

January24, 2003: Laren Bunker, the grading plan checker for the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, required a revision of the hydrology report of the intermittent, blueline stream running through the property before he would approve the building grading plan. On the GRADING REVIEW SHEET, Mr. Bunker checked Item 14, LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (HYDROLOGY SECTION), which states: The project location has significant contributory off-site drainage which impacts structures or proposed drainage devices. This determination by Mr. Bunker was unfounded. The stream is approximately two feet deep and is dry most of the year. It was not listed by LA County or FEMA as a flood hazard area. Both the declaration of a flood hazard area and the requirement of a hydrology study before completing the grading plan check were arbitrary, capricious, and lacked substantial justification. It was obvious that any possible flooding of the stream area would not impact the grading area for the following reasons. The grading area was twenty-three feet higher than the stream and approximately one hundred feet away from the stream. For a flood condition to reach the grading area of the building, water in the stream would have to rise to twenty-three feet deep and two hundred feet wide, an impossible condition in that area. In addition, approximately five hundred yards upstream of the theater property, the stream flowed through an eight foot culvert under Topanga Canyon Blvd.. In a flood condition, water coming down the stream would dam up at the culvert, through which it would be slowly released downstream, making flooding downstream virtually impossible. The hydrology report showed that in a fifty year flood the stream could rise to a height of three feet in the area closest to the theater building. This unjustifiable requirement for a hydrology study as a prerequisite to approving the building grading plans was both an abuse of power under color of authority and deliberate negligence by the plan checker.

April 23, 2003: A corrected hydrology report was submitted for review. The review was completed on June 9, 2003, forty-five days later. It was not approved and required additional corrections. According to the owner's engineer, Mr. Bunker's required corrections used methods and formulas that were not standard and usual. In fact, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Bunker, the owners' engineer discovered that Mr. Bunker would not accept certain figures published by the County, which figures the engineer had used for the hydrology report. When asked for clarification, Mr. Bunker told the owners' engineer that he required the use of figures that were unpublished. When the engineer asked where he could obtain the unpublished figures, Mr. Bunker said the engineer would have to ask Mr. Bunker for them. The engineer corrected the report with the figures supplied by Mr. Bunker and the hydrology report was subsequently approved. Mr. Bunker's actions were arbitrary, capricious, and willfully negligent.

September 18, 2003: Mr. Bunker approved the corrected version of the hydrology report using his figures, but neglected to stamp it as approved. The lack of an approval stamp subsequently caused substantial, time consuming confusion and difficulty at a later stage of project. Mr. Bunker's error in not stamping the hydrology report as approved was willful negligence, which subsequently caused grave financial harm to the owners.

October 20, 2003: Brian Valentine, a plan checker in the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, once again refused to issue a building permit for the deck, the plans for which had been approved in November 2002, until the building plans were approved. The owners wrote a letter of complaint, to Soheila Kalhor, the supervisor of the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, requesting the immediate issuance of the permit to construct the deck addition, as well as the issuance of the grading permit for the building. The complaint letter was faxed to Mark Pestrella, a Building and Safety supervisor of the Calabasas office, at the Department of Public Works headquarters in Alhambra. The same complaint letter was sent by certified mail to Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and James Noyes, Director, Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

October 22, 2003: Brian Valentine was ordered by his supervisor Soheila Kalhor to issue a permit for construction of the deck addition, one year after they were approved. Mr. Valentine was angry and wrote on the plans that the deck was not approved for assembly use or educational uses, although the deck had been previously approved for educational use by Los Angeles County Regional Planning. Brian Valentine's action in refusing to issue a building permit for plans that were approved was willful negligence and abuse of power under color of authority.

December 12, 2003: Brian Valentine, the building plan checker at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety told owners the project required a separate retaining wall permit for the east wall of the building. The east wall, as part of the building plans, had been approved on January 21, 2003. In particular, Mr. Valentine wanted the east wall of the building to be redesigned as a standalone retaining wall. The building was situated on the side of a hill and the east wall of the building was designed to hold from five to twelve feet of soil. The owners asked their grading/structural engineer and their soils and geology engineer if the east wall of the building as designed would support the weight of the driveway dirt as it was being recompacted during rough grading. They said yes, it would. According to the owners' engineers, Mr. Valentine's demand to redesign the wall was an extraordinary and unnecessary. Additionally, CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65944. (a), states After a public agency accepts an application as complete, the agency shall not subsequently request of an applicant any new or additional information which was not specified in the list prepared pursuant to Section 65940. The agency may, in the course of processing the application, request the applicant to clarify, amplify, correct, or otherwise supplement the information required for the application. Brian Valentine, as the plan checker for Building and Safety, had accepted the application for the building permit as complete and had, in fact, approved the building plans for permit. The thirty-day time limit imposed by law on Mr. Valentine in which he was allowed to request revisions of the application had long since past. Mr. Valentine abused his power by disregarding the law that prohibited him from requiring additional information after the application was accepted as complete.

February 11, 2004: Laren Bunker, the grading plan checker at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, approved the building grading plans, but refused to stamp the grading plans as approved or to issue a grading permit. Mr. Bunker's reason for not issuing a grading permit was that he thought the building plans, which had been approved for permit on January 21, 2003, needed to be revised.

February 24, 2004: Laren Bunker refused to stamp the building grading plans as approved or to issue a grading permit because he disapproved of the driveway permit plans approved by Caltrans. Mr. Bunker admitted that the Caltrans plans he disapproved of were on state property not county property and that he did not have any authority to review or disapprove Caltrans permits. Laren Bunker's refusal to issue a permit based on his disapproval of a state permit was a gross abuse of power under color of authority.

March 3, 2004: Laren Bunker and Soheila Kalhor, the supervisor of the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, refused to issue a grading permit until the Caltrans permit was revised to their satisfaction. Neither Mr. Bunker nor Ms. Kalhor could cite any authority for their demand. Their refusal to issue a permit based on disapproval of a state permit was a gross abuse of power under color of authority.

March 9, 2004: In a meeting with Soheila Kalhor and Laren Bunker at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, the owners showed Ms. Kalhor and Mr. Bunker the code sections that stated that county officials did not have any authority over street and highway right of ways and the code section giving Caltrans authority over highway right of ways. Building Code, 101.3 Scope The provisions of this code shall not apply to work located primarily in a public way…. Ms. Kalhor and Mr. Bunker said they would not discuss the code with the owners and continued to demand a change in the Caltrans permit before they would issue a grading permit. This action by Ms. Kalhor and Mr. Bunker is an abuse of power under color of authority.

March 10. 2004: Mark Pestrella, Ms. Kalhor's supervisor, ordered Ms. Kalhor to issue a "ready for permit document" for the building grading. Brian Valentine gave the document to the owners, but would not issue a grading permit, continuing his negligence and abuse of power.

March 23, 2004: Laren Bunker stamped the building grading plans as approved, but refused to issue a grading permit.

April 2, 2004: Owners offered a compromise to Brian Valentine on the issue of the east wall, in which the key for the wall would be made larger to satisfy Mr. Valentine's fear of slippage. Mr. Valentine would not agree.

April 7,2004: Brian Valentine was ordered by Mark Pestrella to issue a grading permit for the project. Mr. Pastrella ordered Mr. Valentine to allow the construction of the foundation and the east wall of the building, which would allow the rough grading to be finished.

July 6, 2004: A pre-grading meeting was held at the project site, attended by Laren Bunker, the grading plan checker from the Calabasas office of Building and Safety; Richard Brundage, the field inspector from the Calabasas office of Building and Safety; Richard, the soils engineer from Subsurface Designs; Zak, the Caltrans field inspector; Brian Hutchinson, the grading contractor; and the owner, Jeffrey Forward. A plan was agreed to in which the hillside would be excavated for the foundation of the building, the east wall of the building would be constructed and the excavation would be backfilled and compacted. It was agreed that this would need to be done before the El Nino rains expected in November 2004.

October 14, 2004: Owners received a letter from Christina Tran for Daryl Koutnik, Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning Impact Analysis Section, stating that the last remaining item they required to finalize the CUP for public performances was the drainage concept/SUSMP from the Department of Public Works Land Development Division.

November 8, 2004: Duncan McClane, a new field inspector from the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, visited the job site and issued a stop work order, claiming that the job required a standalone wall permit. When the owners protested the stop work order to Soheila Kalhor and Laren Bunker, Ms. Kalhor and Mr. Bunker disregarded the pre-grading agreement to put in the foundation and finish the rough grading. Ms. Kalhor and Mr. Bunker declared that if I did not redesign the east wall as a standalone wall, they would not allow the work to continue. At this point owners had a dangerous situation with regard to the stability of Topanga Canyon Blvd., with an excavation approximately eighteen feet deep ten feet away from the Blvd. and the threat of record breaking rainfall within the next two weeks. Because time was of the essence and because the owners' construction loan was costing approximately $6,000 per month interest, to avoid a lengthy delay, the owners, under protest, agreed to redesign the east wall.

November 18, 2004: Brian Valentine approved the plans for making the east wall a standalone wall. But he would not lift the stop work order until owners were given permission by the plumbing division to change the location of the septic pipe crossing the intermittent stream. Ms. Kalhor supported his action. By this time El Nino had arrived and it had started raining heavily. Owners' soils engineer told them that if they did not backfill the excavation there was a strong risk of the collapse of Topanga Canyon Blvd. into the excavation. The refusal to lift the stop work order was gross negligence both for the safety of the community and the escalating cost of construction for the owners, as well as abuse of power.

November 22, 2004: The stop work order was rescinded after the owners wrote a letter to each of the Los Angeles County Supervisors, as well as to Donald L. Wolf, Director, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works; and Raj Patel, Los Angeles County Superintendant of Building; describing the dangerous situation with regard to Topanga Canyon Blvd..

December 12, 2004: Mo Kajbaf, of Los Angeles County Land Development Division, told owners that he understood the pending CUP was for a building. Owners told him it was for a parking lot. Owners also told Mr. Kajbaf that Christina Tran wanted approval of the SUSMP report, which owners had given to Land Development. Mr. Kajbaf said he would call Christina Tran, at Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, Impact Analysis Section, to clarify their request for information. Owners asked Mr. Kajbaf to expedite his contact with Ms. Tran because the CUP needed to be approved before they could begin conducting their business.

December 12, 2004: Owners gave the hydrology report to Los Angeles County Land Development Department, to facilitate Land Development's approval for the pending CUP. The hydrology report had previously been reviewed and approved by Laren Bunker, a plan checker in the Calabasas office of Building and Safety. When the employee accepting the hydrology report said he would give it to the plan checker to review, the owner, Mr. Forward, stated that the report had already been reviewed and gave specific instructions to not do a second review. Subsequently, without Mr. Forward's knowledge and consent and contrary to Mr. Forward's specific instruction, the hydrology plan checker at Land Development reviewed and plan checked the hydrology report.

January 6, 2005: There was confusion between Land Development and Regional Planning Impact Analysis Section regarding the SUSMP information the Impact Analysis Section required from Land Development. Owners had previously left phone messages for Mo Kajbaf and Rony Hui at Land Development to ask if they needed additional information from owners. Neither Mr. Kajbaf nor Mr. Hui returned the phone calls. This confusion and delay delayed approval of the CUP. The lack of action by Land Development officials was negligence and deliberate indifference to the harm being caused to the owners.

January 18, 2005: Mo Kajbaf, Land Development, told owners he had confirmed with Ms. Tran, Impact Analysis, that they required information from Land Development for approval of a bridge and parking lot, not for a building. Since Mr. Kajbaf had been informed that time was of the essence, he was negligent in allowing more than five weeks to pass before clarifying the information required by Impact Analysis Section.

January 20, 2005: Timothy Chen, of Land Development, called owners to inform them that he had plan checked the hydrology report, that it was not approved, and that the owners could pick up the correction sheet after they paid a plan check fee of $3,000. This was willful negligence by Land Development employees.

January 20, 2005: Mo Kajbaf, Land Development, told owners that Laren Bunker, the plan checker for the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, told him (Mr. Kajbaf) that he had not plan checked and approved the hydrology report. This was willful negligence by Mr. Bunker and an attempt to cover up his previous negligence in first requiring an unnecessary hydrology report and then neglecting to stamp it after he had approved it.

January 25, 2005: Duncan, a field inspector from the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, issued owners a "Notice of Violation," without justification. Duncan was obviously angry when he arrived at the job site and claimed violations that were not true. Two witnesses confirmed that the violations claimed by Duncan were untrue. One was Zak, the Caltrans field inspector, who visited the site after Duncan had left and confirmed that he could not see any violations. The other was the field inspector from Subsurface Designs, who was inspecting the soil compaction at the time of Duncan's visit. Owner Jeffrey Forward wrote a letter of complaint to Soheila Kalhor denying the violations and requesting that his letter of denial be attached to the Notice of Violation. Duncan's action was harassment and abuse of power under color of authority.

January 26, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, spoke with Christina Tran, of the Environmental Impact Section, on the telephone. Ms. Tran said that Mo Kajbaf, of Land Development, had told her the Land Development Division did not approve the CUP. This premature action by Mr. Kajbaf was negligence.

January 26, 2005: A meeting was held in the offices of Los Angeles County Land Development Division, attended by Laren Bunker, Calabasas office of Building and Safety; Mitch Miller, Steve Smith, and Mo Kajbaf, Land Development Division; and owner, Jeffrey Forward. Mr. Bunker at first denied reviewing and approving the hydrology report. Then he said he had not reviewed it for the proposed bridge. It was pointed out to him that the bridge was clearly visible and labeled in the plans he approved. Mitch Miller claimed owners had not applied for a bridge building permit. Mr. Forward pointed out to him that the building code exempted bridges not attached to buildings from requiring a permit, Los Angeles County Building Code Section 106 - Permits, par. 106.3 Work Exempted, 6. Bridges not involving buildings. Mr. Miller said there was a new code and owners had to comply with the new code. Mr. Forward pointed out that the new building code applied to projects with an application date on or after November1, 2002. The owners' CUP application was dated October 15, 2001. Mo Kajbaf reported that he had already sent a notice to Christina Tran, at Impact Analysis, that Land Development did not approve the parking lot and bridge. Mr. Forward protested that that determination was premature because discussions regarding the bridge and parking lot were still ongoing. Mr. Forward asked for the citation that they were using to deny approval of the bridge and parking lot. Land Development officials were unable to cite a code that supported their denial. Mr. Smith said he would speak to Christina Tran and retract Mr. Kajbaf's communication. The actions by Mo Kajbaf, Mitch Miller and Laren Bunker showed ignorance and disregard for the law and the building code. Mr. Kajbaf's actions was deliberate indifference to the harm his actions caused to the owners.

February 10, 2005: Owners requested Mo Kajbaf to remove the $3,000 fee for reviewing the hydrology report. Mr. Kajbaf claimed it was already in the accounting system and there was no way to remove it. However, Mr. Kajbaf said they would reduce the fee to $2,000. Mr. Kajbaf continued over the next several months to demand payment for the unnecessary review of the hydrology report. His action had the appearance of a cover-up of the original mistake in ordering the review of the hydrology report. Mr. Kajbaf's action was willful disregard of the harm to the owners.

February 11, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, took a set of approved plans for a water/septic pipe support across the intermittent stream into the Calabasas office of Building and Safety and asked Brian Valentine for a building permit for the plans. The plans had been approved by the Plumbing and Building and Safety departments at LosAngeles County Public Works headquarters in Alhambra. Mr. Valentine consulted privately with Soheila Kalhor and Laren Bunker concerning the request for a building permit. Mr. Valentine refused to issue a building permit for the pipe support until a building permit for the building had been issued, because, he said, he was not sure the owners were actually going to build the building. After a discussion, he admitted that the owners obviously were going to build the building. He then cited Building Code Section 110.2..1 No building or grading permit shall be issued…when the Building Official finds that property outside the site of the proposed work could be damaged…[by]… the proposed work. However, Mr. Valentine was unable to say what damage the proposed work would do to property outside the site of the proposed work. Mr. Valentine refused to issue a permit for the approved plans with no reason for the refusal except he didn't want to. This was a blatant abuse of power under color of authority.

February 15, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, had an over the counter meeting with Mo Kajbaf, Timothy Chen, Dennis Hunter and Steve Burger, at the Land Development offices. Mr. Hunter stated that since Laren Bunker, at Building and Safety, had not placed an approval stamp on the hydrology report, they would not accept it as approved. Mr. Kajbaf stated that the hydrology report was oine hundred percent wrong. Mr. Forward told Mo Kajbaf that he (Forward) had had a meeting with Daryll Koutnik and Christina Tran, at Environmental Impact, and that they said they did not want the hydrology report approval, they wanted the SUSMP approval. Mr. Hunter said Land Development would not separate the SUSMP report from the hydrology report, although they were two separate reports. Owners felt that this was to force them to pay the $3,000 fee for the review of the hydrology report. These actions by Land Development officials was negligence, deliberate indifference, and abuse of power.

February 16, 2005: Owners' gave proof of completion of rough grading to Brian Valentine and Soheila Kalhor and requested a permit for construction of the building. Mr. Valentine and Ms. Kalhor denied owners' request for a building permit. Owners' reminded them that their agreement was that when the rough grading was completed the building permit would be issued. Brian Valentine consulted with Ms. Kalhor and said he would not issue a building permit until the electrical plans had been approved. Owners requested permission to continue construction on the approved portion of the project as allowed under Building Code section 106.5.1. Mr. Valentine said that was discretionary with the Building and Safety official and he chose not to allow construction on the approved portion of the project. Mr. Valentine's action was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of power.

February 17, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, had meeting with Soheila Kalhor, Laren Bunker, and Brian Valentine, at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety. Ms. Kalhor told Brian Valentine to issue building permit for foundation only and to also issue a building permit for the pipe support across the stream. Laren Bunker said he had no explanation why he did not complete the hydrology report review with an approval stamp. Laren Bunker admitted to actions that constituted deliberate indifference and negligence.

February 23, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, spoke to Mo Kajbaf on the phone. Mr. Kajbaf said he was going to look at the SUSMP report today and send his recommendation to Christina Tran, at Environmental Impact. He said he would call Mr. Forward back the next day. He did not send a recommendation to Ms. Tran, Mr. Kajbaf did not call Mr. Forward back the next day and subsequently did not take Mr. Forward's phone calls and did not return Mr. Forward's phone messages.

April 7, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, telephoned Mo Kajbaf and left a message that Environmental Impact was still waiting for his letter regarding the SUSMP. Mr. Kajbaf's lack of response to the request of Environmental Impact was delaying the owners' CUP application. The owners called Steve Berger, Mr. Kajbaf's supervisor and asked him to speak to Mr. Kajbaf about sending the SUSMP letter to Environmental Impact. Mr. Kajbaf's lack of response was deliberate indifference and negligence.

April 11, 2005: Mo Kajbaf told owners that the code required the bridge to be six feet high and eighty-five feet long to span the whole flood plain. This information was clearly incorrect because in October 2005 Land Development agreed that it was allowable under the code to construct the sixteen foot bridge that was originally proposed.

April 21, 2005: Christina Tran, of the Environmental Impact Section, contacted the owner, Jeffrey Forward, and told him that Mo Kajbaf had sent her a letter stating that Land Development Division did not approve the parking. Mr. Kajbaf could cite no code for his action. Mr. Kajbaf's action was deliberate indifference and abuse of power.

April 24, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, and Steve Burger and Mo Kajbaf, from Land Development Division, discussed the bridge and parking lot issues in a telephone conference call. They agreed that for discussion of the bridge, Land Development Division accepted as accurate the figures and information in the hydrology report reviewed by Laren Bunker, at Building and Safety. They also agreed that the owners did not authorize a plan check of the hydrology study and would not be required to pay the plan check fee.

April 25, 2005: Owners emailed Steve Burger, at Land Development Division, explaining the serious financial harm caused to the owners by the continued delay by Land Development in sending a SUSMP letter to the Environmental Impact Section and suggesting ways of moving forward to a speedy resolution. Land Development officials did not respond for three weeks. This refusal to act by Land Development officials was deliberate indifference and neglect.

May 18, 2005: Mo Kajbaf sent an email response to owners' email of April 25, 2005. Mr. Kajbaf reneged on the telephone agreement of April 24, 2005, that the hydrology study would be accepted and the owners would not be required to pay the review fee. Mr. Kajbaf claimed that there was a "significant flood hazard" within the project site. This was in contradiction to the FEMA rating of the site as corresponding to "areas of minimal flooding." Mr. Kajbaf claimed the hydrology report plan checked by Laren Bunker did not address the height of the flood water or the velocity of the flood water, a statement contradicted by Mr. Bunker the next day, when Mr. Bunker said he did review the hydrology report for the height and velocity of the flood water. In addition, the Introduction to the hydrology report clearly states that the intent of the report is to 'establish the maximum water elevation for the 50-year storm." Mr. Kajbaf reiterated that the hydrology report would have to be revised according to the corrections required by the Land Development Division review and fee would have to be paid before he would send the SUSMP clearance to the Environmental Impact Section. This action by Mo Kajbaf was clearly an attempt by Mr. Kajbaf to force the owners into acquiescence with his illegal attempt to cover up his mistake in ordering the review of the hydrology study and assessing a fee. Mr. Kajbaf's action was abuse of power under color of law.

May 19, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, spoke to Laren Bunker, at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, regarding his plan check of the hydrology report. Mr. Forward asked Mr. Bunker if he had checked the hydrology report for the height and velocity of the flood water. Mr. Bunker said he did, but that he had only checked it for the parking on the southeast side of the stream, not for the parking on the northwest side of the stream. Mr. Forward asked Mr. Bunker if the information would be the same for both sides of the stream. Mr. Bunker replied it would.

July 29, 2005: Owners wrote a letter of complaint to Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky regarding Land Development Division's arbitrary and capricious actions regarding approval of the bridge. The owners also claimed that they were victims of "training" by Land Development employees. This is a practice in which permitting agency officials "train" permit applicants who question their decisions, to be more acquiescent, by delaying the applicants project or making demands that make the project excessively expensive. The actions by Land Development officials were arbitrary, capricious, deliberate indifference and abuse of power.

August 18, 2005: A meeting was held at Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's offices. It was chaired by Vivian Rescalvo, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's deputy; and attended by Maria Chong Castillo, from Supervisor Yaroslavsky's office; Dennis Hunter, from Land Development Division; Fricano; Daryl Koutnik and Christina Tran, from Environmental Impact Section; 2 fire dept. officials; John Cruikshank, owners' engineer; and owners Jeffrey Forward and Elisabeth Howard. Land Development Division agreed to approve the originally proposed 16 ft. bridge across the stream. It was agreed that John Cruikshank would give Land Development the bridge calculations. Owners agreed to pay a fee of $2,500. Land Development officials did not attempt to defend their nine month opposition to the originally proposed bridge. In their opposition to the sixteen foot bridge and their demand for a six foot high eighty five long bridge, Land Development Division officials acted arbitrarily, capriciously, without regard for the harm they caused to owners, and with abuse of power under color of authority.

September 28, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, gave calculations for the bridge to Land Development officials and paid the required fee. Mr. Kajbaf objected to owner's request to place the review of the bridge calculations on a fast track.

August 11, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, spoke to Mr. Kajbaf on the telephone. Mr. Kajbaf said his department had not finished reviewing the bridge calculations, but they would try to finish this week.

August 17, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, spoke to Mr. Kajbaf on the telephone. Mr. Kajbaf said he would call Dennis Hunter, his supervisor, for approval to approve the bridge and parking.

November 9, 2005: Mr. Kajbaf called owners and left message that he had sent approval of the bridge and parking to Christina Tran, at the Impact Analysis Section. The officials at the Land Development Division had delayed the owners' application for a CUP to operate their business for one year. The actions of Land Development Division employees constituted deliberate indifference, negligence, and abuse of power, and caused grave financial harm to the owners.

November 9, 2005: On or about November 9, 2005, Christina Tran, at the Environmental Impact Analysis Section, told the owner, Jeffrey Forward, that the approval for the CUP by the Land Development Division was the final agency approval required by the Impact Analysis Section. Ms. Tran told Mr. Forward that it would take approximately two weeks for her to write up the mitigations. Owners would then be placed on the schedule of a Planning Commission meeting for final approval of the CUP. This information proved to be incorrect, causing a further delay of the CUP by eight months. This action by Christina Tran was negligence.

December 5, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, spoke to Christina Tran, of the Environmental Impact Division, on the telephone. Ms. Tran said she had not started the CUP review. She stated that she might get it done by Dec. 25, 2005, but she could not promise that.

December 5, 2005: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, called Sam Dea, of Zoning Permits. Mr. Dea said he was scheduling CUP hearings for March, 2006.

February 8, 2006: Owners received an email from Christina Tran, Impact Analysis Section, stating that she had started work on the mitigation measures required for the CUP public hearing. This was four months after Land Development had given their agency approval for the CUP. This delay was deliberate indifference and negligence.

February 13, 2006: Christina Tran, Impact Analysis Section, finished the mitigation measures and gave them to her supervisor, Daryl Koutnik, for approval.

March 6, 2006: Owners invited Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to the planned April 23, 2006, grand opening performance of the new Globe Theater and the Los Angeles Shakespeare Company.

March 7, 2006: Owners received an email from Christina Tran, Impact Analysis Section, stating that she had finished writing the mitigation measures on February 13, 2006, and had placed them on her supervisor's desk for his review and approval, but that he had not yet reviewed them. Mr. Koutnik did not review the mitigation measures for two more weeks. This refusal to act on the mitigation measures was deliberate indifference and negligence.

March 19, 2006: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, received the mitigations from Christina Tran, at the Environmental Impact Section. The mitigations required the owners to provide further information. This six months delay constituted deliberate indifference and negligence.

March 19,2006: Owners cancelled the grand opening of the theater after a telephone conversation with Ben Saltsman, Deputy for Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. Mr. Saltsman said he understood there was much more work required of owners before the CUP would be approved. The cancellation of the opening of the owners business and the resulting financial harm to the owners was the direct result of delays caused by the deliberate indifference, negligence and abuse of power by Los Angeles County employees in Regional Planning, Land Development and Building and Safety.

March 19, 2006: On March 19, 2006, or shortly thereafter, Ben Saltsman, Deputy for Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, called together a meeting in the offices of Supervisor Yaroslavsky of the owners and their engineer, and representatives of the Los Angeles County agencies involved in approvals of the owners pending CUP, including Regional Planning, Building and Safety, Land Development Division, Fire Department, Health Department, and Environmental Impact. These representatives were asked by Mr. Saltsman to tell the owners what their agencies required of the owners for approval of the pending CUP. After approximately two hours discussion, the agency representatives indicated that they knew that something more that was required of the owners but they were not sure what it was. Mr. Saltsman directed the agency representatives to reconvene in thirty days with the information for the owners.

April 2, 2006: Jarod Nygren, an investigator with the Department of Regional Planning, visited the theater property, at 1909 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., where a private rehearsal was taking place. The visitation was unannounced and Mr. Nygren did not have a warrant. Mr. Nygren claimed he had information that the owners were presenting a public performance. Owner, Jeffrey Forward, asked Mr. Nygren what evidence he had of public performances being presented. Mr. Nygren stated that the fact that public performances had been advertised was evidence that a public performance was being presented. Owner, Jeffrey Forward, told Mr. Nygren that advertised performances had been cancelled and that ticket money received in advance sales had been returned. Mr. Forward pointed out to Mr. Nygren that there was a sign posted in front of the theater announcing that the performances had been cancelled. At the conclusion of Mr. Nygren's inspection, he agreed that there was not a public performance taking place on the premises.

April 4, 2006: Jarod Nygren issued a NOTICE OF VIOLATION, RFS No: 06-0007180/EF060473, falsely charging owners with Theater performances/rehearsals are being performed without approval from the Department of Regional Planning - 22.28.010, 22.28.020 and 22.28.130. The notice of Violation was over the names of James Hartl, AICP, Acting Director of Planning, and Rose C. Hamilton, AICP, Supervising Regional Planner, Zoning Engorcement Section 1. The codes cited do not relate to performances or rehearsals. To the contrary, 22.28.130 states, Permitted Uses Premises in Zone C-2 may be used for:-- Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, drama and music….The notice of violation threatened criminal prosecution, fines and jail time, causing extreme emotional distress to the owners. The charge was absolutely false and constituted awarrentless search, falsifying evidence, harassment, abuse of power under cover of authority, and possibly a criminal misuse of Mr. Nygren's police powers.

April 10, 2006: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, had a telephone conversation with Jarod Nygren, in which Mr. Nygren said that his supervisors had insisted that he issue a notice of violation even though he did not see any evidence of a violation. Mr. Nygren stated that his supervisors said that the fact that the public performances had been publicized was proof that public performances were taking place. This action by Jarod Nygren's supervisors constituted harassment, abuse of power under cover of authority, and possibly criminal misuse of the police powers granted to Los Angeles County Regional Planning officials.

April 11, 2006: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, wrote an email to Ben Saltsman, of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's office, requesting a letter from Los Angeles County Regional Planning stating that the Notice of Violation was a mistake. Mr. Forward did not receive the requested letter. Mr. Forward also expressed concern over the motivation for the Notice of Violation, stating that Sam Dea had already threatened to delay the pending CUP hearing because of it. Mr. Forward also expressed concern over the fact that Jarod Nygren was currently temporarily assigned to the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, which had previously issued bogus notices of violations. Mr. Saltsman stated that the Notice of Violation would "go away" and that the owners need not be concerned. However, subsequently, during the CUP public hearing, Mr. Forward had to defend the owners against the charge of violation. The trumped up charge of violation is still on the owners' record. The refusal by Los Angeles County Regional Planning to expunge the notice of violation is a violation of the owners' rights and abuse of power by the officials of Los Angeles County Regional Planning.

April 19, 2006: The meeting between the owners and the Los Angeles County agencies was reconvened, by Ben Saltsman, in the offices of Supervisor Yaroslavsky. The agency representatives informed the owners of what each agency required for approval of the pending CUP.

May 19, 2006: Craig Phillips, a plan checker with the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, informed owner, Jeffrey Forward, that Building and Safety would not allow an electric vehicle to provide disabled access to the amphitheater and building. The use of an electric vehicle to meet the handicap access requirements had been approved when the building plans were approved on January 21, 2003. Mr. Phillips said that he believed the ADA law required unassisted access for disabled people. He also stated that Soheila Kalhor, his supervisor, concurred with his ruling. Mr. Phillips said that Building and Safety would require ramps for handicap access to the amphitheater and building. Mr. Phillips was aware that ramping would not be allowed under the Coastal Oaks that surrounded the amphitheater and building. Mr. Phillips stated that if handicap access did not meet the requirements of Building and Safety, the owners would not be allowed to open and conduct their business in the facilities. This was an intentional misrepresentation of the ADA regulations and constituted deliberate indifference, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

July 12, 2006: The owners' CUP for an amphitheater in which to present plays was approved by Los Angeles County.
June 27, 2006: Owners applied for an ADA variance, by giving Soheila Kalhor, the supervisor of the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, a Request for written approval of alternate method of transportation as equivalent facilitation. The request was written by Mike Gibbens, a well known ADA expert and author of The CalDAG 2003, the book used by Los Angeles County Building and Safety to help interprete the ADA. In essence, Mr. Gibbens stated that ramping would require at least 620 lineal feet of ramps, which in itself would create a significant barrier to handicap access. He also stated that the ADA and California law allows for "equivalent facilitation." Mr. Gibbens concluded that the use of an electric vehicle "will provide not just equivalent facilitation, but greater accessibility and usability, than would be provided by the construction of ramps." Ms. Kalhor refused to make a decision on the request for a variance and continued to insist on ramps or elevators to provide disabled access. Both Craig Phillips and Soheila Kalhor said they believed the variance was legal under California law, but they chose not to allow it. Without the ADA approval the owners were not allowed to open and operate their business. Ms. Kalhor's refusal to make a decision on the variance was a violation of law and constituted deliberate indifference, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

June 27, 2006 to December 9, 2006: Craig Phillips and Soheila Kalhor requested expensive, time consuming changes in grading plans to prove that the electric vehicle variance was possible.

December 8, 2006: Craig Phillips, a plan checker at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, informed owner, Jeffrey Forward, that he did not feel "comfortable" with approving the ADA variance and therefore would not issue a certificate of occupancy for the building. Mr. Phillips stated that his supervisor, Soheila Kalhor, agreed with his decision. The refusal of Mr. Phillips and Ms. Kalhor to allow theADA variance was a violation of law and constituted deliberate indifference, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress and abuse of power under color of law.

December 9, 2006: Owners wrote a letter to Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky requesting help with the refusal of Building and Safety to accept the variance and also for help with the refusal of Building and Safety to issue a certificate of occupancy to operate the facility.

January 9, 2007: Soheila Kalhor and Hassan Alameddine, a Building and Safety supervisor from Building and Safety headquarters in Alhambra, visited the theater site, at 1909 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd., to determine if the ADA variance for the electric vehicle would be allowed. Mr. Alamadinne said the ADA variance would be allowed.

January 18, 2007: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, spoke on the telephone with Hassan Alameddine, a Building and Safety supervisor from Building and Safety headquarters in Alhambra, to confirm that the ADA variance was to be approved.

January 23, 2007: Owner, Jeffrey Forward, received an email from Hassan Alameddine, a Building and Safety supervisor from Building and Safety headquarters in Alhambra, confirming in writing the approval of the ADA variance.

March 23, 2007: Owners asked for an inspection for a certificate of occupancy. Bill Howard, the regular inspector from the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, with his supervisor, George Osborne, visited the site to make the inspection. Mr. Osborne said that all the doors required handicap accessibility. Mr. Osborne also required a FEMA certified survey to prove that the pipe support was above the flood height of the stream. After investigation, neither of these requests were required. Mr. Osborn's actions were arbitrary, capricious, lacked substantial justification and constituted deliberate indifference and negligence.

April 16, 2007: Owners requested a definitive list of items that needed to be done for Building and Safety to issue a certificate of occupancy. Building and Safety officials provided a list of seventeen items to be completed for the certificate of occupancy.

May 9, 2007: Soheila Kalhor delayed issuance of the certificate of occupancy until an inspector from another office of Building and Safety could fit an inspection into his schedule. Ms. Kalhor's delay of the certificate of occupancy was deliberate indifference, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

August 27, 2007: Soheila Kalhor, the supervisor at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, attempted to further delay issuance of certificate of occupancy by claiming that the building needed a supervised sprinkler system. After investigation, the owners discovered that the building did not need a supervised sprinkler system. Mr. Kalhor also claimed that all the doors to the balcony and patio (sixteen) required remodeling for handicap access. Owner, Mr. Forward, subsequently spoke to Ms. Kalhor's supervisor, Hassan Alamaddine, who confirmed that only the exit doors were required to be handicap accessible. Ms. Kalhor's delay of the certificate of occupancy was deliberate indifference, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

September 28, 2007: Soheila Kalhor, the supervisor at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, attempted to further delay issuance of certificate of occupancy by requiring another inspection by George Osborne, who was a supervisor at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety and not the owners regular inspector. This was very unusual procedure. Ms. Kalhor's continued delay of the certificate of occupancy was deliberate indifference, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

October 3, 2007: Owners called the Calabasas office of Building and Safety for an inspection for a certificate of occupancy.

October 8, 2007: Owners called the Calabasas office of Building and Safety for an inspection for a certificate of occupancy.

October 9, 2007: Owners called the Calabasas office of Building and Safety for an inspection for a certificate of occupancy.

October 10, 2007: Bill Howard, the inspector from the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, called owners to tell them that Soheila Kalhor, his supervisor would not issue a certificate of occupancy for the building until the grading had been finished for the amphitheater. Owner, Jeffrey Forward, told Mr. Howard that he and his wife, Elisabeth Howard, were immediately going to the Calabasas office of Building and Safety to see Ms. Kalhor and that the owners were calling Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's office to protest the delay. The owners called Supervisor Yaroslavsky's office on the way to the Building and Safety office. When the owners arrived at the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, Bill Howard met them at the door and informed them that Ms. Kalhor had changed her mind.

October 11, 2007: Owners called the Calabasas office of Building and Safety for and inspection for a certificate of occupancy.

October 12, 2007: Bill Howard, the inspector from the Calabasas office of Building and Safety, visited the theater site, at 1909 N. Topanga Canyon Blvd.. Mr. Howard gave the owners the certificate of occupancy for the building.

Subsequent to obtaining the certificate of occupancy, the owners began to operate their business, however they had been depleted of the capital funds necessary for the start up of a new business by the delays caused by the Los Angeles County agencies of Regional Planning, Building and Safety and Land Development.

The owners had been forced by the construction delays to refinance the original hard money construction loan with three additional hard money construction loans. The original hard money construction loan was $494,341.00. By October 2007 it had increased to $765,000, plus a $382,600 payment on the hard money construction loan that the owners had taken out of their re-mortgage of their house. The owners re-mortgaged their house three times to help pay the costs of construction of the theater facility.

The delays also placed the owners in the position of attempting to obtain a mortgage to pay off the construction loan at a time when the mortgage climate had dramatically changed because the credit market was in the process of collapsing. As a consequence, the owners were unable to obtain a mortgage to meet the balloon payment for the hard money construction loan.

Ownership of the owners' property was transferred to the hard money lender in a foreclosure proceeding, on August 29, 2008.

The theater and amphitheater normally would have taken six months to one year to build. The building plans were approved on January 21, 2003. Without the delays caused by Los Angeles County agencies, the theater and amphitheater would have been open for business in November 2003.

A 2007 appraisal of the property estimated the value at one million five hundred thousand dollars. In 2003-2004 the mortgage climate was such that the owners would have easily qualified for a mortgage to pay off the original $540,000 hard money construction loan.

In addition, the owners estimate they were deprived of approximately $455,000 each year for 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.

The owners not only lost their property and all the money they had invested in developing the property, but they also lost the future income from the operation of their business on the property and the future sale of the property. The owners expected to conduct their business at the facility for at least the next ten years.

The owners also suffered extreme emotional distress as they battled for six years with Los Angeles County agencies, that for their own reasons were determined to prevent the construction and operation of the theater and amphitheater.

The owners believe that there are three possible causes for opposition to the theater project by Los Angeles County agencies.

(1) The North Area Plan established a preference for no commercial development in the mountain area of the plan. Los Angeles County Regional Planning zoning officials working on the North Area Plan had, in August 2001, attempted to change the commercial zoning of the owners property to residential and failed. The owners believe that Los Angeles County Regional Planning zoning officials communicated to other Los Angeles County agencies that commercial development in the mountain area of the North Area Plan was to be discouraged.

(2) The owners believe that employees at Los Angeles County Regional Planning, Building and Safety, and Land development took offense when the owners questioned their information, dictates, and rulings that obstructed progress on the facility. Further, that when the owners took their complaints to the employees supervisors, who overruled many of the employee's demands, the County employees became angry. The owners believe that the County employees decided to "train" the owners to be more acquiescent by delaying the permits and construction and making the process more expensive. The owners have spoken to others seeking permits who believed "training" was a common and effective tactic to discourage permit applicants from questioning the rulings and decisions of plan checkers and inspectors.

(3) Susan Nissman, a senior field deputy for Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, was also a member of the board of directors of the Will Geer Theatricum Botanicum, a well-known and liked theater in Topanga. The owners believe that Ms. Nissman considered the owners' new theater in Topanga a financial threat to Theatricum Botanicum. The few times the owners contacted Ms. Nissman regarding their plans to build and operate the new theater, Ms. Nissman was not encouraging or supportive. Additionally, although Ms. Nissman was aware of the owners six year struggle with the Los Angeles County agency beaurocracy, Ms. Nissman never offered help or support to the owners. Ms. Nissman's job requires her to maintain a close relationship with the Los Angeles County agencies with regard to matters in Topanga. The owners believe it is possible that Ms. Nissman communicated her opposition to the theater to county agency employees, which influenced the actions of the county employees.
___________________________________ Date: __________________
Jeffrey Forward

LASC Lost The Globe in Topanga to Foreclosure

Globe Theater

Artistic Director, Geoffrey G. Forward, and his wife, Elisabeth Howard, spent over seven years obtaining permits to build the Globe in Topanga.

Elisabeth Howard and Artistic Director, Geoffrey G. Forward, in front of Globe double door entry.

In happier times,
Artistic Director,Geoffrey G. Forward, atop the rafters of the Globe in Topanga