Brandt-Hawley Law Group Chauvet House · PO Box 1659 Glen Ellen, California 95442

707 938.3900 · fax 707.9il8.:3200 preservation lawyers.eom

June 27, 2011

Councilmember Ed P. Reyes, Chair Councilmember Jose Huizar Councilmember Paul Krekorian Planning and Land Use Management Committee City of Los Angeles City Hall 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dale:

Submitted in P (..; i.J ~ Commit!ee

Council File No: I I ' Ofj q 0 . Item No.: ___ q.._· _______ ,

~:-~~----

via email: Legislative Assistant Mic:b.ael.E;;p_i)losa@jacity.org

Subject: PLUM Agenda Item 4, June 28, 2011 Council File 11-0990 ZA-2009-1836-ZV-ZAA CD 1

Honorable Chair Reyes and PLUM Committeemembers:

On behalf of the West Adams Heritage Association, I am writing

to request that this Committee support the thoughtful actions of the

Zoning Administrator and the South Area Planning Commission in

denying the variance appeal of Rudolfo and Anatalia Brambila. By way

of introduction, since I have not appeared before PLUM in recent years,

my law practice is focused on public interest law and in particular the

application of CEQA to historic resources statewide. Among the

published environmental decisions of this office are Friends of Sierra

Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, Lincoln Place Tenants Association v.

1

City of Los Angeles, League for Protection v. City of Oakland, Stanislaus

Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, Pocket Protectors v.

City of Sacramento, Architectural Heritage Association v. County of

Monterey, and Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose.

This appeal involves a variance requested for two illegal units for

a total of eleven units on the subject site. Potentially significant

adverse impacts from the use include parking and traffic safety,

overcrowding of occupants and automobiles on the site, inconsistency

with local community plans and zoning, and its cumulative impacts

relating to the density and character of the historic neighborhood. The

variance request was documented by a mitigated negative declaration,

which is inadequate in light of evidence of environmental impacts. (The

variance may be exempted from CEQA for purposes of denial.)

As documented in many of the cases listed above, a mitigated

negative declaration is appropriate only when a project clearly has no

potential significant impacts. The "fair argument" standard applies to

this determination. If there is a "fair argument" of potentially

significant impacts, presented via facts or fact-based assumptions or

expert opinions, the negative declaration is unlawful.

A variance by its very nature involves a project with potential

inconsistency with adopted zoning and local plans. Here, substantial

evidence has been provided by the West Adams Heritage Association

and others, including the Zoning Administrator and the South Area

Planning Commission, that the rigorous standards for a variance have

2

not been met.

This is an environmental and essentially legal question as to

whether the strict requirements for a variance and mitigated negative

declaration have been met. It is not a political decision. In light of the

record before you, the appeal should be denied.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Susan Brandt-Hawley

3

WAHA West Adams Heritage Association

West Adams Heritage Association, 2263 Harvard Boulevard, Historic West Adams, Los Angeles, CA 90018

Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee Los Angeles City Council c/o City Clerk City Hall I Room 395 200 North Spring Street I Los Angeles Calif 90012

June 28, 2011 I by hand

RE: Council File No. 11-0990 Case No. ZA 2009-1836 (ZV) (ZAA) I CEOA No. ENV 2009-1837-MND 851 West 23rd Street I University Park HPOZ I CD-I I SLAP A Public Hearing June 28, 2011 I 2:30am I City Hall Room 350

I am writing as Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee of West Adams Heritage Association (W AHA) to provide comment on the above referenced Case and MND. The West Adams Heritage Association is comprised of over 3 50 households in the West Adams I University Park area, which includes the project site. W AHA routinely comments on land use applications and environmental documents on behalf of the Association members. We ask that PLUM in asserting its jurisdiction take very careful note of the facts of the case and sustain the September l, 2010 decision of the Zoning Administrator and the June 7, 2011 written decision of the South Area Planning Commission (SAPC) in denying the appeal of the applicant Rudolfo and Anatalia Brambila. The decision of the SAPC was a unanimous 4-0 decision and was a careful, fact based analysis of the case and its implications. The well being of the community, and its provision oflivable and safe housing, requires that you deny this appeal as we illustrate below and as the ZA and SAPC decisions so eloquently demonstrate.

Both the ZA and the SAPC found that the five requirements and prerequisites for granting a variance as enumerated in Section 562 of the City Charter and Section 12.27-B, 1 of the Municipal Code were findings that could not be made. The PLUM and City Council cannot, based on the record, make these five required findings (1 though 5 below.)

1. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations.

The applicant has illegally maintained seven units in a legal four-unit structure. "Maintaining modifications to the permitted four unit structure ... for use as a seven unit

1

apartment, without benefit of permit, constitutes a self imposed hardship by the owner." · (ZA Decision, Page 7.)

2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other property in eth same zone and vicinity.

There is no circumstance specifically unique to the site identified as having no other reasonable recourse other than a variance - a requirement to make an affirmative finding.

3. Such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, is denied the property in question.

The need for the variance is self imposed hardship occasioned by the request for additional density and an unsafe parking configuration. It would confer special privilege to this owner without any justification.

4. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or inj nrious to the property or imprcwements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located.

Open space, light, air, circulation and emergency access are all important factors to livability and safety and also quali~ of life. The parking would require backing out of vehicles to both Norwood and 23' Street. Over use of the property will set a negative precedent for other property uses in the surrounding area.

5. The granting of the variance will adversely affect an element of the General Plan.

The ZA carefully analyzed the project and found that the proposed development of eleven units was not in keeping with the Community Plan objectives including the preservation and integrity of existing residential neighborhoods. The ZA also noted that the applicant has been selective in citing Plan objectives which may serve to substantiate their request but failed to acknowledge equally relevant Plan policies within the context of the full neighborhood and community which support denial of the request.

We are sensitive for the need for housing and have supported many legitimate projects that provide affordable housing in this community. A carefully vetted review of this housing project in context of the established record shows that, for the community well being and safety, this variance is not a positive action. In this instance, the rationale for supporting housing and therefore granting this variance would require an arbitrary, capricious and poorly thought out analysis of the record. And again, the five required findings cannot be made based on the record.

Further the lead agency "finds that there is substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment." W AHA agrees with this finding and the action take by the ZA and SAPC in not adopting ENV 2009-1837.

2

I will add the following additional comments are based on my review of the Case file and the MND, including the Initial Study and Checklist which W AHA previously brought to the decision makers attention.

" The applicant's conclusion that since the subject site was once zoned R-4 and that because the R-4 designation would have allowed for an even more intensification of use than his request for an 11-unit total, he will suffer a special hardship unless the Variance is granted is erroneous.

" The change in the City's zoning designation for this area, which was finalized with the lengthy implementation of the AB-283 requirements, resulted in zoning that was compatible with the long established community plan resulting in down-zoning for the majority of property owners. But this was not a sudden arbitrary act. Since this was a CRA area since 1979, the community plan overrode any higher zone designation where the community plan was lesser in density. Since the zoning adjustment was implemented law, to have the zoning and community plan designation is consistent, and applied to all property owners, there is no unnecessary individual hardship on the applicant by his required compliance with the current RD-1. 5 zoning .

., The applicant asserts that he should now be allowed to utilize the unspent portion of the past R4 zoning opportunity, which was unfulfilled when it was applicable. He claims the benefit of a R4 usage "credit" form the past unutilized development portion of the site. There are no grandfathered in zoning rights but only grandfathered existing use rights. Therefore the granting of such adjustment would not be in conformance with the spirit and intent of the Planning and Zoning Code of the City .

., The applicant offers only 4-new parking spaces fur the new 3-units and requests the ability to backing-out into traffic on both Norwood and 23rd Streets. The parking requirements and their design configuration should now be examined in the context of its proposed new expanded use and for compliance with the requirements Neighborhood Stabilization Ordinance as well as those of Building and Safety.

• Allowing the applicant a new use that would only supply 1 0-parking spaces for 11-units, many with multiple bedrooms would result in a development not compatible and consistent with the surrounding uses •

., There is an over intensification of traffic use of 23rd Street between Figueroa and Hoover. This is the result of commuters using it a cut-through route between 10 and the 110 Freeways and new nearby mega USC student housing developments. Approving additional residential parking to back-into this mire will have adverse impacts that are not mitigated.

• The MND does check off that that the Project does NOT conform to the South Area Community Plan but does not provide any information explaining how it does not comply.

3

<> The MND fails to analyze how this project complies with South Central Design Guidelines and the recently adopted North University Park I Exposition Park I West Adams Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay Zone Ordinance.

" MND fails to identify the Potentially Significant Impacts to: V. Cultural Resources, and XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance

" The MND fails to recognize that the University Park HPOZ itself should be considered as a Historic-Cultural resource. Therefore any Potentially Significant Impacts to its historic integrity must be acknowledged and mitigations offered. This would of course include an over intensification of use affecting historic patterns of development such as the applicant is proposing.

e The MND fails to recognize that a granting of the ZV request would have a Potentially Significant Negative Impact on the UPHPOZ itself by establishing a precedent that other property owners could also expect to be granted.

In conclusion I request on behalf of W AHA and the University Park community that PLUM take the following actions:

1. Sustain the decision of the SAPC and the ZA and deny the applicant's request for a Zone Variance (ZA 2009-1836-ZV).

2. Concur with the ZA and SAPC and not adopt the MND ENV-2009-1837. 3. Require that any future legalization of units meet the requirements for parking of

the North University Park-Exposition Park-West Adams Stabilization Overlay (NSO) District and the design requirements of the University Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone's Preservation Plan.

These variances if granted would be materially detrimental to the surrounding community and are counter to the over-arching City adopted planning goals, as reflected by the HPOZ, the General Plan, the Community Plan, and the Neighborhood Stabilization Ordinance.

Sincerely,

Jean Frost, Chair Historic Preservation Committee West Adams Heritage Association 2341 Scarff Street, University Park LA-C A 90007 Tel. 213-748-1656, Email: jfrost@earthlink.net

Cc: John Arnold, University Park HPOZ Board Jim Childs, ADHOC Laura Meyers, NUPCA Guadalupe Duran-Medina, CD 1 Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant 213-978-1074

4

UNIVERSITY PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE

EST. MARCH 22 2000 BY ORDINANCE # 171 686

UNIVERSITY PARK H.P.O.Z. BOARD JOHN ARNOLD, CHAIR. ARCHITECT JIM ROBINSON, VICE CHAIR JEAN FROST, SECRETARY DAVID RAPOSA, TREASURER DAN BURKE, BOARDMEMBER

Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee Los Angeles City Council clo City Clerk City Hall I Room 395 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles Calif. 90012

June 28, 2011and by hand

RE: Council File No. 11-0990 Case No. ZA 2009-1836 (ZV) (ZAA) I CEOA No. ENV 2009-1837-MND 851 West 23rd Street I University Park HPOZ I CD-1 I SLAPA PLUM Public Hearing June 28, 2011 I 2:30 am I City Hall Room 350

Honorable PLUM Committee and City Council Members,

I am writing as the Board Secretary and at the request of the University Park HPOZ Board in response to your Notice of Public Hearing for PLUM regarding the 851 West 23rd Street Case. Given the limited period of response time under the Notice our Board was unable to schedule your action on our agenda, as part of our bi-monthly meeting cycle, for review and public comment and still provide for compliance with the requirements of the Brown Act.

The UP-HPOZ Board has however previously made their official comments to both the Zoning Administrator's Case (January 25, 2010) and the South Area Planning Commission's appeal (October 24 2010). I am attaching those response letters for your information and consideration. The summary of those comments are reflected as the Board's Motions and were as follows:

MOTION: That the University Park HPOZ Board informs the Zoning Administrator that they find that the Project's MND (ENV-2009-1837-ENV), for the subject property at 851 West 23rd Street, is deficient in the analysis of potential impacts to Historic Cultural Resources because the Project's increase in density results in an over intensification of use that negatively impacts the integrity of the UP-HPOZ.

Moved by Robinson, 2nd by Frost, 4yes, O,no, passed. (UPM-011910-05)

I

MOTION: That the Board's Secretary write a letter to the South Area Planning Commission informing them that the University Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Board opposes the owner's appeal for a reversal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny his request for special entitlements for his property at 851 West 23rd Street. That the Board finds that the applicants appeal is without merit and furthermore a granting of the this appeal would be: a) materially detrimental to the public welfare, b) undermine the goals and objectives of the HPOZ, c) be in conflict with the University Park Preservation Plan, and d) not be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The UP-Board therefore requests that the SAPC deny the appeal and the MND and find in support of the Zoning Administrator's Findings and decision.

Moved by Frost, 2nd by Arnold. 5-yes, 0-no, passed. (UPM-102110 02)

I will respectfully point out to the Committee that all three of the City's responsible administrative authorities, the University Park HPOZ Board, the Office of the Zoning Administrator, and the South Area Planning Commission, for projects located in the HPOZ have opposed the ZV and ZAA request and rejected the Project's MND. The University Park HPOZ Board looks forward to yours' and the City Council's support of our combined judgment and asks that you also reject the MND and dismiss the request.

Respectfully yours,

Jean Frost, UP-HPOZ Board Secretary University Park HPOZ Board 2341 Scarff Street, University Park, L.A. - CA. 90007 213-748-1656 I jfrost@earthlink.net

eel Guadalupe Duran-Medina, CD 1 Craig Weber, HPOZ Manager, Office of Historic Resources, LADCP Jim Childs, Chair, Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee (ADHOC) Eric Bronson, Vice President, West Adams Heritage Association (WAHA) Laura Meyers, North University Park Community Association (NUCPA) Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

2

UNIVERSITY PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE

EST. MARCH 22 2000 BY ORDINANCE #171686

UNIVERSITY PARK H.P.O.Z. BOARD JOHN ARNOLD, CHAIR, ARCHITECT JIM ROBINSON, VICE CHAIR JEAN FROST, SECRETARY DAVID RAPOSA, TREASURER DAN BURKE, BOARDMEMBER

October 22, 2010

South Los Angeles Area Planning Commission

Commission Office t 0

~~3-978-1300 City Hall/ Suite 272 200 North Spring Street I Los Angeles Calif. 90012

RE: Case No. ZA 2009-1836 (ZV) CZAA) I CEQA No. ENV 2009-1837-MND 851 West 23rd Street/ University Park HPOZ / CD-1/ SLAPA Public Hearing Tuesday November 02, 2010

Honorable Commissioners,

I am writing as the Board Secretary and at the request of the University Park HPOZ Board in response to your Notice of Public Hearing recently sent to the surrounding property owners of the subject site, 851 West 23rd Street. The UP-HPOZ Board placed this item on its agenda for their Tuesday October 19, 2010 public meeting at the request of one of the neighboring community members. The Board engaged in substantive discussion about the applicant's request that you overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator which denied the applicant's request for special entitlements for his subject property.

The UP-HPOZ Board had previously reviewed the specifics of the applicant's initial request for a ZV & ZAA and the Planning Department's accompanying MND environmental document. The Board made written comment (01/26/10) opposing the applicant's request to the Zoning Administrator and the MND. The Board also had a representative present at the public hearing that was eventually conducted on July 19, 2010.

The Board is unanimously in support of the September 01, 2010 decision of the Associate Zoning Administrator, Ms. Linn K. Wyatt, to deny the applicant's request based on her reported Findings and her rejection of the MND.

The purpose of the University Park HPOZ, which was empowered in 2000 by the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (LAMC 12.12.3), is: "as a matter of public policy that the recognition, preservation, enhancement, and use of buildings, structures, Landscaping, Natural Features, and areas within the City of Los Angeles having Historic, architectural, cultural or aesthetic significance are required in the interest of the health, economic prosperity, cultural enrichment and general welfare of the people." Under the Ordinance part of the "Power and Duties" of the Board includes making recommendations to decision makers concerning fa~ade easements, covenants, and the imposition of other conditions for the purposes of historic preservation (see, D8-i).

The Board, during their meetings on the subject property, discussed the potential negative impacts caused by granting increased density for the subject property. They were concerned that any granting could be used as a precedent for other applicants' claims that they were being denied equal treatment since there had never been a ZV for extra density issued in the HPOZ since its certification in 2000. The Board was also concerned that the granting of the ZV, which runs with the land, would therefore make the subject property more appealable to future development and even promote the possible demolition of the existing historic structure given its new excessive density.

The University Park HPOZ Board respectfully requests that you, our Area Planning Commissioners, join with us in support of the Zoning Administrator's denial of the applicant's request for special entitlements. The Board makes this request by their adopted motion:

MOTION: That the Board's Secretary write a letter to the South Area Planning Commission informing them that the University Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Board opposes the owner's appeal for a reversal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny his request for special entitlements for his property at 851 West 23rd Street. That the Board finds that the applicants appeal is without merit and furthermore a granting of the this appeal would be: a) materially detrimental to the public welfare, b) undermine the goals and objectives of the HPOZ, c) be in conflict with the University Park Preservation Plan, and d) not be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The UP-Board therefore requests that the SAPC deny the appeal and the MND and find in support of the Zoning Administrator's Findings and decision.

Moved by Frost, znd by Arnold. 5-yes, 0-no, passed. (UPM-102110 02)

On behalf on the University HPOZ Board I thank you in advance for your consideration of our position in support of the Associate Zoning administrator.

Respectfully yours,

Jean Frost, UP-HPOZ Board Secretary University Park HPOZ Board 2341 Scarff Street, University Park, L.A. - CA. 90007 213-748-1656 I jfrost@earthlink.net

2

UNIVERSITY PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE

EST, MARCH 22 2000 BY ORDINANCE # 171686

UNIVERSITY PARK H.P.O.Z. BOARD JOHN ARNOLD, CHAIR, ARCHITECT JIM ROBINSON, VICE CHAIR JEAN FROST, SECRETARY DAVID RAPOSA, TREASURER VACANT (MAYOR APPOINTEE)

January 25, 2010

Office of Zoning Administration Los Angeles Department of City Planning City Hall I Room763 200 North Spring Street I Los Angeles Calif. 90012

213-978-1318 Fax-213-978-1334

RE: Case No. ZA 2009-1836 (ZV) (ZM) I CEQA No. ENV 2009-1837-MND 851 West 23rd Street I University Park HPOZ I CD-1 I SLAPA Public Hearing January 26, 2010

Zoning Administrator,

I am writing as the Board Secretary and at the request of the University Park HPOZ Board in response to your Notice of Public Hearing sent to the surrounding property owners of the subject site, 851 West 23rd Street. The UP-Board placed this item on its agenda again for their Tuesday January 19, 2010 public meeting as part of their continuing review of the issues following their hearing of it on January 05 (ref. our letter to you of 01114110).

The Board engaged in substantive discussion about errors in the administrative processing by the Planning Department and the failure of the Project's MND. They concluded with the following motion that this letter, articulating their concerns, be sent to you as part of the administrative record:

MOTION: That the University Park HPOZ Board informs the Zoning Administrator that they find that the Project's MND (ENV-2009-1837-ENV). for the subject property at 851 West 23rd Street, is deficient in the analysis of potential impacts to Historic Cultural Resources because the Project's increase in density results in an over intensification of use that negatively impacts the integrity of the UP-HPOZ.

Moved by Robinson, 2nd by Frost. 4yes, O,no, passed. (UPM-011910-05)

1

The Board's discussion of the issues included the following points:

• That the UP-Board's approval regarding the subject property was strictly limited to the new construction of a laundry room and minor repairs.

• That the Board is concerned by the applicant's ZV request for an increase in density because they find it is in violation of the historic pattern of development in the Historic District and would be detrimental to the rights of other property owners.

• That the ZA keep the public comment record open to allow the Board to review the specifics and make recommendations for the administrative record.

• That Planning Staffs HPOZ clearance does not accurately reflect the Board's action.

• That Planning Staff has agreed that the clearance was in error and is perusing remedial steps to make the necessary correction.

The Board respectfully requests that before the Zoning Administrator certifies any granting of the applicant's request for the ZV & ZM that he be instructed to come before the HPOZ Board for their review and recommendations. On behalf on the University HPOZ Board the University Park community I thank you in advance for your consideration of our position.

Respectfully yours

Jean Frost, UP-HPOZ Board Secretary 2341 Scarff Street, University Park, L.A. - CA. 90007 213-748-1656 I jfrost@earthlink.net

eel Honorable Councilman Ed Reyes, CD-1 Ken Bernstein, Manager, Office of Historic Resources, LADCP Jim Childs, Chair, Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee (ADHOC) Eric Bronson, Vice President, West Adams Heritage Association (WAHA) Laura Meyers, North University Park Community Association (NUCPA)

2

UNIVERSITY PARK HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY ZONE

EST. MARCH 22 2000 BY ORDINANCE #171686

UNIVERSITY PARK H.P.O.Z. BOARD JOHN ARNOLD, CHAIR, ARCHITECT JiM ROBINSON, VICE CHAIR JEAN FROST, SECRETARY DAVID RAPOSA, TREASURER VACANT (MAYOR APPOINTEE)

January 14, 2010

Office of Zoning Administration Los Angeles Department of City Planning City Hall 1 Room763 200 North Spring Street I Los Angeles Calif. 90012

213-978-1318 Fax-213-978-1334

RE: Case No. ZA 2009-1836 (ZV) (ZAA) I CEQA No. ENV 2009-1837-MND 851 West 23rd Street I University Park HPOZ I CD-1 I SLAPA Public Hearing January 26, 2010

Zoning Administrator,

I am writing as the Board Secretary and at the request of the University Park HPOZ Board in response to your Notice of Public Hearing recently sent to the surrounding property owners of the subject site, 851 West 23rd Street. The UP-Board placed this item on its agenda for their Tuesday January 05, 2010 public meeting at the request of one of the neighboring community members. The Board engaged in substantive discussion about the applicant's request for the ZA & ZAA entitlements and concluded with the motion that this Jetter articulating their concerns be sent to you as part of the administrative record:

MOTION: The Board Secretary write a letter to the Zoning Administrator that states: a) our objection of a HPOZ sign-off "clearance" by Planning Staff, b) the Board's non-review of the substance of the applicant's request for a ZN &ZAA, c) the Board requests the opportunity to make comment on the ZN & ZAA for the administrative record

Moved by Arnold, znd by Frost. 4-yes, 0-no, passed. (UPM-010510 02)

The UP-Board was forced to limit their review and discussion of the case to the information on the Hearing Notice. Neither Planning Staff nor the applicant were at the meeting. The UP-Board had not previously: reviewed any of the specifics of the applicant's ZA & ZAA request, been made aware of the Public Hearing, or the issuance on the MND in September of 2009. The UP-Board acknowledged that without all of the specific facts they could only make a general reply comment at this time but that they would try to gain additional information in time for their next meeting (01119110). There was consensus that the following points should be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator:

1

• That the UP-Board's approval regarding the subject property was strictly limited to the new construction of a laundry room and minor repairs.

• That the Board is not knowledgeable about the specific elements of this project and their potential impacts to the HPOZ and the required compliance with the University Park Preservation Plan inherent in the applicant's request for a ZAA.

• That the Board is concerned by the applicant's ZV request for an increase in density because they find it is in violation of the historic pattern of development in the Historic District and would be detrimental to the rights of other property owners.

• That the ZA keep the public comment record open to allow the Board to review the specifics and make recommendations for the administrative record.

• That Planning Staffs HPOZ clearance does not accurately reflect the Board's action.

During the hearing the Board reviewed their own recent meeting Minutes (11/03/09) on the subject property to confirm their memory that the only action they had approved was for the applicant's requested new construction of a "laundry-room", roofing repair, stair­tread repair, and external fa~ade repainting (DIR-2009-3634-CWNC).

After confirming this limited approval they discussed the possible inference caused by Planning Staff's sign-off "clearance" on the Property Profile Report: that the Board had been aware of the extent and consequences of the requested ZA & ZAA, that they had reviewed it's granting for the required compliance with the University Park HPOZ Preservation Plan (UPPP) and they supported it along with the Project's environmental document, none of which is true.

During the meeting the Board discussed the potential negative impacts caused by a granting of increased density for the subject property. They were concerned that any granting could be used as a precedent for other applicant's claims that.they were being denied equal treatment since there had never been a ZV for extra density issued in the HPOZ since its certification in 2000.

They also discussed that as a practical fact the application of the University Park Preservation Plan for new construction typically required developers to voluntarily reduce their by-right density entitlement in order to comply with the design restrictions and, that rewarding an owner, who had illegal units, retroactive approval would encourage other similar activity that would be detrimental to the integrity of the HPOZ.

The Board was also concerned that the granting of the ZV, which runs with the land, would therefore make the subject property more appealable to future development and even the possible demolition of the existing historic structure given its new excessive bonus density.

They were reminded that, although the subject property was listed in the UP-Historic Survey (1999) as a Non-Contributor, they had in fact challenged that conclusion at their public hearing and, like dozens of other past Planning Department cases, found that it had been mistakenly identified in the Historic Survey. It should be re-listed correctly as a Contributor-Altered since the alterations that had been made were reversible, significant

2

historic fabric still existed and it was constructed during the Historic District's "period of significance".

The Board also found that the proposal for allowing cars to back out onto 23rd Street was without merit and potentially hazardous especially now with hundreds of new residential units being developed in the immediate vicinity including: a) the Anastasi 145-unit condominium project at Washington & Oak, b) the Red Oak Inc. 144-residential unit project at 2437 S. Figueroa and c) the proposed Plamer 1,400-unit residential and mixed use project at 23rd Street and Flower along with d) the new Charter School at 23rd Street and Figueroa and e) as part of the traffic mitigations for the 416 unit USC-Gateway project at Figueroa and Jefferson.

The University Park HPOZ Board does not have the administrative authority to require retroactive compliance with the UPPP for permitted work done before their empowerment in 2000. However if non-permitted or illegal work has been done, no matter the date, if and when a new-action by the property owner, which involves that work, is applied for, then, at that time, the Board does have the authority and responsibility to insure that a property is in compliance with the Preservation Plan. Therefore, the Board respectfully requests that before the Zoning Administrator certifies any granting of the applicant's request for the ZAA that he be instructed to come before the HPOZ Board for their review and recommendations.

Of critical importance for anyone successfully reaching an appropriate conclusion about the validity of the applicant's request for the ZV & ZAA is sufficient documentation of when and how the 3- illegal units were developed. The UP-Board itself would need to know what physical changes occurred to the existing permit-approved conversion of the historic single family house into 4-units when the modifications to create the additional 3-illegal units were added-on by the property owner. As an example were the 2nd-story dormers at the rear of the structure part of the original approved conversion change or part of the later illegal makeover?

On behalf on the University HPOZ Board the University Park community I thank you in advance for your consideration of our position.

Respectfully yours

Jean Frost, UP-HPOZ Board Secretary 2341 Scarff Street, University Park, L.A. - CA. 90007 213-748-1656 I jfrost@earthlink.net

ccj Honorable Councilman Ed Reyes, CD-1 Ken Bernstein, Manager, Office of Historic Resources, LADCP Jim Childs, Chair, Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee (ADHOC) Eric Bronson, Vice President, West Adams Heritage Association (WAHA) Laura Meyers, North University Park Community Association (NUCPA)

3

A 0 H 0 c ADAMS DOCKWEILER HERITAGE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee Los Angeles City Council c/o City Clerk City Hall I Room 395 200 North Spring Street I Los Angeles Calif 90012

RE: Council File No. 11-0990

June 28, 2011& by hand

Case No. ZA 2009-1836 (ZV) (ZAA) I CEOA No. ENV 2009-1837-MND 851 West 23rd Street I University Park HPOZ I CD-1

. PLUM Public Hearing June 28, 2011/2:30 am I City Hall Room 350

I am writing as both a 33-year resident within the 500-foot radius notification area and as Chair of the Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee in response to your Notice of a PLUM Public Hearing sent recently to the surrounding property owners of the subject site, 851 West 23rd Street, which is located in the University Park HPOZ.

As an interested party I have extensively reviewed the Case-file for both the applicant's requests for a zv & ZAA and the accompanying MND. I have concluded that these requests lack the merits required to satisfy the Mandatory Findings (Section 562 of the City Charter and Section 12.27-S, 1 of the Municipal Code) necessary to grant those requests and that the MND is not legally defensible under CEQA. I therefore ask that the members of the Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee and all of the City Council members:

• Support the Zoning Administrator's denial, and the South Area Planning Commission's denial of the applicant's appeal of the ZA decision, of the applicant's request for a Zone Variance and a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment

• Support the Zoning Administrator's and the South Area Planning Commission's rejection and refusal to adopt the Project's environmental document, ENV-2009-1837-MND.

• Order that any future legalization of any additional unit (permitted under by-right zoning) meet the requirements for parking of the North University Park-Exposition Park-West Adams Stabilization Overlay (NSO) District.

• Order that any future legalization of any additional unit meet the requirements of the University Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone's Preservation Plan (UPPP).

The applicant-appellant, Rodolfo Brambila, throughout this 3-year long case, has incorrectly asserted that there is a nexus between his illegal use of property and with many of those neighboring residential buildings who have grandfathered-in, by-right, entitlements. This is

I

unnits. If he were building new units today it is unlikely he would be able have that number and comply with the UPPP and the NSO.

The change in the City's zoning designation for this area, that was finalized as the applicant reports by Ordinance No.167.121 in 1991, was the result of a law suit against the City and the lengthy implementation of the AB-283 requirements. The result of which was that the majority of property owners had an adjustment in their underlying zoning, almost all of which was a down-zoning, like It or not. But this was to have zoning and the existing community plan be consistent. The community plan designation, since the area became a redevelopment area, was low-medium 2, not high density, since 1979. That is the prevailing and long existing land use designation.

That adjustment should not now be considered, as an individual hardship for this applicant, by the Zoning Administrator, since it was implemented by a law that was applied to all property owners. Therefore there is no unnecessary individual hardship on the applicant by his required compliance with the current RD-1.5 zoning.

The applicant in this section also attempts to justify the subject's site need for the requested backing-out, from existing parking, onto both Norwood and 23rd Streets. Leaving aside, for the moment, the correct number of actual additional parking spaces required for compliance with B&S and the NSO, the parking's design configuration should now be examined in the context of its proposed new expanded use.

Since multiple-unit structures are not required, by code, to provide for covered garages the retention of the two existing garages becomes questionable as part of a parking solution. However, according to the applicant's submission they were constructed in 1949 and 1955 and therefore, now being over 50 years old, they technically have acquired potential historical significance.

As a recognized historic preservation authority in University Park I, personally, would not find them to be of historic significance. Therefore if their removal was required to create a compliant parking design with a traffic circulation that eliminated the necessity for the residents being forced to back out into oncoming traffic then I would find their demolition to be an acceptable mitigation.

The applicant refers to a prior decision, Case No. ZA -1992-1001 (YV), in support of his arguments. However that 18-year old decision was located at 2215 Toberman and was for a "continued use" in a historic 1894 Victorian house. There is no reference in the submission that the ZA granting in that case involved a backing out into traffic but in fact states that the decision allowed for the continued-use without an increase in parking. Since the applicant is not requesting a forgiveness of parking but rather an exception to circulation, I fail to see the nexus.

Furthermore that case was decided when the cun·ent UP-HPOZ was part of the Community Redevelopment's Adams-Normandie 4321 Project Area (AN/4321) and subject to their overriding land use designations and administrative requirements. From the period of its empowerment in 1979, until its termination in 2000 the CRA's AN/4321 prevailing residential land use was identified as Low-Medium-2, which was a close equivalent of an

4

RD1.5 restriction, and would have included both the applicant's property, and that of the Toberman Case. CRA also had very different restrictions on side and rear yard parking that may have influenced the ZA.

Discussions regarding the applicability of the R4 zoning only have relevance prior to the 1979 re-designation by CRA and not the 1991 date cited by the applicant. I served as an elected community representative for over 12-years on the AN/4321 Project Area Committee (PAC) as both its Secretary and the Chair of its Housing & Planning Subcommittee. The Subcommittee reviewed all CRA permit sign-offs for all projects within the Project Area for compliance with the Adams-Normandie 4321 Urban Design Guidelines Program. I would be pleased to furnish the ZA with materials from my files on the CRA activities during those years if requested.

ZA decisions are site specific and a granting may-or may not be applicable to other sites in the vicinity. Allowing for a long established pre-existing historic use differs, and is not comparable with a granting for a new or expanded use that may in fact exacerbate an already hazardous situation such as backing into traffic. The extensive increase in residential density throughout the University Park community in the last few years has been driven by property owners attempting to exploit the USC student-housing crisis. The impacts on traffic and circulation are exhausting the ability of an historic infrastructure to accommodate the needs.

This over intensification of use is most clearly observed along 23rd Street between Figueroa and Hoover. Once the historic route for the u-car Trolley Line from downtown to USC this stretch of roadway now serves as a cut-through route for commuters avoiding the freeway interchange and getting to and from the exit-entrance ramps of 10-Santa Monica and the 110- Harbor Freeways.

The traffic increases from the new residential developments are documented in their environmental documents. Impacts to this bottle-neck passage will occur from the traffic and circulation generated by: the USC student-housing Gateway Project (Figueroa & Jefferson), the Anastasi residential Oak Village development (Washington and Oak), the Red Oak Inc. student-housing development Project (24th & Figueroa).

Adding onto this overburden of the 23rd Street bi-pass route are the new Charter Schools at: 23rd Street and Figueroa, Toberman at Washington, and at Union and 20th Street. The "in the planning stage" projects: LAUSD project at Oak & 21st Street, and the massive proposed Palmer mixed-use, high-rise, project at Flower and 23rd, and more student housing at 28th and Figueroa, will pose additional demand burdens to the street. To encourage more back-into traffic from existing residential uses along 23rd Street by granting a Variance would only increase an already hazardous situation.

The applicant also claims that his request will serve the goals and objectives of both the General and South Central Community Plans. The applicant has selectively focused on a singular issue taken out of context, the need for increase in housing, as his justification that his project is compliant with both Plans. Ironically the response to additional housing needs is now being met by mega-projects that would never have been anticipated a decade ago. Moreover the applicant does not bother to address how his illegal units If

5

approved will conform to the additional parking required by the NSO and design restrictions oftheUPPP.

The City in their recent indemnification of the bonus density along the Figueroa Corridor has proclaimed that residential density is more appropriately located along the transportation corridors so that the internal residential historic neighborhood can be relieved of this responsibility. The applicant's claim therefore that "The creation of new housing at densities greater than allowed by the applicable Zone can serve that stated goals of the General Plan" is erroneous since the goals and objectives of the Plans have been modified.

Additionally a granting of the request would not "preserve and enhance the positive characteristics of the existing residential neighborhoods" called for in the Plan but just the opposite. The neighborhood has been officially recognized as a historic resource of the City. New regulatory requirements are in place to protect and preserve these assets which are in conflict with the applicant's request.

The existing three illegal units have yet to be tested for compliance with the Preservation Plan's design requirements but the concept of increased density fails to: "Ensure that the policies and decisions on community growth and development respect the University Park HPOZ heritage and enhance the overall livability". (UPPP Goal & Objectives)

FINDINGS: 2. That there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as size, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply to other property in the same zone and vicinity.

The applicant repeats his argument from Finding-1 for a justification of an approval of Finding-2. He again bases his position on the prior zoning being R-4 and referencing the same prior Case decision on Toberman as a comparative precedent. He fails again to provide a nexus between that ZA granting a YV and for a continuing historic property, and I presume legal, use of a unit and his own request for a Z:V for increased density to support his existing illegal units. He fails to identify what the "special circumstances" of his own subject property are that distinguishes it from other properties in the same area. As I previously stated all properties in the City were subject to the enforcement of AB-283 and not just that of the applicant.

There are indeed many examples of existing historic housing stock that today may not be in compliance with current codes throughout the Historic District but presumably their units were constructed by permit, are legal, have grandfathered-rights and so no not require a Variance for a use for an Intensification of density. In fact none ofthe other cases listed by the applicant in his submission involved a ZA granting for an increase of density beyond code that do not involve historic grandfathered rights.

The applicant has omitted the most recent prior relevant decision regarding surrounding properties rendered by the ZA, that of Case No. ZA-2008-4381-ZAA I 231:1. Magnolia Ave. (1302 W.23rd Street). The December 10, 2009 decision letter by Associate Zoning

6

Administer Patricia Brown rejected all arguments by the applicant necessary to make the required 5-findings for an approval and denied the applicant's request. I recommend that the ZA review this Case in depth since this decision contains relevant information regarding current issues including that of the HPOZ and the NSO that are absent from the AZA Tramel's case of 1992.

The University Park Preservation Plan supplies an extensive chronology of the evolutionary patterns of historic development in the Historic District. The subject property, originally constructed as a single family home (see attached 1907 & 1922 Sanborn Maps) was later subdivided into units. This is not a unique occurrence, nor was the construction of the additional units on the rear of the property. What makes this property "special" however is the construCtion of the 3-illegal and non-permitted units that the applicant now desires to legalize by "special" treatment.

The applicant again evokes his proclaimed compliance with a narrow portion of the General and South Central Plans as a reason for an approval while ignoring other requirements of compliance with those Plans. The applicant again fails to qualify how he complies with the NSO and the HPOZ.

FINDINGS: 3. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a subs!Jmtial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity, but which, because of such special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships is denied to the property in question.

The applicant continues his repetitive argument from Finding-1 using it again for a justification for an approval of Finding-3. He again bases his position on the prior zoning being R-4 and referencing the same prior Case decision on Toberman as a comparative precedent.

Under this Finding the applicant states specifically that he should be considered for a special "dispensation" because he suffers a significant material loss resulting from changes to "uses of land, which at a previous point in time, would have been allowed by right." This audacious self-serving proclamation ignores that applicant's years of abuse of his neighbors by draining illegal profits from the exploitation of his property from his illegal 3-units. Will the applicant offer to restore his property tax assessment obligation from his profits operating an illegal 11-unit building rather than the 8-unit structure officially recognized?

FINDINGS: 4. That the granting of such a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located.

The applicant continues his repetitive singular argument from Finding-1 using it again for a justification for an approval of Finding-4. He continues again to base his position on the

7

prior zoning being R-4 and referencing the same prior Case decision on Toberman as a comparative precedent.

The applicant misidentifies that the subject site: "was initially developed with a 4-unit, 2-story apartment building in 1902". As I have previously asserted, and documented with period Sanborn Maps, the original historic structure was a single-family home. That there has been historic infill multifamily structures developed after the turn of the 20th century in University Park is well documented. These structures predate any zoning regulations and have acknowledged grandfathered-ln rights.

Additionally over the years, multifamily units replaced demolished historic homes or were added on to them throughout the 50', 60's and 70's. However these units were constructed by permit to meet the current codes, as was the subject property's rear 4-unit apartment structure {2133 Norwood). When and how the existing 4-unit conversion of the front historic home was reconfigured into 7-units is not documented by the applicant in his submission to the ZA.

The physical conversion from 4-to-7 units required at a minimum 3 new bathrooms and 3 new kitchens, new wiring, new plumbing and possible external fa~de changes such as windows and dormers. These construction activities absent B&S permits and inspections may have endangered the health and safety of both the subject property's residents and that of the immediate neighbors. I am frankly puzzled that since the establishment of the Housing Department's mandatory code enforcement program that it has taken so many years for theses 3 illegal units to be cited.

FINDINGS: 5. That the granting of such a variance will not adversely affect any element of the General Plan.

The applicant once again asserts the simplistic idea that the granting of his request for a Variance complies with the General Plan because it supplies additional housing. He also asserts that his proposal is in compliance with the Community Plan goal of "preserving and enhancing the positive characteristics of existing residential neighborhoods.

The positive characteristics of University Park have been defined by the University Park Preservation Plan in great detail. The subject property is in the University Park HPOZ and also subject to the Neighborhood Stabilization Ordinance. The applicant offers nothing in his submission as to how his parking will comply with the NSO or his unit expansion meet the requirements of the UPPP.

The applicant did appear before the UP-HPOZ Board and was approved for the construction of a laundry room. The UP-Board has not yet reviewed any plans with the applicant that affected the changes from the 1949 4-unit conversion to the existing illegal 7-unlt structure. Since it has yet to be documented there is no way of knowing today, with any certainty, what, if any, exterior fa~de changes took place. However whatever fa~de changes that took place in the transformation to its current illegal 7-unit configuration falls under the administrative authority of the UP-HPOZ Board.

8

The UP-Board should be consulted as to what are the acceptable exterior fa~ade changes for compliance with the UPPP and as well as the landscaping and open space. At this juncture it no longer matters when the non-permitted changes from the conversion occurred. This is now a new project and therefore must be found to be in compliance under Planning Department's HPOZ regulatory mandate.

THE A.D.H.O.C. RESPONSE TO THE REQUEST FOR A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENT:

The applicant's submission in support of this request and his advocacy for an approval of the required 5-Findings echoes that of his positions taken in the request for the Zone Variance. He continues his same repetitive argument, using it again as the justification for an approval: that the prior zoning was R-4 and referencing the same prior ZA Case decision on Toberman as a comparative precedent.

To buttress his proposition he includes a walking survey of the immediate neighborhood and notes that there are other examples of non-conforming uses with current codes, and uses these as a justification for the granting. The applicant however fails to acknowledge these uses are currently accepted by the City because of their grandfathered rights and that if he were not seeking to indemnify his non-permitted illegally constructed 3-units, he would not be required to seek the ZV and the ZAA for his own grandfathered right units and parking.

The applicant currently has the benefit of only supplying 6-parking spaces for a-units. The exact total parking required today, if this were new construction, is difficult for me to determine because of compliance issues with the NSO but just to satisfy the B&S normal requirements there would be at least 16 parking spaces. I would also estimate that at least 22-parking spaces would now be required for the subject sites proposed 11-units.

The applicant is only offering to create an additional 4-parking spaces for his Variance approval, which will create a complex of 11-units with just 10-parking spaces. Seminal in determining what the new parking should be in order to meet required current codes, including the NSO, is an accurate documentation of the floor plan of the original legal 4-units in the converted historic structure and when the illegal units were constructed. The applicant, in explaining his 3-existing illegal units, has chosen a 1-room unit as an element to be legalized. This attempt by the applicant to cherry-pick which of the now existing 7-units is legal or illegal empowers him with an advantage of affecting the new parking requirements. The 1-room unit requires but 1-parklng but the 2-bedroom units would require at least 2 additional parking spaces each.

The number of actual parking spaces that will be required for the zv & ZAA approval bears directly on the future of the existing garages. These pre-existing parking structures prohibit a new comprehensive parking design that would eliminate the need for the applicant's request to back-into traffic on 23rd and Norwood Streets. Their use for the new complex no longer serves the purpose they supplied under the prior Certificate of OCCupancy.

9

However should the Zone Variance be denied and the applicant required to return the converted 4-unit historic structure back to its legal condition, then there would not be any required additional parking and the Issue of the traffic circulation would be viewed in a different context.

THE A.D.H.O.C. RESPONSE TO THE PROJECT"S MffiGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION:

The Project's MND (09/16/09) prepared for the Planning Department, as lead agency, by City Planning Associate Jonathon Hershey is legally deficient. Although in his Initial Study and Checklist (IS&C) he does identify several Potentially Significant Impacts, only the minimal proposed mitigations are offered in the Explanation Table and they are inadequate for the purposes of CEAQ: very little beyond the atypical, pro-forma, boiler plate requirements are supplied by Mr. Hershey's in answer to the Potentially Significant Impacts that he has identified.

The Potentially Significant Impacts which he identified in the IS&C include several crucial issues: I. Aesthetics, IX. Land Use and Planning, and XV. Transportation and Circulation. Mr. Hershey however fails to identify the Potentially Significant Impacts to: v. Cultural Resources, and XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance and therefore not even the most simplistic of bureaucratic boilerplate mitigations are offered for these impacts.

Mr. Hershey does check off that that the Project does NOT conform with the South Area Community Plan but he does not provide any information explaining how it does not comply.

The seminal failure in the preparation of this environmental document by the Planning Department is the preparer's lack of understanding that the University Park HPOZ itself, in its totality, should be considered as a Historic-cultural resource. Therefore any Potentially Significant Impacts to its historic integrity must be acknowledged and mitigations offered. This would of course include an over intensification of use such as the applicant is proposing.

Additionally the preparer unfortunately relied completely on the conclusion in the University Park HPOZ Historic Resources Survey (1999) when he stated that the historic structure is not a contributing structure to the Historic District. Further complicating this error, he ignores the fact that being a contributor to the historic district is not the singular evaluation of a building's historic significance.

The UP-HPOZ Historic Resources Survey, prepared for the Planning Department by Myra Frank, is a flawed document. It is not unusual however for this windshield type of survey document to contain errors of omission, misidentification of addresses, inaccurate identification of architectural styles, and conclusions based on erroneous suppositions. The purpose of the survey was to compile a base of information regarding the then current architectural integrity of the existing structures in the proposed district to confirm that they were sufficient in numbers to qualify the proposed Project for a certification as a Historic District.

10

As an initial tool for a preliminary evaluation of the architectural Integrity of a histone structure it has value for the HPOZ Board decision makers and the property owners. It should not however be a defining document for the accurate evaluation of any structure's historic significance since its research was limited, some of its conclusions are in error and its scope was limited to the intactness of the exterior architectural facade.

The appropriate methodology for a determination of the significance of any existing historic pertod structure is inclusive of both the integrity of its architecture and its cultural context. The UP-HPOZ Historic Survey simply listed structures under 3-catergortes based on a casual visual observation and limited research documentation: Contributing, Contributing-Altered, and Non-Contributing. The Contributing-Altered designation was solely determined on the subjective interpretation by the preparer's as to the relative economic possibility of the non­conforming alterations to be reversed, i.e. can you afford to remove the stucco overcoat. This criteria has little to do with the correct interpretation of the historic signiticance of any structure.

The University Park HPOZ Board over its 10-years of reviewing applications, unfortunately, has found a great many errors in the Historic Survey's liSting and have been therefore required to challenge the Planning Department's processing of those cases. The Board in fact, when reviewing the subject property's application for the new construction of a laundry-room, declared that the 851 w. 23rd Street structure was inaccurately designated as a Non-contributor and should be listed as a Contributor-Altered. This decision of course occurred after the publication of the Project's MND, of which the HPOZ Board had not been informed by Planning Staff and therefore did not make comment to.

The continuing alterations to the integrity of the existing historic structure by the construction of the illegal units and the inherent damages to the historic HPOZ resource itself caused by the over intensification of use should have been recognized in the IS&C and mitigations proffered. This did not happen; therefore the MND is insufficient and should be rescinded and a new document prepared.

The granting of this ?)! request would furthermore have a Potentially Significant Negative Impact: on the UPHPOZ itself by establishing a precedent that other property owners could also expect to be granted. There is an inherent conflict in the HPOZ between the expectations of a property owner to by-right developable units under the zoning designation and the design requirements imposed by the UPPP and NSO. When a developer, for example, has the zoning allowance for 6-units and submits plans for 6-units, with 5-bedrooms and 5-bathrooms each unit, he is confronted with the reality that the design of his box will not permit that over intensification of use in the HPOZ. He then most either reduce the number of bedrooms or the number of units depending on his business model.

The understanding of the hard reality of these facts most times only occurs after land has been acquired and project designs invested in. The granting of the z:..t will make this specific site more attractive to future speculative developers because it will offer the opportunity for an 11-unit project rather than the code limiting 9-units that other property owners of similar lots are restricted to. The granting of the ?)! can encourage speculative

11

new development at the cost of the potential demolition of the existing historic structure. Since there a finite number of historic structures in the Historic District the loss of any one diminishes the integrity of the whole.

One of the purposes of an HPOZ is to shelter its historic resources from future demolitions. By making the subject site even more desirable to speculative developers through a granting of a unique bonus density it undermines the Goals and Objectives of the Preservation Plan: "Ensure that the policies and decisions on community growth and development respect the University Park HPOZ heritage and enhance the overall livability".

The Project Description in the MND acknowledges 3-illegal existing units, two of which need the IYJ to continue forward. The 3rd illegal unit has a proclaimed by-right existence under zoning but not necessarily under the design compliance requirements of the UPPP and the parking requirements of the NSO. The MND fails to identify which one of the existing 3-illegal units this "zoning-allowable unit" is and to require, as mitigation, that the approval of this new illegal unit conform to not only all applicable B&S codes but to those of the UPPP and NSO as well.

Mr. Hershey does, as mitigation to XV-d, state: "the Project Plans are required to be submitted to the Bureau of Engineering for review and approval" yet he fails to have the same issued enforced by the UP-HPOZ. Since the circulation of the expanded parking is impaired by the continued presence of the non-applicable garages to the point of having to back-into traffic on both 23rd and Norwood Streets it is only logical for the authority empowered to: a) consider the historic significance of the existing garages, and b) determine a parking scheme compliant with the design requirements of the UPPP to also weigh in on the decision.

Mr. Hershey states under I-c that: "The property is required to be improved and maintained in accordance with an approved landscape plan". No such plan has yet been submitted to the University Park HPOZ Board who have jurisdictional authority over all exterior issues in the HPOZ, for review and recommendation even thought the applicant did appear before the UP-HPOZ Board seeking an approval for an associated laundry room in November 2009. Any approval of a landscaping plan by the ZA should therefore be first approved by the HPOZ Board.

CONCLUSIONS:

• If the applicant desires additional zoning-use benefits beyond those of other property others he is obliged to justify a decision that can be supported in the required five findings. The fact that the City was required to conform, by law, their zoning designations with that of their General Plan in and of itself does not provide for any unusual hardship to any property owner. Therefore the Zoning Administrator should not make a finding of hardship in this instance.

• The legalization of either one or all three of the existing illegal units on the subject property today must be required to be in compliance with both the NSO and the HPOZ.

12

• A parking configuration should not be allowed that requires vehicles to back-into traffic on either or both 23 rd and Norwood Streets.

0 The Project's MND should be rescinded and a new environmental document prepared.

On behalf on the Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee I thank you in advance for your consideration of our position.

Respectfully yours

Jim Childs, Chair, A.D.H.O.C. 2326 Scarff Street, University Park, L.A. - CA. 90007 213-747-2526/ jimjean@earthlink.net

ccj Jean Frost, WAHA Laura Meyers, NUPCA John Arnold, University Park HPOZ Board Craig Weber, Office of Historic Resources Guadalupe Duran·Medina, CD 1 Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

P.S. BACKGROUND:

A.D.H.O.C. is the University Park community's long established historic preservation advocacy voice serving as the historic preservation arm of the L.A. Stock Company, a 501-3c non-profit corporation, established in 1977. Beginning in 1988 we have identified, researched and had designated three National Register Historic Districts including St. James Park. We have been the proponents for over three-dozen local Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments, eleven of which align themselves along the historic Scarff Street streetscape. I have participated in eight CEQA litigations to protect the historic resources in University Park. I am also a thirty-year resident of Scarff Street.

A.D.H.O.C. successfully advocated for the change from the CAA Adams-Normandie 4321 Project Area to the University Historic Preservation Overlay Zone. In addition to my being Chair of A.D.H.O.C. I served, by appointment of the Los Angeles City's Cultural Heritage Commission, as their ~preservation" member on the University Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Review Board from its inception in 2000 through January 2008 when term· limits forced my replacement. I also was part of the Planning Department's group that drafted the University Park Preservation Plan, which was certified by the Planning Commission on July 14, 2005 and was only the second such Plan in the City at that time.

13

N. U. P. C. A. NORTH UNIVERSITY PARK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee Los Angeles City Council c/o City Clerk City Hall I Room 395 200 North Spiing Street/ Los Angeles Calif. 90012

June 28, 2011 (and by hand)

RE: Council File No. 11-0990 Case No. ZA 2009-1836 (ZV) (ZAA) I CEQA No. ENV 2009-1837-MND 851 \'\Test 23rd Street/ University Park HPOZ/ CD-1 I PLUM Public Hearing june 28, 2011/2:30 am I City Hall Room 350

PLUM Committee and City Council members,

I am writing on behalf of the North University Park Community Association (N.U.P.C.A.) to request that you DENY the above-referenced ZA case and project proposals.

We request a~ well that you do not approve the MND for this project, since it fails to analyze how the project does not conform to the South Los Angeles Coll!lnunity Plan (see comments below), how it does not conform to two adopted specific plans (HPOZ and NSO, again, see comments below), fails to identifY potential impacts to historic/cultural resources (the subject property is within a designated historic distiict), and does not address the continued cumulative effects of adding student housing units into an already-impacted neighborhood.

The Applicant is requesting that you legalize his unpermitted activities (e.g., adding units without building permits), along with approving reduced parking, unsafe egress onto neighborhood streets, and a further intrusion of student housing into what is (according to Planning Department adopted policy) supposed to be a family-occupied residential neighborhood.

The vaiiances and other vaiiations to adopted South Los Angeles Community Plan policies, if granted, would be mateiially detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.

The subject site's current zoning, as you are well aware, is RD1.5, and the Community Plan designation is low medium II. The zoning was changed to RD 1.5 during several years of process and public hearings from 1987 to 1989, as part of a citywide AB283 Zoning Consistency project mandated in a legal settlement. The crux of the project was to biing EVERY zone of every parcel and sub-area in the city into "consistency" with its respective community plan. The Planning Department developed a complex but fair set

1

of criteria to determine what the new zoning would be and every property owner was notified of the process. I was one of many connnunity activists citywide engaged in this process, and I can tell you that hundreds and hundreds of property owners in this community participated in public workshops and hearings. After this lengthy process, the zoning throughout the University Park neighborhood was a<ljusted, in this case to RD1.5, which permits one unit per 1,500 square feet IF AND ONLY IF parking and setback requirements can also be met.

There is no "grandfatl1ering" of the R4 zone permitted in any part of tlle Los Angeles Municipal Code or, for that matter, in case law. (In fact, case law and Supreme Court decisions have held the opposite, namely that local jurisdictions are allowed to zone and rezone properties, so long as that rezoning does not constitute a "taking'' tl1at leaves an owner unable to do anytlling at all to occupy a property.) Let's please not create a precedent that would encourage nearby owners to request a similar granting of extraordinary privileges.

N.U.P.C.A. would also like to point out tllat tlle City has been unable to resolve long-standing issues associated witll the over-intensification of student housing uses in a neighborhood originally built as a single-family-home community. Residents must already deal with the negative impacts of parking, traffic and circulation resulting for the crnnulative impacts generated by all of tlle new infiJl student housing developments. 23"' Street in particular has become a cut-through route; this project may further encourage such neighborhood-intruding traffic and in any case tlle traffic has grown so intense that it would be unsafe to allow vehicles to back up onto 23"' Street.

Not only was tlus neighborhood purposefully rezoned to RD1.5 some twenty years ago, in recent years the City has adopted several new ordinances to furtl1er eil.courage the elimination of student housing witllin tins residential area, in favor of student housing and other transit-oriented multifamily housing prqjects on the Figueroa Corridor (which encompasses both Figueroa and 1<1ower).

Several years ago the City Planning Commission and the Los Angeles City Council approved a General Plan Amendment for the Figueroa Corridor that increased the allowable FAR to permit fairly large residential, and mixed use retaiVresidential, buildings. A part of tlle public discussion on that approval process, and a part of tlle enabling language for the resulting ordinance, was that: increasing tl1e allowable density on the Corridor would relieve d1e pressure to accommodate student housing witllin the University Park and North University Park neighborhoods. The idea was to TRANSFER student housing to the commercial boulevards.

In addition, the City has enacted aN eighborhood Stabilization Ordinance to help govern and nlitigate impacts of student housing in residential neighborhoods near colleges and rnliversities. The first NSO overlay zone/specific plan in fact: covers tlle University Park neighborhood, including the subject: property. The NSO overlay zone requires tllat student housing projects witllin its boundaries apply for a conditional use permit: (CUP), and the conditions are to include additional parking requirements based on such.factors as the number of beds (versus the number of units or even the number of bedrooms) to be occupied by students. This Applicant does not e\~dence any application for such C'UP, and the amount of parking the Applicant is proposing does not meet tlle NSO standards.

It is possible that three new units (or, newly legalized units) with multiple bedrooms and multiple beds would require not three parking spaces, but rather six or more parking spaces, llilder the NSO.

2

Finally, the Applicant makes a continuous affmnation that his project (e.g., adding/legalizing housing units) is supported by the General Plan's stated need for more housing. However, the City's General Plan 2006-2014 Housing Element, adopted in August 2008 by the City Council and approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in November 2008, specifically also indicates that the mandated additionalll3,000 units citywide be located primarily on Los Angeles's many undemtilized commercial corridors, and not within the city's characte1· neighborhoods. Indeed, the Housing Element states that the City "encourages sustainable growth in higher­intensity commercial and mixed-use districts, centers and boulevards, and in proxinuty to transit" while "maintaining neighborhood character" in communities like University Park.

The Housing Element further states that "The location of future development will be addressed through programs that will establish greater residential capacity in centers and near transit while reducing the residential capacity in those neighborhoods where preservation of existing character is desired, such that the current zoning and residential capacity reflected in the current inventory of sites for housing will evolve and all residential development and increased residential density will be directed to desired locations."

The subject site is NOT such a location. N.U.P.C.A. therefore urges you to deny tllis request in its entirety.

Sincerely,

Laura Meyers

N. U.P. C.A. representative on the GRA Univers1¥y-Exposition Park GAG dtizen advisory committee TeL 323-737-6146 I E-mail: lauramink@aoLcom 1818 S. Gramercy Place, Los Angeles GA 90019

cc/ Guadalupe Duran-Medina, CD 1 Eric Bronson, Vice President, West Adams Heritage Association (WAl-IA) Jim Childs, Chair, Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee (ADHOC) John Arnold, Chair University Park HPOZ Board Craig Weber, HPOZ Manager, Office of Historic Resources, LADCP Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

3