o h o c - government of los...

A o H o cADAMS DaCKWEILER HERITAGE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

/

APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 1 ENV-20.12-83-MND2003 OAK STREET 1 UNIVERSITY PARK H.P.O.Z.

EXHIBIT AZ-1SOUTH AREA PLANNING COMMISSION

Letter of Determination02/18/14

SOUTH Los ANGELES AREA PLANNING COMMISSION200 N. Spring Street, Room 272, Los Angeles, California, 90012, (213) 978-1300

www.lacity.org/PLN/index.htm

Determination Mailing Date: __ F:..;E:.:;cB..:l::..:8:-to::.:c-14 _

CASE: ZA-2012-1216-ZAA-SPR-1ACEQA: ENV-2012-83-MND

Location: 2003 S. Oak StreetCouncil District: 1 - CedilloPlan Area: South Los AngelesZone: PF-1-0-HPOZ

Applicant: Thomas Safran & AssociatesRepresentative: Tyler MonroeAppellant: Adams-Dockweiler Heritage Organizing CommitteeRepresentative: Jim Childs

At its meeting on January 21, 2014, the following action was taken by the South Los Angeles AreaPlanning Commission:1. Denied the appeal.2. Sustained the action of the Zoning Administrator's determination dated November 22, 2013

(attached).3. Adopted the attached Conditions of Approval.4. Adopted the attached Findings.5. Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV-2012-83-MND.

Fiscal Impact Statement: There Is no General Fund impact as administrative costs are recovered through fees.

This action was taken by the following vote:

Moved:Seconded:Ayes:

Vote:

FranklinWillisMills, Mitchell, Silcott

5-0

James K. Williams, C m i sion Executive Assistant IISouth Los Angeles A ea lannlng Commission

I

Effective date/Appeals: is action of the South Los Angeles Area Planning Commission is effective uponthe mailing date of this detennination. The decision is final and not further appealable.

If you seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5,the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date onwhich the City's decision became final pursuant to California Code of civil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may beother time limits which also affect your ability to seek judicial review.

Attachment: Director of Planning's Determination Leiter dated November 22, 2013Zoning Administrator: Charles Rausch Jr.

i

UNN K.WVATfCHIEF ZONING ADM!NISTRATOR

t TV OF Los ANGELE~CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OFCITY PLANNING

MICHAEL 1. LOGRANDEDIRECTOR;

ASSOCIATE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS

R. NICOLAS BROWNSUE CHANG

LOURDES GREENCHARLES 1. RAUSCH, JR.

JIM TOKUNAGAFERNANDO TOVAR

DAVID S. W8NTRAUBMAYA E. ZA!lZEVSKY

OFFICE OFZONING AOMINISTRAnON

200 N. SPRING STflEET, 7'1>lFLOORlos ANGRES, CA 90012

(213) 978~1318FAX: (213) 978~1334

WNW.planningJacity.orgNovember 22,2013

ERIC GARCETTIMAYOR

Tyler Monroe (A)Thomas Safran & Associates11812 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 600Los Angeles, CA 90049

Hugh Tucker (0)LAUSb Facility Services Division.333 South Beaudry Avenue, 3rd FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017

Brian Silveira (R)The Katherman Company1308 Scarlet Avenue, Suite 128Torrance, CA 90501

RE-ISSUED DETERMINATION

CASE NO. ZA 2012-1216(ZAA)(SPR)ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S

ADJUSTMENT/SITE PLAN REVIEW2003 Oak StreetSouth Los Angeles Planning AreaZone : PF-1-0-HPOZ

. D. M. : 124.5A203C. D. : 1CEQA : ENV-2012-83-MNDLegalDescription: Lots 10-15, Daly Tract

Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.28-A, I hereby DISMISS:

an Adjustment from Section 12.09.1-B,3 to permit a 5-foot 2-inch rear yard setbackin lieu of the minimum 15 feet otherwise required in the most restrictive adjacentzone (RD1,5); and

Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.28-A, I hereby DENY:

an Adjustment from Section 12.09.1-8,2 to permit a 5-foot2-inch side yard in lieu ofthe minimum 6 feet otherwise required in the most restrictive adjacent zone(RD1.5); and

Pursuant to Los Angeles Munlcipal Code Section 12.28-A, I hereby APPROVE:

an Adjustment to From Section 12,09,1-B,1 to permit an 8-foot 6-inch southerly frontyard along 21st Street in lieu of the minimum 15 feet otherwise required in the mostrestrictive adjacent zone (RD1.5); and

Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Sections 12,04,09-B,9 and 16.05, I herebyAPPROVE:

Site Plan Review for the construction, use and maintenance of a joint public/privatedevelopment of a 29-unit residential project,

.upon the following additional terms and conditions:

AN EQUAL. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - A.FFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

, '

CASE NO, ZA 2012-1216(ZAA)(SPR) PAGE 2

1, All other use, height and area regulations of the Municipal Code and all otherapplicable government/regulatory agencies shall be strictly complied with in thedevelopment and use of the property, except as such regulations are hereinspecifically varied or required, .,

2, The use and development of the property shall be in substantial conformance withthe plot plan submitted with the application and marked Exhibit "A", except as maybe revised as a result of this action.

3, The authorized use shall be conducted at all times with due regard for the characterof the surrounding district, and the right is reserved to the Zoning Administrator toimpose additional corrective Conditions, if, in the Administrator's opinion, suchConditions are proven necessary for the protection of persons in the neighborhoodor occupants of adjacent property,

4. All graffiti on the site shall be removed or painted over to match the color of thesurface to which it is applied within 24 hours of its occurrence.

5. A copy of the first page of this grant and ali Conditions and/or any subsequentappeal of this grant and its resultant Conditions and/or letters of clarification shall beprinted on the building plans submitted to the Development Services Center and theDepartment of Building and Safety for purposes of having a building permit issued.

6, The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents,officers, or employees from any claim, action or proceedings against the City or itsagents, officers, or employees relating to or to attack, set aside, void or annul thisapproval which action is brought within the applicable limitation period. The Cityshall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,action,or proceeding and the Cityshall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicantof any claim action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in thedefense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, orhold harmless the City.

7. Approved herein is the construction, use and maintenance of a joint public/privatedevelopment consisting of six, two- and three-story buildings containing a total of 29residential dwelling units, a community room and a 79-stall subterranean parkinggarage. The garage is forthe use of both on-site residents and the staff of NorwoodElementary School. The project shall observe a minimum setback of 15 feet from

. 20th Street, 15 feet from Oak Street, 8 feet 6 inches from 21st Street and a 6-footside yard.

8. All Conditions of DIR 2012-1217-CCMP shall be complied with except as varied bythis decision as to yards,

g, The following conditions are Environmental Mitigation Measures required pursuantto the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV-2012-83-MND, and shall becomplied with: .

·..-----.~.-- ~~~-

CASE NO. ZA 2012-1216(ZAA)(SPR) PAGE 3

a. Air Pollution (Demolition, Grading, and Construction Activities)

1) All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted at leasttwice daily during excavation and construction, and temporary dustcovers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMDDistrict Rule 403.

2) The construction area shall be kept sufficiently dampened to controldust caused by grading and hauling, and at all times providereasonable control of dust caused by wind.

All clearing, earth moving, or excavation activities shall bediscontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph),so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

3)

4) All dirt/soil loads shall be secured by trimming, watering or otherappropriate means to prevent spillage and dust.

All dirt/soil materials transported off-site shall be either sufficientlywatered or securely covered to prevent the generation of excessiveamounts of dust.

5)

6) General contractors shall maintain and operate construction. equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions.

7) Trucks having no current hauling activity shall not idle but be turnedoff.

b. Cultural Resources (Historic Preservation Overlay Zone)

The proposed structure requires the issuance of a Certificate of Compatibilitypursuant to the University Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone and shallcomply with the University Park HPOZ's Preservation Plan as described inthe approved Certificate of Compatibility.

c. Cultural Resources (Archaeological)

If any archaeological materials are encountered during the course of projectdevelopment, all further development activity shall halt. The services of anarchaeologist shall then be secured by contacting the South Central CoastalInformation Center (657-278-5395) located at California State UniversityFullerton, or a member of the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA)or a SOPA-qualified archaeologist, who shall assess the discoveredrnaterial( s) and prepare a survey, study or report evaluating the impact. Thearchaeologist's survey, study or report shall contain a recommendation(s), ifnecessary, for the preservation conservation or relocation of the resource.The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the evaluatingarchaeologist, as contained in the survey, study or report. Projectdevelopment activities may resume once copies of the archaeologicalsurvey, study or report are submitted to: SCCIC Department ofAnthropology, McCarthy Hall 477, CSU Fullerton, 800 North State College


Boulevard. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shallsubmit a letter to the case file indicating what, if any, archaeological reportshave been submitted, or a statement indicating that no material wasdiscovered. A covenant and agreement binding the applicant to thiscondition shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit.

d. Cultural Resources (Paleontological)

If any paleontological materials are encountered during the course of projectdevelopment, all further development activities shall halt and the services ofa paleontologist shall then be secured by contacting the Center for PublicPaleontology - USC, UCLA, Califomia State University Los Angeles,California State University Long Beach, or the Los Angeles County NaturalHistory Museum - who shall assess the discovered material(s) and prepare asurvey, study or report evaluating the impact. The paleontologist's survey,study or report shall contain recommendation(s), if necessary, for thepreservation, conservation, or relocation of the resource. The applicant shallcomply with the recommendations of the evaluating paleontologist, ascontained in the survey, study or report. Project development activities mayresume once copies of the paleontological survey, study or report aresubmitted to the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum. Prior to theissuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a lettertothe casefile indicating what, if any, paleontological reports have been submitted, or astatement indicating that' no material was discovered. A covenant andagreement binding the applicant to this condition shall be recorded priortoissuance of a grading permit.

e. Cultural Resources (Human Remains)

In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation activities,the following procedure shall be observed. All grading work on the site shallstop immediately and the applicant shall contact the County Coroner at.323-343-0512 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday) or 323-343-0714 (AfterHours, Saturday, Sunday, and Holidays). The coroner has two working daysto examine the human remains after being notified by the responsibleperson. If the remains are Native American, the Coroner has 24 hours tonotify the Native American Heritage Commission.

The Native American Heritage Commission will immediately notify the personit believes to be the most likely descendent of the deceased NativeAmerican. The most likely descendent has 48 hours to makerecommendations to the owner, or representative, for the treatment ordisposition, with proper dignity, ofthe human remains and grave goods. Ifthe descendent does not make recommendations within 48 hours the ownershall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from furtherdisturbance, or if the owner does not accept the descendant'srecommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation bythe Native American Heritage Commission.


f. Seismic:.

The design and construction of the project shall conform to the CaliforniaBuilding Code seismic standards as approved by the Department of Buildingand Safety.

g. Erosion/Grading/Short-Term Construction Impacts

1) The applicant shall provide a staked signage at the site with aminimum of 3-inch lettering containing contact information for theSenior Street Use Inspector (Department of Public Works), the SeniorGrading Inspector (LADBS) and the hauling or general contractor.

2) Chapter IX, Division 70 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code addressesgrading, excavations, and fills. All grading activities require gradingpermits from the Department of Building and Safety. The applicationof BMPs includes but is not limited to the following mitigationmeasures: Excavation and grading activities shall be scheduledduring dry weather periods. If grading occurs during the rainy season(October 15 through April 1), diversion dikes shall be constructed tochannel runoff around the site. Channels shall be lined with grass orroughened pavement to reduce runoff velocity. Stockpiles,excavated, and exposed soil shall be covered with secured tarp,plastic sheeting, erosion control fabrics, or treated with a bio- .degradable soil stabilizer.

h. Green House Gas Emissions

Only low- and non- VOC containing points, sealants, adhesives and solventsshall be utilized in the construction of the project. .

i. Explosion/Release (Methane Gas)

All multiple-unit residential buildings shall have adequate ventilation asdefined in Section 91.7102 ofthe Municipal Code of a gas-detectioll systeminstalled in the basement or on the lowest floor level on grade, and within theunder-floor space in buildings with raised foundations.

j. Increased Noise Levels (Demolition, Grading and Construction Activities)

The project shall comply with the City of Los Angeles Noise Ordinance Nos.144,331 and 161,574, and any subsequent ordinances, which prohibit theemission or creation of noise beyond certain levels at adjacent uses unlesstechnically infeasible. Construction and demolition shall be restricted to thehours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.rrr,' Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. onSaturday. Demolition and construction activities shall be scheduled so as toavoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causeshigh noise levels. The project contractor shall use power constructionequipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices.


k. Increased Noise Levels (Parking Structure Ramps)

Concrete, not metal, shall be used for the construction of parking ramps.The interior ramps shall be textured to prevent tire squeal at turning areas.Parking lots located adjacent to residential buildings shall have a soliddecorative wall adjacent to the residential.

I. Safety Hazards

The developer shall install appropriate traffic signs around the site to ensurepedestrian and vehicle safety. The applicant shall submit a parking anddriveway plan that incorporates design features that reduce accidents to theBureau of Engineering and the Department of Transportation for approval.

10. Prior to issuance of any permits relative to this matter, a covenant acknowledgingand agreeing to comply with all the terms and conditions established herein shall berecorded in the County Recorder's Office. The agreement (standard mastercovenant and agreement for CP-6770) shall run with the land and shall be bindingon any subsequent owners, heirs or assigns. This agreement with the conditionsattached must be submitted to the Department of City Planning Office of HistoricResources for approval before being recorded. After recordation, a certified copybearing the Recorder's number and date shall be provided to the Department of CityPlanning for attachment to the subject case file.

OBSERVANCE OF CONDITIONS - TIME LIMIT - LAPSE OF PRIVILEGES

All terms and conditions of the approval shall be fulfilled before the use may beestablished. The instant authorization is further conditional upon the privileges beingutilized within three years after the effective date of approval and, if such privileges are notutilized or substantial physical construction work is not begun within said time and carried"on diligently to completion, the authorization shall terminate and become void.

TRANSFERABILITY

This authorization runs with the land. In the event the property is to be sold, leased, rentedor occupied by any person or corporation other than yourself, it is incumbent upon you toadvise them regarding the conditions of this grant.

VIOLATIONS OF THESE CONDITIONS, A MISDEMEANOR

Section 12.29 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides:

"A variance, conditional use, adjustment, public benefit or other quasi-judicialapproval, or any conditional approval granted by the Director, pursuant to theauthority of this chapter shall become effective upon utilization of any portion oftheprivilege, and the owner and applicant shall immediately comply with its conditions.The violation of any valid condition imposed by the Director, Zoning Administrator,Area Planning Commission, City Planning Commission or City Council in connectionwith the granting of any action taken pursuant to the authority of this chapter, shallconstitute a violation of this chapter and shall be subject to the same penalties asany other violation of this Code."


Every violation of this determination is punishable as a misdemeanor and shall bepunishable by a fine of not more than $2,500 or by imprisonment in the county jail for aperiod of not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

APPEAL PERIOD - EFFECTIVE DATE

The applicant's attention is called to the fact that this grant is not a permit or license andthat any permits and licenses required by law must be obtained from the proper publicagency. Furthermore, if any condition of this grant is violated or if the same be notcomplied with, then the applicant or his successor in interest may be prosecuted forviolating these conditions the same as for any violation of the requirements contained inthe Municipal Code. The Zoning Administrator's determination in this matter will becomeeffective after DECEMBER 9, 2013, unless an appeal therefrom is filed with the ~Planning Department. It is strongly advised that appeals be filed early during the appealperiod and in person so that imperfections/incompleteness may be corrected before theappeal period expires. Any appeal must be filed on the prescribed forms, accompanied bythe required fee, a copy of the Zoning Administrator's action, and received and receipted ata public office of the Department of City Planning on or before the above date or theappeal will not be accepted. Forms are available on-line at http://planning.lacity.org.Public offices are located at:

Figueroa Plaza201 North Figueroa Street,

4th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90012(213) 482-7077

Marvin Braude San FernandoValley Constituent .Service Center

6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Room 251Van Nuys, CA 91401(818) 374-5050

If you seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of CivilProcedure Section 1094.5, the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must befiled no later than the 90th day following the date on which the City's decision became finalpursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may be other timelimits which also affect your ability to-seek judicial review.

NOTICE

The applicant is further advised that all subsequent contact With this office regarding thisdetermination must be with the Zoning Administrator who acted on the case. This wouldinclude clarification, verification of condition compliance and plans or building permitapplications, etc., and shall be accomplished BY APPOINTMENT ONLY, in order to assurethat you receive service with a minimum amount of waiting. You should advise anyconsultant representing you of this requirement as well.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the application, the planssubmitted therewith, the report of the Zoning Analyst thereon, and the statements madeat the public hearing before the Zoning Administrator on May 28, 2013, all of which are byreference made a part hereof, as well as knowledge of the property and surroundingdistrict, I find that the requirements and prsrsqulsltes for granting an adjustment as


enumerated in Section 12.28 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code have been established bythe following facts:

BACKGROUND

The subject property is a level, rectangular-shaped through lot consisting of six contiguousparcels containing 32,134 square feet of lot area located on the northwest side of OakStreet between 20th and 21st Streets. The lots are zoned PF-1-0-HPOZ and aredeveloped with a surface parking lot and a marked play field for the Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District's (LAUSD) Norwood Elementary School which is located on the southeastside of Oak Street. The property is zoned for Public Facility uses because it is owned bythe LAUSD for surface parking. It is also located in an Oil Drilling District and in theUniversity Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone.

Because the building site is a combination of six lots on the westerly side of Oak Streetwhich is to be built with a subterranean garage which crosses all of the lot lines, the six lotsbecome one through lot and the yards are thus rearranged. The front lot becomes the twoformer side yards along 20th and 21st Streets. The former front yard along Oak Streetremains a front yard and the former rear yards westerly of Oak Street becomes a side yardfor the entire project.

The application is for a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment to permit a 5-foot 2-inch rearyard setback in lieu of the minimum 15 feet otherwise required in the most restrictiveadjacent zone (RD1.5); a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment to permit a 5-foot 2-im:h sideyard in lieu of the minimum 6 feet otherwise required in the most restrictive adjacent zone(RD1.5); and a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment to permit an 8-foot 6-inch southerly frontyard along 21st Street in the PF Zone in lieu of the minimum 15 feet otherwise required inthe most restrictive adjacent zone (RD1.5); and 2) a Site Plan Review, for the construction,use and maintenance of a joint public/private development consisting of slx-, two- andthree-story bui/dings containing a total of 29 residential dwelling units, a community room,and a 79-sta/l subterranean parking garage for on-site residents and the staff of NorwoodElementary School, as otherwise permitted in the most restrictive adjacent zone; all.on anapproximately 32,324 square-foot property located within the PF-1-0-HPOZ Zone. TheSite Plan Review determination is required because Section 12.04.09-B, 9 ofthe MunicipalCode requires a Site Plan Review determination to approve a project in a PF Zone basedon development uses in the most restrictive adjoining zone. In this case, the mostrestrictive adjoining zone is the RD1.5 Zone. The applicant is obtaining the 29 units via abi-rite density bonus because he is not requesting or receiving any incentives granted todensity bonus projects by the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance.

The subject property is planned for Public Facility Uses in the South Los AngelesCommunity Plan area. Adjacent properties are planned and zoned for Low Medium"residential uses which constitute the most restrictive adjoining plan and zone. Properties tothe north. are zoned for a mixture of R3 and R4 residential uses and C2 and CMcommercial uses and developed with parking lots and large commercial structures as wellas two remaining residential structures. Property to the east is zoned for PF uses anddeveloped with the Norwood Elementary School of the Los Angeles Unified School District.Properties to the south and west of the site are zoned for RD1.5 uses and developed witha mixture of single-family, duplex and small apartment buildings most of which arecontained in contributing historic structures. All of the property in the area is located withinthe University Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone.

" ..." ... "----~~- ....----


Oak Street is a Collector Street with a width of 60 feet and fully improved. The street wasgated by the LAUSD but there is no approval from the City to do so.

20th Street is a Local Street with a width of 60 feet and fully improved.

21st Street is a Local Street with a width of 60 feet and fully improved.

Previous zoning related actions on the site include:

Case No. ZAI 2369 - On January 26,1966, the Zoning Administrator determinedthat the original front yard be maintained in the RA or R Zones due torearrangement of property lines without recording a subdivision map.

Case No. ZAI1128 - On July 25, 1946, the Zoning Administrator determined that inthe case where a reversed comer lot is created by combining any group of recordlots at the corner of two streets in such a manner as to change the front lot line ofthe original corner record lot, then such reversed corner lot may be developed in analternate manner with the front yard and front lot line along the street upon whichthe record lots had their original frontage.

Public Hearing

Two public hearings were held on the subject case. On February 11, 2013, a hearing washeld before an Office of Zoning Administration Hearing Officer in City Hall. Testimony wastaken at the hearing, but the Hearing Officer suspended the proceedings due to animproper notice which did not fully describe the proper yard adjustments. A new hearingnotice was produced for the case with proper 24-day notice which properly described thecase. The re-hearing was held on May 28, 2013 before an Associate Zoning Administratorin Room 1020 of Los Angeles City Hall. The hearing was attended by the applicant'srepresentative, his attorney, his architect and other members ofthedevelopment team. Itwas also attended by current and former members of the University Park HistoricPreservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) Board who opposed the project as well as a number ofCommunity Stakeholders who were· both against and in-favor of the project. Arepresentative of Council District No.1 was also present and spoke in-favor ofthe project.

The following points were made in favor of the project:

• The Los Angeles Unified School District, which owns the site and uses it for aparking lot for the adjacent Oak Street Elementary School, proposed to build apublic/private joint development on the site which would include both housing and aparking lot for use of the school;

• A Request for Proposals was issued to solicit developers for the site and ThomasSaffron and Associates was chosen as the winner;

• Our original proposal was for a·SO-unit project which has since been reduced to a29-unit project. The number of units is based on the density of the RD1.5 Zonewhich is the most restrictive adjacent zone as far as density is concerned with a35% density bonus added to the base density;

• The project is to be built on a podium which will be built on top of a subterraneanparking lot. We designed the podium to be below ground in-order to comply withthe University Park HPOZ Preservation Plan. We originally proposed to build one


building on the podium, but we eventually after 6 meetings with the HPOZ Boardbroke up the mass by placing 6 buildings on-top of the podium. The structure wasoriginally proposed to be 45 feet in height consisting of three stories. This heightwas brought down to 27 to 29 feet in height along the Oak Street frontage with amaximum of 33 feet to the rear. The buildings will mainly be two stories in heightwith a larger building in the middle of the lot which will be three stories;

• Of the facades on the six structures, two will resemble two former structures and theremaining f[ will be consistent with designs in the HPOZ;

• We researched not only the relevant blocks to the project, but we also looked at 64other contributing buildings in the area for consistency in the project design. We,also, wanted a large separation between structures on the podium so that itappeared to be individual buildings standing on their own lots;

• We are using various period components from the era of significance including realwood windows with divided lights;

• The parking lot will include 79 spaces which will include one parking space per unit,5 guest parking spaces and the remainder dedicated to the school.

• We believe that the development is compatible with the HPOZ's Preservation Plan.The requirements of the Preservation Plan are guidelines and are not proscriptiveon any development. The project is designed to fit into the neighborhood and willbe compatible with existing structures. 20th Street is its own National RegisterCommunity which exists within the overall University Park HPOZ. We have set thesetbacks on 20th Street to be compatible with the existing setbacks on the street.Unit entries are oriented toward the street with porches, porticos and other historictreatments. The guidelines allow buildings that are up to 3 stories by stating that2.5-story buildings are acceptable. The 2.5 stories basically allows a 3rd story tobe placed in a peaked or gabled roof: The project does address the historicsetbacks of the area and especially along the 20th Street frontage. In the largerbuilding in the middle of the development, we are putting the 3rd story in the roofform. We are not trying to match the structures in the area because to mimicbuildings exactly is not permitted by either the design guidelines or the Secretary ofthe Interior's Guidelines; .

• I represent Esperanza Housing, and we support the.project. We have built 66 unitsin the Census Tract. The developer has worked with the community. The projecthas been reduced in size from what they originally won the RFP on. We support the29 units with a 60% income level from the SMSA median. This will alleviate someof the parking problems in the area as the project will not be rented out to USCstudents who elsewhere in the area are crammed into units and park their cars onthe street;

• We would like to see this developed so that local citizens and teachers can live in it.Most of the rents in the area have been rising because of property owners rentingout their units to USC students; and

• We are here to support the project. We have small children and want to live closeto .the school. We live in a small apartment and our children have to live in thesame room with the parents. For us, the project is important because the units arelarger and affordable.

The following points were made in opposition to the project:

• The HPOZ Board has not approved the design of the project for compatibility withthe Preservation Plan of the University Park HPOZ. The Preservation Plan allowsthe national Secretary of the Interior Standards to be brought down to the local


level. The Plan calls for 35% lot coverage for a development. This project includesan overall 49% lot coverage and 53% for the middle building. This is too much forthe area.

• The mass of building NO.3 (the one with the largest number of units) is way beyondthe prevailing character of the area. The third story of the structure cannot bejustified - especially when it is adjacent to 20th Street;

• Nothing in the Plan is based on averaging of all lots in the area. It is based onprevailing;

• The project does not really have a rear yard;• The RD1.5 Zone only allows 21 units. They are claiming a density bonus, but they

are not using any of the incentives of the state or local law;• We have never seen the rear elevations which are the most massive and the

closest to adjacent properties;• We do not believe that a MND is adequate for the project. Because the project

does not conform to the Preservation Plan, it should require an EIR because theimpact on historic resources is unmitigated;

• The applicant chose the highest density zone when choosing zones to becompatible to for the Site Plan Review determination. The properties on 20th Streetaverage 2 units per lot with those on 21st Street a little denser. The project exceedsthe lot coverage for the area. Compatibility should be based not on the Zone buton the built environment;

• The City's Housing Element cites the need for 113,000 more units to accommodatethe City's population. These units were to be built on underutilized commercialcorridors. This was to avoid larger structures being built in existing residentialneighborhoods. The project RFP was for work-force housing for people in theLAUSD community. This is now a project for and is backed by groups for generallow-income housing on a community wide basis;

• The PF Zone allows parking. Now that it is to be used and based on a residentialzone, the use of parking for the LAUSD and the community room should requireseparate variances or conditional use permits;

• This project requires a Certificate of Compatibility under the Zoning Code. TheHPOZ Board has held numerous meetings with the applicant on this project and stilldoes not support it. We recommended denial of the project based on the height,bulk and footprint of the proposed structures. The proposed setbacks are less thanthe norm in the area. All of this makes the project incompatible with the area. Anew project should not overwhelm an area, but it should be compatible with it. Theproject has been scaled down from the original proposal, but it is still twice as largeas existing residential structures in the area. Multi-family projects should becompatible with surrounding single family uses even if the zone allows multiple-family buildings. The new projects in the area should not be built to the capacity ofthe Zone but to the existing density of the neighborhood. While the PreservationPlan does not speak to through lots, the setbacks on Oak Street should not bebased on the Zone but on the historic pattern of the street; and

• Now that we have our Preservation Plan, people still come before us with unusualand inconsistent projects. The existing parking lot has not been used as a parkinglot. It's used by the school as a playground when construction occurs at the school.. The project's density is 69% greater than what was originally on the lots. Thedensity of the site should not be based on the economics of the project but on thehistoric density of the Historic District. Mitigation comes with compliance with thePreservation Plan, and if it is not consistent with the Plan, an EIR should berequired because there is an unmitigated impact.


Guadalupe Medina Duran, representing Council District 1, made the following comments:We believe that this is a respectful design for the area. We understand its problems withthe HPOZ Board. We also know that the area has been under pressure from studenthousing take-over of existing apartment units. We know that there are concerns about thenumber of units in the proposal, but we believe in the need for additional new rental units inthe area. We have seen this evolve over time to something that we can support.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

Letters in opposition to the project.

On May 8, 2013, a letter was received from the West Adams Heritage Association inopposition to the project which made the following points:

• The Heritage Association is made up of 350 households and regularly comments onland use applications and environmental documents which affect the area;

• The Norwood Project lies entirely within the University Park HPOZ and would violatemajor provisions of the HPOZ's preservation plan. We agree with the Board in theirfindings that the project did not conform to the plan with respect to historic massing,lot coverage, volume and historic patterns of development. The proposed projectwill not be compatible with and will adversely affect or further degrade adjacentproperties, the surrounding neighborhood and the public health welfare and safety;

• We are concerned with the project's impact on the nationally registered zo" StreetHistoric District, whose 2-story homes sit directly adjacent to the proposed sites; and

• We believe that the project's MND is not legally sufficient to meet the requirementsof CEQA because the mitigation on effects to historic resources is not sufficient tomitigate the identified impacts. The mitigation requires compliance with the HPOZ'sPreservation Plan and the Board has found that the project does not so .comply.Thus the impact is not mitigated.

On February 8, 2013, a letter was received from Ms. Jean Frost which made the followingpoints: .

• The pattern of development on the site is clearly known because the site wassurveyed as a CRA project area and reviewed using historic Sanborn Maps. Thesix structures on the site were seized by eminent domain by the LAUSD anddemolished with no input from the CRA to provide playground and green space forchildren at Norwood School. The proposed project conforms to none of the sitecharacteristics of massing, scale, setback, lot coverage and volume. There is nojustification in the historic patterns for creating an underground 'parking lot withshared usage by the public, residents and school staff;

• While the PF Zone was intended for many public uses such as parks and libraries, itallowed that "Any joint public/private development uses must conform to the mostrestrictive adjoining zone, if approved by the Director" in this instance RD1.5 withthe HPOZ overlay. Nothing indicates that this use is by right. RD1.5 would allow 21units, not 29, and application of a density bonus is questionable and can beconsidered in excess of the "most restrictive" requirements of RD1.5 under the PFZone. To approve the Zoning Administrator's Adjustment when this project does notconform to the intent of PF zoning, nor the Preservation Plan, nor the mostrestrictive RD1.5 usage, cannot be justified;

..------~-- --------.-------------,---.----


• The community lost historic housing in the 1980's which if still existing would besubject to the requirements of contributing structures under the Preservation Plan.The community suffered this loss because public funds were used to create aplayground for school children which was abused over time by the LAUSD to createan eyesore of a parking lot which is now being used as a rationale to permit ahousing development which does not comply with the community plan or thePreservation Plan;

• The applicant has been insistent on a 29-unit project with a subsurface parking lotand 30,000 square feet of development. The Preservation Plan requires thatdevelopment be compatible with the pattern of the known site plans of the nowvacant parcels. The buildable area needs to be examined in terms of thePreservation Plan which states that the relationship is of building to lot area not toexceed 35%. The building area to lot area stated by the project proponents is 49%which far exceeds this objective and exceeds the lot coverage ofthe neighborhood;

• The project is in excess of the number of stories of the surrounding properties whichare with one exception 2 stories in height. The 20th Street Historic District adjacentto the site has a consistent 2-story built form with most setbacks of 26 to 32 feet.The project places a a-story building within 5 feet of the property line of the HistoricDistrict. Building 3 of their plan provides 57.7% lot coverage while the average forthe Historic District and for 21st Street is 38.6 and 38.9%. While favorable designelements create a visual facade that is pleasing the project does not address theimportant issues of massing, scale, setback, lot coverage and the historic pattern ofdevelopment. The project alters the prevailing neighborhood character andattempts to justify its mass and volume, not on what is prevailing, but rather on theextreme examples that exist but are not prevailing incand around the site; and

• Allowance of the ZAA will be materially detrirnental to the surrounding communitybecause the project fails to conform to the Preservation Plan and sets a newoutsized standard for development within the HPOZ. The project fails to "seek ahigh degree of architectural compatibility for new infill development to protect thecharacter and scale of existing residential neighborhoods" as the South CommunityPlan requires. Absent such compatibility, the project wiHresult in serious materialdetriment to the surrounding properties and the community.

On May 8, 2013, a letter was received from the North University Park CommunityAssociation in opposition to the project and made the following points:

• This project violates several important land use policies, including the adoptedHousing Element which would have new housing initiatives placed on the City'scommercial corridors, not plunked into the middle of a historic community developedwith primarily one- and two-story 19th and early 20th Century homes. It violatesadopted zoning policies that separate commercial uses from residential uses. Itimposes an unrelated parking lot for a use (teacher parking) across the street. Theselection of RD1.5 as the defining zone for the purposes of reaching a unit count isa discretionary action that does not reflect the actual built form and actual uses inthe immediate surrounding residential neighborhood;

• This project is a moving target. Is it 29 units of "workforce housing" for teachers andschool staff as is required by the LAUSD RFP or is it "affordable housing" for "lowincome" tenants as the applicant has described in numerous community meetings.If it is the latter, then there is no nexus between this project and its proposedparking for teachers at the Norwood Elementary School. Furthermore the"community learning center": that has been described as a learning center, after


school tutoring center, computer lab and meeting room which is to be associatedwith the school has become a community room for the residents despite RFPrequirements that it be a more public space. Why was there no associated variancefiled to permit such a use in a residential zone. Has the City selected RD1.5 for thesole purpose of a unit count or should this project comply with all the requirementsand restriction of a residential zone which would not permit by right either acommunity room open to the general public nor off-site parking for the use ofemployees of a nearby institution; and

• It appears to be an abuse of discretion to use the RD1.5 Zone because theimmediate adjacent neighborhood is not actually built out to that level of density. Ifone must utilize RD1.5 then adding a density bonus for a fully affordable project thatwas supposed to be a teacher and staff workforce housing project and then askingfor relief from the zone's yard requirements is unwarranted. These proposed rearyards are NOT consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood.The letter also included comments on the environmental clearance which will bediscussed later in this determination.

On May 28, 2013, a letter was received from the University Park HPOZ Board and madethe following points:

• Forwarded for your review is a study of Building and Safety permit records for the 6historic homes demolished by the LAUSD on the subject site;

• The data provides an ability to find comparatives between the historic homes andthe proposed Project regarding lot coverage and volume. This further reinforces theBoard's decision that the new Project fails to conform to the historic patterns ofdevelopment as required by the Preservation Plan; and

• If the Project did comply with historic patterns of development, the traditionalsetbacks would be adhered to and an adjustment would not be necessary.

Additional letters in the file made the following comments:

• In the last few years, the addition of 3 alternative-charter schools in our area havedramatically changed the flow oftraffic and the safety of pedestrians, particularly ofthe many children walking to school. Traffic problems caused by the new schoolswere exacerbated when Norwood Elementary unilaterally decided to close OakStreet with the promise it would only be during pick up and drop off time. However,the street is closed all day long. This de facto closure not only changed bothresidential and commercial traffic flows in the neighborhood, but it has causedproblems for City Emergency Vehicles turning onto Oak Street and find themselvesblocked without clear direction onto how to access the neighborhood. The.closureof Oak Street has also created parking problems and higher noise levels in theresidential area because of catering trucks leaving one of the local businesses onWashington Boulevard driving through the neighborhood because their access toOak Street has been blocked; .

• The density of the new development will decrease the quality of life in the area.There are plenty of apartment buildings in the area why not convert them to the lowincome needs of the community. It makes no sense that while the City is interestedin passing ordinances to limit the number of residents in rooming houses it wouldallow a development with a density higher than found in or neighborhood; and

• . Why is the higher density required when plenty of housing stock is available viaforeclosed properties, rental units and abandoned properties within walking


distance. Why insist on altering and destroying the historic and socio-economicfabric of the neighborhood.

Letters in support ofthe project.

• I write this in support of the project. I have found that the developer has taken careto respond to concerns expressed by members of the community and the HPOZreview committee. The applicants have reflected on the initial injury to thecommunity in the demolition of these structures and have re-conceptualized thearchitectural program and massing of the project to be more sensitive to thesurrounding community. Esperanza Community Housing Corporation supports theaddition of 29 new units of one, two and three bedroom units that are affordable at60% of the area median income. This project will contribute to needed housingresources for teachers and other workers as well as local families. We applaud thelocation of a community-serving space on the site and a full-time Resident ServicesCoordinator. In visiting other projects of the developer, we are impressed with thequality of recreational and fitness amenities as well as the landscaping. The projectwill be a valuable asset to this community. It will replace a street level parking lotwith a project for local teachers and families to live in.

• I am writing to express the strong support of Strategic Action for a Just Economy(SAJE) for this project. One of SAJE's primary concerns is to provide moreaffordable housing in our community and community space to benefit neighborhood .residents. We also understand the need to create affordable housing in a way thatfits within the historical context of the community both in terms of massing anddesign. We believe this project as proposed fits within the historic context of thearea and will be an asset to the community.

• In my capacity as the Norwood School Healthy Start Coordinator, I meet regularlywith many parents in the community. The overwhelming consensus of people Ihave met with is that more affordable housing and community space to benefitneighborhood residents is desperately needed in our community. The proposedproject meets both. Though we wish there were more units in the proposed project,we understand the need to create affordable housing that fits in the historicalcontext of the neighborhood. We believe this project as proposed has a high qualitydesign, fits within the historic context and will be an asset to the area.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS

The subject case was filed before the City's Multiple Entitlement Ordinance became. effective in May of 2012. Consequently instead of one determination on the Certificate of

Compatibility, the Zoning Administrator's Adjustment and the Site Plan .Revlew-Determination, the Office of Historic Resources wrote and issued the Certificate ofCompatibility and the Office of Zoning Administration has issued the subject ZoningAdministrator's Adjustment and Site Plan Review. This is being mentioned because,though the Code considers the Zoning Administrator's Adjustment to be the superior case,the Certificate of Compatibility of the project to the University Park HPOZ's PreservationPlan is the determinant of most of the issues raised at the public hearing. The project'sheight, bulk, lot coverage, respect of historic prevailing setback and other issues regardingthe Preservation Plan are contained in the determination on the Certificate of Compatibility.This was issued on July 18, 2013 and subsequently appealed. The Zoning Administrator'sdecision in this case is somewhat limited to the adjustments to two of the required frontyards on this merged through lot. which under the interpretation of the Department of


Building and Safety has front yards on 21st Street, 20th Street and on the former front yardof Oak Street. What was traditionally the historic rear yard of the 6 former lots is now aside yard of the merged through lot. An adjustment to the required 6-foot side yard wasrequested and denied as shown in the following findings.

The second determination of the Zoning Administrator is a required action utilizing theprocedures of Section 16.05-E to H of the Municipal Code (the Site Plan ReviewOrdinance) to determine if the use of the site is permitted by the most restrictive adjoiningzone to the Public Facility Zone of the site. In this case, the zones adjoining the site arethe RD1.5 Zone which is adjacent to the site and southerly of it and the R3 Zone which isnortherly of the site and occupied by a commercial parking lot. The proposed project is a29 unit residential development which utilizes a density bonus to reach the 29 unit size ofthe project. Thus, this determination will be limited to addressing the use of the RD1.5Zone by this joint use project and the previously mentioned yards.

The Zoning Administrator has dismissed the request for a rear yard adjustment due to theunusual conformation of the lot on which the project is to be constructed. The site wasoriginally contained 6 lots which fronted on Oak Street and had normal front and rear yardsfacing Oak Street. When the LAUSD condemned the properties and built the presentparking lot on the site, the yards were merged by use thus making the site a through lotbetween 20th Street and 21st Street. Section 12.21-C, 1(h) of the LAMC requires thatsuch through lots have one front yard on each street. Thus, the 2 yards facing 20th and21st Streets are front yards of the site and need to abide by the 15-foot front yard of theRD1.5 Zone. In addition, Section 12.21-C, 1(e) of the LAMC requires that when lots aremerged and the resultant lot is less than one acre in size, the original front yard bemaintained as well as any new front yards resulting from the merger of lots. Thus, the OakStreet frontage remains a front yard for the project. Section 12.21-C, 1(e), however, onlyrefers to the front yard and makes no mention of the rear yard. Consequently, the projectsite contains 3 front yards facing 20th Street, Oak Street and 21st Street and no rear yard.With no rear yard on the site, the need for and adjustment from the rear yard is notrequired. The yard opposite the Oak Street front yard becomes the entire site's side yard.Because the subterranean garage for the project will cross ail of the lot lines of the former6 lots, the site remains one through lot tied by use. .

MANDATED FINDINGS

In order for an adjustment from the zoning regulations to be granted, all five of the legallymandated findings delineated in Section 12.28 ofthe Los Angeles Municipal Code must bemade in the affirmative. Following (highlighted) is a delineation of the findings and theapplication of the relevant facts of the case to same:

1. While site characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence tothe. zoning regulations impractical or infeasible, the project nonethelessconforms with the intent of those regulations.

Side Yard: The proposed project due to the six existing lots on the site being tied byuse now has three front yards on 20th Street, Oak Street and 21st Street and oneside where the six former rear yards were located. The project proposes to have a5-foot minimum side yard. Because Building NO.3 of the proposed project is threestories in height a 6-foot side yard is required for the project. The design of theproject shows that Building Nos 2, 3 and 6 have rear yards varying from 5 feet to 5


feet 2 inches. This Zoning Administrator can find no real hardship for the project notto meet the 6-foot side yard of the RD1.5 Zone. The structures are being newlydesigned so there is no impediment to the developer from meeting a 6-foot yard. Infact, meeting the required side yard for the project would help in reducing the lotcoverage ratio which is one of the main bones of contention for those who areopposed to this project. If the developer still desires to have the same squarefootage of the structures, they can always be built slightly wider for building No 6which observes a 27-foot front yard on 20th as formerly a side yard on 20th Street,is now a front yard for the entire project. Historic Sanborn Maps of the project siteshow that the former residence on the lot at the comer of 21st and Oak Streetsobserved a side yard for the HPOZ is sufficient reason for approving thisadjustment. The project maintains the Code required front yards along both OaksStreet and 20th Street and after denying the side yard setback request, it willmaintain the Code required side yard.

2. In light of the project as a whole, including any mitigation measures imposed,the project's location, size, height, operations and other significant featureswill be compatible with and will not adversely affect or further degradeadjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health,welfare and safety.

The project, as a whole, has already received a Certificate of Compatibility to theUniversity Park HPOZ Preservation Plan. The Zoning Administrator does notchoose to refute or diverge from the extensive findings of the Office of HistoricResources on the case which describe the project's location, size, height,operations and other significant features compatibility with the surroundingneighborhood. The approved front yard adjustment as was previously statedconforms to the former side yard of the structure which once existed on the lot andis in conformance with the HPOZ's Preservation Plan. The only difference betweenthe Certificate of Compatibility and the Zoning Administrator's Adjustment is in therejection of the side yard adjustment because the. Zoning Administrator could find110 good reason for the one foot adjustment on a lot of this size. All of the mitigationmeasures of the project's Mitigated Negative Declaration have been included iii theproject. The project itself will not affect the community's health, welfare and safetyas the project will consist of new construction which removes a large surfaceparking lot and its attendant heat island effect of a large area of asphalt adjacent toresidential development. The project as approved will meet all of the yardrequirements of the Municipal Code which are placed in the Code to encourage lightand air circulation between developed properties except for the southerly side yardwhich meets the depth of the former development on the site.

3. The project is in substantial conformance with the purpose, intent andprovisions of the General Plan, the applicable community plan and anyapplicable specific plan.

The Community Plan Designation for the subject site designates the property forPublic Facility Use with a corresponding zone of "PF". The property is owned by theLos Angeles Unified School District (LAUSO) and is currently used as a surfaceparking lot for the Norwood Elementary School which is located across Oak Streetfrom the site. The northern two-thirds of the site is also marked for various gamessuch as soft-ball, tether-ball and running lanes. Though designated for use by


public agencies, the PF Zone also permits joint public and private developments bythe agencywhich owns the property. The LAUSD has been involved in a numberofaffordable housing developments for its employees and local residents throughoutthe City as it seeks to get greater use out of some of its underutilized parking lotsand agricultural areas at high schools where horticultural classes are no longertaught. Section 12.04.09-B,9 permits these joint use projects if they are approvedby the Director of Planning according to the Site Plan Review procedures of Section16.05 and the proposed use is permitted in the most restrictive adjoining zone. Inthis case, the adjoining zones are RD1.5 and R3. The project is designed with adensity of the RD1.5 Zone and the use of a 35% Density Bonus for affordablehousing to reach its unit count of 29 units. Thus, the project is consistent with theland use designation of the Community Plan.

The project is consistent with the Housing Element because the Element states thatthe increase in housing supported by the element should occur on the City'sunderutilized commercial corridors, it should be pointed out that the project is butone block removed from the Washington Boulevard commercial and industrial strip,and pursuant to the requirements of the PF Zone is being developed at the densityof the most restrictive adjacent zone with the density bonus. In addition, the projecthas received a Certificate of Compatibility by the Office of Historic Resources forcompliance with the University Park HPOZ Preservation Plan for new structures inan HPOZ.

SITE PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS

Pursuant to LAMC Section 16.05, I have reviewed the subject development project andmake the following Site Plan Review findings based on the information contained in theapplication, reports received from other departments, supplemental written documentssubmitted and review of environmental impacts associated with the project.

4. The project is in SUbstantial conformance with the purposes, intent andprovisions ofthe General Plan, applicable community plan and any applicablespecific plan. .

Finding No.3 above states the projects conformance with the General Plan, theCommunity Plan and any applicable specific plan or in this case the University ParkHPOZ. Section 12.04.09-B,9 of Zoning Code permits joint private/public partnershipprojects when the Director of Planning approves them using the procedures andfindings of the Site Plan Review Ordinance (Section 16.05 of the LAMC). Suchprojects are to be consistent with those that would be permitted in the mostrestrictive adjoining zone. Unfortunately, the findings required of Section 16.05 donot really address the use of the most restrictive adjacent zone to the PF Zone forpublic/private partnerships. Thus, the Zoning Administrator finds that the RD1.5Zone is the most restrictive zone that adjoins the subject site. The NorwoodElementary School campus which includes the subject site is zoned for PF uses. Itis located one block south of the commercial and industrial strip of land which isadjacent to Washington Boulevard. The closest zones to the site are a remainderR3 zoned property on the northerly side of 20th Street which is used as a parking lotfor the industrial property fronting on Washington Boulevard. The remainder oftheentire area between Washington Boulevard, Figueroa Street, Adams Boulevard andHoover Street is zoned for RD1.5 residential uses exceptfor the commercial strips


along Washington Boulevard and Hoover Street, the R4 Zone containing thecampus of Mt. St. Mary's College and the PF Zone for Frank Lanterman HighSchool and two OS zones which contain public parks. Thus, the use of the RD1.5Zone is the most appropriate zone for determining the use of a joint public/privateproject in the PF Zone.

A comment was received at the public hearing that the most appropriate zone fordetermining the use a public/private project should be based on the builtenvironment of the area not the zone since the zone would allow the highestdensity. The Zoning Administrator has considered this comment, but becauseSection 12.04.09-8, 9 refers to "development uses permitted in the most restrictiveadjoining zone" and notto development uses ofthe adjacent properties, it has been

. determined that the use of the RD1.5 Zone is appropriate for the subjectdevelopment.

5. The project consists of an arrangement of buildings and structures (includingheight, bulk and setbacks), off-street parking facilities, loading areas, lighting,landscaping, trash collection and other such pertinent improvements, that areor will be compatible with existing and future development on adjacentproperties and neighboring properties.

The project consists of an arrangement of buildings (including height, bulk andsetbacks) off-street parking facilities, lighting, landscaping, trash collection and otherpertinent improvements that are compatible with existing development on adjacentproperties. The Office of Historic Resources has already granted a Certificate ofCompatibility with surrounding development in the University Park HPOZ. TheCertificate's findings indicate that the height and bulk of the buildings is consistentwith those found on the prevailing block between 20th and 21st Street. "Themajority of the historic residences are two or two-and-a-half stories in height. Fiveof the six proposed new structures are two stories in height, with the sixth structurebeing three stories. The total height of all proposed structures does not exceed 33feet. The proposed project is scaled down into six historically compatible buildingsto minimize the overall massing and scale of the project, maintaining compatibilitywith the existing historic residences in the surrounding block. The proposed projectis composed of six building modules to minimize the overall mass of the project.Each building is further articulated by recessed front porches with sloping roof formsand roof dormer areas. The tallest proposed building is located at the middle of thesite, away from 20th and 21st Streets, and has been designed such that its thirdfloor massing is located towards the rear of the building, away from the mainfacade. This, along with the use of sloped gambrel roofs, helps to minimize thepotential perceived bulk of the building." A major point of contention with theproposed project has been the lot coverage of the development. Though lotcoverage is not a part of the site plan review findings, it is an important componentofthe findings for height and bulk. The Certificate's determination found: "Althoughthe project exceeds the recommended 35% lot coverage of the Preservation Plan,open areas dominate the interstitial space between buildings to create an open siteplan typical of the historic development patterns ofthe neighborhood. Additionally,the wider lot coverage of the site allows the units to be arranged in a low-riseconfiguration instead of having to accommodate the units in a single high-risestructure, which is more in keeping with the historic pattern. In Exhibit B (of theCertificate of Compatibility Determination), the 'Historic 1922 Sanbom Map with


Project Footprint Overlay' map shows that the six-detached building configurationproposed for the development, with the building frontages oriented primarily towardsOak Street, is compatible with the footprints and site plans of the previousdevelopment on the site."

The project setbacks are consistent with the existing development in theneighborhood and the requirements of the RD1.5 Zone as modified by the ZoningAdministrator's Adjustment. Because ofthe reconfiguration of the lots due to theirbeing tied by use, the property now has three front yards and one side yard. Theyards along Oak and 20th Streets conform to the historic development on the siteand exceed the setbacks required by the RD1.5 Zone. The setbacks along 21stStreet are less than required by the RD1.5 Zone, but they are consistent with thehistoric side-yard of the previous development on the site before the LAUSDdemolished the structure on the site. The requested t-foot reduction in the required6-foot side yard was denied by the Zoning Administrator because it was self-inflictedby the developer and could have been avoided by minor design changes to theproject.

Parkilig facilities for the project will be located in a subterranean parking lot whichwill be built under all six lots on the site thus tying them together by common useand building. The lot will accommodate all of the Code required parking for theresidential facility as well as accommodate parking for up to 40 employees ofNorwood Elementary School. The subterranean parking will allow the full site to belandscaped except for where buildings and hardscape will be located. TheLandscape Plan's under the Certificate of Compatibility will be subject to review bythe HPOZ Board prior to final approval. There currently are no trees on the site atthe moment because of its use as a parking lot and playground for the school.There area number of perimeter trees on the public. right-of-way which will bepreserved on the site per Condition 2d of the Certificate of Compatibility ..

Outdoor lighting is required to be located and designed to-reduce 'direct lighting onneighboring properties and any light sources shall be designed such that the lightsource cannot be seen from adjacent properties.

As has been previously stated in these findings and the findings of the approvedCertificate of Compatibility, the project is compatible with existing development inthe neighborhood. The development of adjacent properties in the RD1.5 Zone inthe area of the HPOZ are controlled by the strictures of the HPOZ's PreservationPlan for addltions : to existing buildings and the need for a Certificate ofAppropriateness pursuant to Section 12.20.3 of the LAMC. Dernolltion andsubsequent construction on a site with a contributing building in the HPOZ would besubject to a Certificate of Appropriateness from the South Area PlanningCommission for the demolition as well as the writing of an Environmental ImpactReport for the removal of any contributing structures within the HPOZ. This willsomewhat constrain new construction in the area. A Draft Environmental ImpactReport has recently been released for the demolition of an existing industrialbuilding on Washington Boulevard and an adjacent parking lot which is locatedacross the street from the subject site. That project is for a 6-building, 142-unitcondominium project built to the R3 density with a 28% density bonus. Thatdevelopment will be built to a proposed 3:1 FAR pursuant to an off-menudevelopment incentive in lieu of the CM Zone's 1.5:1 FAR. The subject project on

·~---~---------- -- ---~------------------


the campus of Norwood Elementary School's parking/play lot is 2'0% of theproposed size of this new development proposal and less than less than one half ofthe height of the largest building on the site.

6. Any residential project provides recreational and service amenities to improvehabitability for its residents and minimize impacts on neighboring properties.

The residential project does provide recreational and service amenities to improvethe habitability of the project for its residents in that it provides ample open spaceareas on the site by building the development in individual buildings with amplesetbacks between the structures. Besides the front yard setbacks on 20th Streetand Oak Street which exceed the is-foot required setback of the RD1.S Zone, thereare two open space areas in the interior of the project of 2,703 square feet and1,048 square feet as well as a 2,800 square-foot interior Community Area in thecentral Building No.3. This 2,800-square foot Community Area was required as apart of the RFP put out by the LAUSD for soliciting proposals for developing the site.The Community Area is for the use of the development as well as a leaming centerand computer lab area for the community. Objections have been raised to the useof this area as well as the below grade parking lot for the residents and the schoolbecause it is allowing non-residential uses on a lot which is using a residential zoneto determine the public/private use of the site. It should be pointed out that theproperty is still owned by the LAUSD which is allowing the joint use of it by adeveloper and the school district. As the zone remains PF, such uses by theLAUSD are permissible as the land remains under their control. This action is

.consistent with other LAUSD joint projects such as at Gardena High School where asimilar workforce housing development was built along with a joint use facility for theschool's art collection.

ADDITIONAL MANDATORY FINDINGS

7. The National Flood Insurance Program rate maps, which area part of the FloodHazard Management Specific Plan adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No.172,081, have been reviewed and it has been determined that this project is locatedin Zone C, areas of minimal flooding.

8. On October 18, 2012, the Department of City Planning issued a Mitigated NegativeDeclaration No. ENV-2012-83-MND. Due to a change in the project description andthe required entitlements, the Department republished the MND on April 18, 2013,but it made no changes in the areas of impact.

Subsequent to the October 18,2012 and April 18, 2013 dates of MND's publicationa number of comments were received on the adequacy ofthe MND. The commentsare summarized here and a response to them is included in the following commentsand responses.

Aesthetics

COMMENT: The Department states that "since the project is an infill project amongother like developments, it will not substantially degrade the eXisting visualcharacter." There are NO like developments in the vicinity. All of the adjacentstructures along 20th Street are of a single family residence built form are used

substantially as single family homes and duplexes for an average density of 1.7units per lot. On 21st Street there is less homogeneity of development; however,there are no structures with more than 10 units (this project proposes 29 units on sixlots) and upon review one sees that many of these units on 21st Street are in alowered profile bungalow court setting.

RESPONSE: The project was designed as a 29 unit development over 6 existinglots which have been and will be tied by use. The 29 unit development is permittedby Section 12.04.09-8,9 which regulates joint public/private developments in the PFZone. As was previously found in this case, the RD1.5 Zone is the most restrictiveadjacent zone to the site and a Density Bonus is permitted by both State and locallaw. The project's density is divided among 6 structures which averages out to 4.8units per building with the structure in the center of the development with 13 and thecommunity room. While the 29 unit development may seem excessive for the area,it should be pointed out that on the 21st Street frontage of the subject block thereare 5 lots which contain multiple family buildings. These lots at 921,929, 935, 939and the corner lot with Toberman Avenue contain 4, 10, 10, 9 and 5 unitsrespectively. On 20th Street, the structure at 920 contains 4 units. The 4-unitbuilding at 921 21st Street was built in the 1970's and did not have hew to thehistoric form of the neighborhood because it was developed prior-to the passage ofthe HPOZ. The two lots with 10 unit developments were built in the 1920's and dohave the low profile bungalow look, but they tale up 63% of the lot area which is farin excess of the subject project's 48% which is one of the major points of conflict onthe project. The percentage of lot area taken up by the main structures on all ofthese lots is 48% at 921, 63% at 929,63% at 935,47% at 939 and 47% on thecorner lot. All of these properties are on 21st Street which though not in the NationalHistoric District is one of the block faces for which comparisons are made. Thestructure at 920 20th Street occupies 62% of the lot area. These calculations aremade from Assessors data and list the square footage of the main buildings on thelot not including accessory structures. Thus, it can be seen thatthe lot coverage ofthe subject development is consistent with other projects on the immediate block onwhich the project is to be developed. Because of the tied lots and the fact that thestructures will be built over lot lines, comparisons on a unit per lot basis are difficultto make. However, if one divided the number of lots of the development into the 29units, the project averages out to 4.8 units per lot which is consistent with the 5properties analyzed in this comment.

COMMENT: It is stated in the Land Use and Planning Impact Area that the project"will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, there will be no impact." Thispresumes that the project will be approved by the University Park HPOZ Board asmeeting the requirements of the HPOZ's Preservation Plan which they did not. TheSouth Los Angeles Community Plan also has a Community Design Overlay Zonewhich requires housing developments of 5 or more units to be compatible with andconsistent with the character of the community. Character includes a design thatreflects the architectural styles.masslnq, height, site plan and lot coverage and tosome extent the housing density of the adjacent neighborhood. Character is notdefined by the zoning. Finally, the project is not compliant with the General Plan'sHousing Element which indicates that the mandated additional 113,000 units to bebuilt citywide should be located primarily on Los Angeles's many underutilizedcommercial corridors and not within the City's character neighborhoods. The intent

CASE NO. ZA 2012-1216(ZAA}(SPR) PAGE 22

---.-.~- ---

CASE NO.lA 2012-1216(ZAA)(SPR) PAGE 23

being to build in higher-intensity commercial corridors and while maintaining theneighborhood character of communities such as University Park.

RESPONSE: The project though recommended for denial by the HPOZ Board wasapproved by the decision maker, the Director of Planning, as being consistent withthe University Park HPOZ Preservation Plan. The Determination made specificfindings as to how the project met the design, character, lot orientation, landscape,setback, massing, height and lot coverage requirements of the Preservation Plan.There is little objection to the architectural design of the project which meets thelook of the Craftsman and Dutch Colonial styles of housing which occur in theUniversity Park area. The major objections to the project are over yard setbacks,height, floors and lot coverage. The block bounded by Oak, 21st, Toberman and20th Streets is the predominant block to which the project is compared.

Setbacks: The proposed project has a 21.1-foot average setback on 20th Streetwith a minimum setback of 15 feet 2 inches and a maximum of 27 feet. Thisexceeds the Code's 15-foot front yard setback of the RD1.5 Zone thus no requestwas made for an Adjustment to this yard. The proposed front yard setback on 20thaverages 21.1 feet with a minimum of 15 feet at one location and a maximum of 27feet on what was once the side yard setback on the merged corner lot of 20th andOak Streets which was 18 feet on the 1922 Sanborn Insurance Map. This proposedyard meets or exceeds the historic side yard in all but one area. The prevailingsetback average on the remainder of the 20th Street block face is 26 to 30 feet;however, this block face constitutes the front yards of these structures and theproposed project was meeting the historic side yard of a corner lot in conformancewith the Sanborn Maps which the HPOZ Board had asked the developer to follow.The Oak Street frontage of the project will supply a 18.4-foot average front yardsetback which exceeds the RD1.5 Zone's 15-front yard requirement. The i8.4-footaverage also exceeds the 1922 Sanborn Map's average of 17 feet. Building NO.3in the middle ofthe lot with a i6-foot t t-lnch setback on one wing and an 1B-footB-inch setback on the other is the only structure with a large difference in setback fromthe 1922, 24-foot setback for the original building. The remaining new structures onthe block either exceed the historic setback or are within 1 or 2 feet of the historicsetback. The 21st Street setback for Building No.1 is 8 feet 6 inches whichexceeds the historic 7-foot 8-inch setback of the 1922 Sanborn Map. The 21stStreet frontage was the historic side yard for the former structure on the site.Because of the reqonfiguration of the yards for the new development the formerside yard has become the third front yard of the project. This required the project tofile for a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment for a smaller front yard setback than isrequired by the RD1.5 Zone. Though narrower than the required front yard of theCode, it is consistent with the historic yard of the site. The proposed front yard isinconsistent with the existing front yards of existing development on 21st Streetwhich ranges from 3 feet to 34 feet and averages 14 feet, but the historic propertyon the site only had a side yard setback of 7 feet 5 inches and the project which isoriented toward Oak Street meets the historic side yard setback.

Height: The proposed project contains 6 buildings with heights ranging from 25 to33 feet with an average height of 29.B feet. Unfortunately, the heights of three ofthe original buildings on the site are unavailable. Building and Safety Permitresearch by Mr. Jim Childs, one of the project opponents did turn up the height ofthree of the structures which were 27, 26 and 23 feet 6 inches in height. Two of


these structures were two stories in height and the third was one story. Theremaining structures were one, two and two stories in height with no listed height.Because of the lack of data on the remaining three structures it is difficult to make adetermination that the proposed project exceeds the height ofthe former structures.The remaining structures on the block faces of 20th and 21st Street range in heightfrom 14 feetfor two bungalow apartment complexes on 21st Streetto 38 feettall fora 2.5-story building. There are five other structures on the subject blocks which are33 feet in height. Thus, the proposed project's building heights are consistent withexisting development on the block as the average height is 29.8 feet with the tallestbuilding being 33 feet.

Floors: The major objection to the project's number of floors is in Building No.3which is 3 stories high. It has been pointed out that there are no other 3-storybuildings on the block. The project's architect, however, in doing a field survey ofthe area as well as project staff noted that there are 4 other buildings on the blockwith attics which contain habitable rooms thus, making them 3 story buildings. A 5thstructure includes an attic which is not inhabited but is high enough to allowhabitable rooms to be placed in it. Thus, there is precedent for 3 story structures onthe block even if the original buildings were not built as such. The Department ofBuilding and Safety considers a level of a building to be a floor if it containshabitable rooms. Thus, the 2.5 story structures with habitable rooms in the attic areconsidered to be 3 story structures. The 3rd floor on the subject building isdesigned in such a way that the 3rd floor is contained within the tall roof line of thestructure and is viewable from the street only because of the gables ofthe structurewhich contain the residential unit's window walls. Thus, with 5 out of the block's 13former single-family homes built with the high inhabited attic or the equivalent, thereis precedence on the block for such a structure, and this structure though not thenorm is certainly not the exception.

Lot Coverage: As was stated in the previous response, 6 of the 15 lots on 20th and21st Streets contain developments that range from 47 to 63% lot coverage. One ofthe structures in the 20th Street National Historic District contains 62% lot coverage.Thus, the project's proposed 48% lot coverage falls well within the lot coverages ofexisting development on the block. It should be pointed out that one of thementioned lots contains a non-contributing building to the HPOZ. The 3 that containstructures that are over 60% coverage are contributing structures and one of theselots' is contained within the National Historic District. Thus, again there isprecedence for the lot coverage of the project on the subject block. In addition, theproject's 6 buildings break up the bulk of the project so that it does not overwhelmnearby projects as a monolithic structure may do.

COMMENT: Two comments were received which made the argument that therecommendation of the HPOZ Board againstthe project constituted a disagreementbetween experts and the finding by the Department of City Planning that the projectcomplies with the Preservation Plan and the Community Plan should either beamended or an EIR be processed due to the disagreement.

RESPONSE: The Department acknowledges that the University Park HPOZ Boardconstitutes a knowledgeable body about activity, design and enforcement of theguidelines of the Preservation Plan for the Historic District. They are also arecommending body to the Director of Planning as to compliance with the Plan.


However, Section 12.20.3-N of the Municipal Code also limits members of HPOZBoards from filing appeals of the Board's actions unless the developer is also amember of the Board. In this case, it is proposed that the Board in recommendingdenial of the Certificate of Compatibility can then challenge the CEQA finding thatthe project complies with the Preservation Plan. The effect is the same in that theBoard not satisfied with the Director's decision on the case could challenge theenvironmental finding and thus delay or otherwise challenge the project. TheZQning Administrator in approving the project and the MND believes that the findingof staff is adequate for the purposes of his determination. The Director has ruled onthe consistency of the project in issuing the Certificate of Compatibility, testimony onthe project has shown its compatibility with previous development on the subject lotsof the project and in the remainder of the block and the Zoning Administrator's ownanalysis of compatibility of lot coverage between the project and existingdevelopment on the block using County Tax Assessor information and theDepartment of City Planning's Zone Map Information System have led the ZoningAdministrator to approve the MND.

This Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the leadagency and determined that this project would not have a significant effect upon theenvironment provided the potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significantlevel. I hereby adopt that action. The custodian of the documents or other materialwhich constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision is based arelocated with the City of Los Angeles, Planning Department located at 200 NorthSpring Street, 50, Los Angeles, California 90012.

H, JR.Associate Zoning drninistratorDirectTelephone No. (213) 978-1306

CJR:lrnc

cc: Council member Gilbert CedilloFirst District

Adjoining Property Owners

o h o c - government of los...

Documents