DIR-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1A

88 Pages·2017·10.7 MB·English

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
West Los Angeles
Area Planning Commission
Case No.: DIR-2017-2330-CDP-MEL-1A
Date: March 21, 2018
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1 A
Time: After 4:30 p.m.*
CEQA No.: ENV-2016-2331-CE
Place: Henry Medina West LA Parking
Enforcement Facility
Council No.: 11 - Mike Bonin
11214 W. Exposition Blvd., 2nd Floor
Plan Area: Venice
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Specific Plan: Venice Coastal Zone
Certified NC: Venice
Public Hearing: September 18, 2017 GPLU: Commercial Artcraft
Appeal Status: Not further appealable to CPC Zone: C2-1-0-CA
or City Council pursuant to
LAMC Section 12.20.2 Appellant: Sue Kaplan & Robin Rudisill
Representative: N/A
Expiration Date: April 4, 2018
Applicant: Bulldog Realtors
Representative: Joel Blank & Wil Nieves
PROJECT 1209 South Abbot Kinney Boulevard
LOCATION:
PROPOSED A change of use of a one-story 1,107 square-foot residence to one artist-in-residence
PROJECT: dwelling unit, the addition of 366 square feet to the ground floor, and a new second and
third story, resulting in a three-story 4,111 square-foot artist-in-residence dwelling in the
single permit jurisdiction of the California Coastal Zone; two covered parking spaces are
provided.
REQUESTED An appeal of the joint determination of the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator
ACTION: to approve a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code
(LAMC) Section 12.20.2, a Project Permit Compliance Review pursuant to LAMC Section
11.5.7, a Mello Act Compliance Review pursuant to Pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65590 and 65590.1, and a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment pursuant to
Section 12.28, and an appeal of Categorical Exemption ENV-2016-2331-CE, for the
proposed change of use and addition within the single permit jurisdiction of the California
Coastal Zone.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. DENY the appeal; and
2. SUSTAIN the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator joint determination to conditionally approve
a Coastal Development Permit, Project Permit Compliance Review, Mello Act Compliance Review, and
Zoning Administrator's Adjustments, for a change of use of an existing single-family residence to artist-
DI R-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1 A
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1 A Page2
in-residence, in conjunction with a partial demolition and the construction of a new second and third level,
resulting in a 4, 111 square-foot residential structure; and
3. DETERMINE based on the whole of the administrative record, that the Project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 and the City
of Los Angeles CEQA Guidelines Article Ill, Section 1, Class 1, Category 5 and there is no substantial
evidence demonstrating that an exception to a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15300.2 applies.
VINCENT. P. BERTONI, AICP
Director of Planning
F
Associate Zoning Administrator
:::r
Debbie Lawrence, AICP, Senior City Planner
au, Planning Assistant
K [email protected]
ADVICE TO PUBLIC: * The exact time this report will be considered during the meeting is uncertain since there may be
several other items on the agenda. Written communications may be mailed to the Commission Secretariat, Room 532, City
Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 (Phone No. 213-978-1300). While all written communications are
given to the Commission for consideration, the initial packets are sent to the Commission's Office a week prior to the
Commission's meeting date. If you challenge these agenda items in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the public hearing agendized herein, or in written correspondence on these matters delivered
to the agency at or prior to the public hearing. As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
City of Los Angeles does not discriminate. The meeting facility and its parking are wheelchair accessible. Sign language
interpreters, assistive listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or other services may be provided upon request. To
ensure availability of services, please make your request at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting by calling the City
Planning Commission Office at [phone].
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Analysis .................................................................................................................... A-1
Appellate Decision
Project Summary
Appeal Points and Staff Response
Conclusion
Exhibits:
Exhibit A Appeal Application
D1R-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1A & ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1A
Exhibit B Director's Determination
DIR-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP & ZA-2017-2340-ZAA
Exhibit C Approved Project Plans (Exhibit A)
Exhibit D Categorical Exemption ENV-2016-2331-CE
Exhibit E Streetscape Character Analysis
Exhibit F Vicinity and Radius Map
Exhibit G Venice Neighborhood Council Recommendation Letter
Exhibit H Email from Robin Murez regarding Tabor Irving Placard Sign
Exhibit I Correspondence
D1R-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1A
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1 A A-1
PROJECT ANALYSIS
APPELLATE DECISION
Pursuant to Section 12.20.2 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), appeals of Coastal
Development Permit cases are made to the Area Planning Commission. The appellate decision
of the Area Planning Commission is final and effective as provided in Charter Section 245.
Appeals of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are made to the City Council.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The proposed project is located at 1209 Abbot Kinney Boulevard within the North Venice subarea
of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan Area. The C2-1-0-CA zoned lot is designated
Commercial Artcraft. Abbot Kinney Boulevard consists of a mix of older one- and two-story
commercial structures, many of which are single-family dwellings that have been converted to
commercial retail uses. There are several three-story structures along the boulevard, including a
three-story mixed use development located at the northwest corner of Abbot Kinney Boulevard
and San Juan Avenue.
The proposed project involves a change of use of an existing single-family residence to artist-in
residence, in conjunction with a partial demolition and the construction of a new second and third
level, resulting in a 4, 111 square-foot residential structure; two parking spaces are provided. The
project is in conjunction with a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment to permit a westerly side yard
of O feet in lieu of the required 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 5 feet in lieu of the required 15
feet.
APPEAL POINTS AND STAFF RESPONSE
The City issued a joint determination approving a Coastal Development Permit, Zoning
Administrator's Adjustments, Project Permit Compliance Review, and Mello Act Compliance
Review for the proposed project on January 4, 2018. One appeal was filed in a timely manner on
January 19, 2018.
Appeal Point No. 1.
The appellant states that the letter sent to Interested Parties did not include Exhibit A, claiming
that this is a due process violation.
Response to Appeal Point No. 1
The notification procedures for Coastal Development Permits state the following:
A copy of the permit granting authority's action approving, conditionally approving, or
disapproving any application for a Coastal Development Permit, along with any findings
made and conditions imposed in connection therewith, shall be mailed to the applicant
and any person or persons who, in writing, request a copy of such action. (LAMC Section
12.20.2 G.3)
The notification procedures for Zoning Administrator's Adjustments state the following:
A copy of the determination shall be mailed to the applicant, and to the owners of all
properties abutting, across the street or alley from, or having a common corner with the
subject property, and to all persons who have filed written requests for notice with the
Office of Zoning Administration. (LAMC Section 12.28-3)
DI R-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1 A
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1 A A-2
The code requires that the City's notification include a copy of the permit/determination along with
any findings made and conditions imposed. This requirement is hereby met through the mailing
of the original determination. Members of the public may schedule an appointment to review the
case files; in addition, the plans are often available for review during or after our public hearings.
Therefore, the Director of Planning did not err in satisfying the notification requirements and there
is no evidence of due process violations.
Appeal Point No. 2
The appellant asserts that the property is a real estate agency and does not meet the definition
of an artist-in-residence.
Response to Point No. 2
The Venice Land Use Plan, Specific Plan, nor the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides a
definition of an artist-in-residence use (AIR). However, the use of an artist-in-residence dwelling
unit is similar to that of a Joint Living and Work Quarters, defined in LAMC Section 12.03 as a
residential occupancy of one or more rooms or floors used as a dwelling unit with adequate work
space reserved for, and regularly used by, one or more persons residing there.
The proposed artist-in-residence dwelling unit, or Joint Living and Work Quarters, meets the intent
and purpose of Policy 1.8.3 (Commercial Artcraft Land Use Designation) of the Venice Land Use
Plan, which allows the following uses: Artcraft activities including mixed-use, combining
residential and commercial uses which emphasize artist-in-residence uses, small businesses,
light industrial and artisan activities are permitted in these areas. Drive-thru facilities and
billboards shall be prohibited in the Commercial Artcraft land use designation. The proposed
artist-in-residence dwelling unit (Joint Living and Work Quarters) is permitted in the C2 zone,
which allows for Joint Living and Work Quarters for real estate and travel agents.
An AIR dwelling unit, is in fact (primarily) a dwelling unit. The "work" portion of the structure is not
a separate (leasable) space with a different use. The unit functions as one residential space rather
than a typical mixed use structure that has a separate commercial tenant space and physically
separate dwelling unit(s); the intensity of use of the site is expected to be far less than a structure
containing a commerc;ial and residential use to be occupied by separate tenants.
Therefore, the parking required for the AIR dwelling unit in the Venice Land Use Plan and Specific
Plan aligns with the parking requirements for residential uses, two spaces are required for each
AIR dwelling unit.
Appeal Point No. 3
The appellant claims that the property is a historic resource and that an Environmental Impact
Report should be prepared to consider feasible alternatives. The applicant supports this claim by
stating that the craftsman style home was built in 1913. The appellant states "the property is on
the stretch of Abbot Kinney Boulevard between Venice and Brooks Avenue, which has been
identified through the coordinated efforts of surveys performed by the Venice Historical Society,
Venice Community, State Coastal Conservancy, and City of Los Angeles, as a significant
architectural, historical, and cultural landmark in the Venice Coastal Zone."
Response to Appeal Point No. 3
The project proposes a change of use and addition to a residential structure located on Abbot
Kinney Boulevard, a busy corridor developed with commercial and residential uses. Policy I.F.1
of the Venice LUP identifies the portion of Abbot Kinney Boulevard between Venice Boulevard
OIR-2016-2330-CDP-M EL-SPP-1A
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1 A A-3
and Brooks Avenue as a "significant architectural, historical, and cultural landmark in the Venice
Coastal Zone."
The State's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15064.5) provide a
framework for determining what properties are considered "historical resources" for purposes of
CEQA as well as determining if a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource. The term "historical resource" is used when the property
meets the terms and definitions in Section 21084.1 of the CEQA Statute and Section 15064.5 of
the Guidelines as follows:
DESIGNATED RESOURCES: Historical resources include properties listed in or formally
determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California
Register of Historical Resources, and locally designated Historic-Cultural Monuments
(HCMs) and Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (HPOZs).
SURVEYED RESOURCES: Historical resources also include properties identified as
significant in a historical resources survey meeting certain criteria. This includes properties
identified as meeting eligibility criteria in SurveyLA and Community Redevelopment
Agency (CRA) surveys.
OTHER: Additionally, properties that have not been designated and have not previously
been identified as significant in a survey, but are otherwise determined to be historically
significant based on substantial evidence, would be considered historical resources.
The building at 1209 Abbot Kinney meets none of the above definitions and thus is not considered
a historic resource pursuant to CEQA. The project site and the existing structure onsite are not
listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources.
The site is neither designated as a Historic-Cultural Monument nor located within a Historic
Preservation Overlay Zone. The property is not identified in SurveyLA. No evidence (historic
assessments, surveys, analysis by historic experts etc.) was provided by the appellant.
On May 25, 2017, Project Planning staff contacted the Office of Historic Resources (OHR)
requesting additional review of the structure due certain qualities - its craftsman style design,
building age, and informational placard located in front yard - that suggest historic significance.
Project Planning staff met with OHR staff to discuss whether the historic status of the site as well
as the design. OHR staff confirmed that the project is not listed in SurveyLA nor is it within a
historic district or HPOZ. OHR staff was amenable to the design because it preserves the
craftsman fac;:ade while adding massing to the rear of the property.
Planning Staff investigated the placard sign in front of the property and found no historic
significance relating to the site. Robin Murez, the artist who installed the sign, submitted an email
(Exhibit H) on August 16, 2017 to clarify that the intent of the sign was to promote public art.
Planning staff met with OHR staff on February 15, 2018 to discuss whether a historic resource
assessment was needed. OHR confirmed that a historic resource assessment was not required
because such assessment would have already been done per SurveyLA, which is the most recent
and comprehensive survey of historic resources within the City. In addition, OHR staff confirmed
on February 15, 2018 that a historic resource assessment prepared by an expert would be needed
in order to evaluate the appellant's claim that the property is historically significant.
While the applicant claims that the property is identified as a historic resource, there is no
evidence of any historic status pertaining to the site or building. The SurveyLA Historic Resource
Survey Report for Venice, released in 2015, is the most recent and comprehensive survey used
in the City to identify potential historic resources. Several properties along Abbot Kinney are listed
as individual resources; however, the property at 1209 Abbot Kinney is not listed in SurveyLA.
D1R-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1A
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1 A A-4
Additionally, SurveyLA designates Abbot Kinney Boulevard as a planning district but explicitly
states that it is not a historic district:
Despite its significance, the Abbot Kinney Boulevard Commercial Planning District does
not possess sufficient integrity to qualify as a historic district. Many of the district's original
buildings have undergone some degree of alteration or have been replaced with newer
construction, which has compromised the cohesion and integrity of the district as a whole.
However, the district retains its overall scale and pedestrian orientation which help to
convey the feeling of an early-20th century neighborhood commercial center. For these
reasons, this area may warrant special consideration for local planning purposes.
(SurveyLA; April 2, 2015)
Therefore, the Director did not err in determining the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption
and substantial evidence was not submitted to support the claim that the existing structure is a
historic resource.
Appeal Point No. 4 .
The appellant claims that the findings do not address compatibility with the surrounding existing
neighborhood. The appellant states that a three-story structure will not be compatible with the
existing neighborhood.
Response to Appeal Point No. 4
The height and scale of the proposed project is similar to other newer developments along Abbot
Kinney Boulevard. Abbot Kinney Boulevard consists of a mix of older one- and two-story
commercial structures, many of which are single-family dwellings that have been converted to
commercial retail uses. There are a few three-story structures along the boulevard, including a
three-story mixed use development located at the northwest corner of Abbot Kinney Boulevard
and San Juan Avenue. Artists-in-residence dwellings north of Abbot Kinney Boulevard are largely
three-stories in height. The addition of a third story in the rear of an existing property would have
an immaterial impact to the overall character of the existing neighborhood; much of the bulk and
massing is stepped back from the favade.
The juxtaposition of modern and traditional styles is compatible within this neighborhood context;
the preservation of the favade coupled with the modern addition to the rear is in character with
the Venice's streetscape. Venice is a community renowned for its assortment of architectural
styles, as indicated in the certified LUP:
Venice's unique social and architectural diversity should be protected as a Special Coastal
Community pursuant to Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976. (Policy I.E.1)
Varied styles of architecture are encouraged with building facades with incorporate varied
planes and textures while maintaining the neighborhood scale and massing. (Policy I.E.3)
Therefore, the Director did not err in finding that the project is compatible with the mass, scale,
and character of the existing neighborhood.
Appeal Point No. 5
The appellant claims that the project would be materially detrimental to the adjoining lots and the
immediate neighborhood because the proposed three-story structure with a zero-foot side yard
setback is incompatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood.
DIR-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1A
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1 A A-5
Response to Appeal Point No. 5
In granting the requested yard adjustments, the Zoning Administrator considered the scale and
character of the existing neighborhood with respect to side yards and height. Structures along
Abbot Kinney Boulevard are often built with reduced side and rear yards. Previous requests for
similar adjustments have been historically granted for artist-in-residence along Abbot Kinney
Boulevard:
ZA-2005-1330-CDP-ZAA-SPP - A property located at 1309-1311 Abbot Kinney Boulevard was
granted a Coastal Development Permit for a three-story artist-in-residence unit, in conjunction
with a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment to permit 0-foot side yards in lieu of the required 5 feet
and 0-foot rear yards in lieu of the required 15 feet.
ZA-2003-9142-CDP-M1 I ZA-2014-7451-ZAA-SPPA -A property located at 1319 Abbot Kinney
Boulevard was granted a Coastal Development Permit for a three-story mixed-use building
containing retail space and Artist-in-Residence space, in conjunction with a 0-foot westerly side
yard in lieu of the required 4 feet.
ZA-2001-2591-CDP-ZAD-ZAA-SPP -A property located at 1136 Abbot Kinney Boulevard, across
the street from the subject property, was granted a Coastal Development Permit for a three-story,
35-foot in height building containing two artist-in-residence units in conjunction with a Zoning
Administrator's Adjustment to permit a reduced side yards setback of 3 feet in lieu of the required
5 feet and rear yard setbacks of 13 feet in lieu of the required 15 feet.
Therefore, the Zoning Administrator did not err in approving a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment
to permit a reduced side yard and rear yard.
Appeal Point No. 6
The appellant asserts that the project violates the Mello Act by converting a residential to non
residential use.
Response to Appeal Point No 6.
The project proposes a change of use from a single-family dwelling to an artist-in-residence
dwelling, both of which are residential uses. The Interim Administrative Procedures defines a
Residential Unit as:
A dwelling unit, efficiency dwelling unit, or joint living and working quarters as defined in
Section 12. 03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; a mobilehome, as defined in Section
18008 of the California Health and Safety Code; a mobilehome lot in a mobilehome park
as defined in Section 18214 of the California Health and Safety Code, or a residential hotel
as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 50519 of the California Health
and Safety Code.
Finding No. 12 and 13 of the Director's Determination provides the following discussion regarding
the Mello Act Compliance Review:
A Mello Act Determination issued by the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment
Department (HG/DLA) dated April 10, 2017 states that no affordable units exist onsite.
The property currently maintains one single-family dwelling owned by Island Boy Trust,
who received the property through a related party transfer from Winston Cenac on June
5, 2012. The owner provided utility bills, property tax statements, a phone bill, and
mortgage bills addressed to the property. These documents are sufficient to prove owner
occupancy for the past three years. HCID determined that, based on this information, no
affordable units are required to replace under the Mello Act. Therefore, no Affordable
D1R-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1A
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1A A-6
Existing Residential Units are proposed for demolition or conversion and the applicant is
not required to provide any Affordable Replacement Units. Pursuant to Part 2. 4. 2 of the
Interim Administrative Procedures, developments which consist of nine or fewer
Residential Units are Small New Housing Developments and are categorically exempt
from the lnclusionary Residential Unit requirement. Therefore, the proposed development
of one new Residential Unit is found to be categorically exempt from the lnclusionary
Residential Unit requirement for New Housing Developments.
Therefore, the Director did not err in finding that the project complies with the Mello Act; the project
involves the conversion of a single-family dwelling into an artist-in-residence unit and does not
require a feasibility study.
Appeal Point No. 7
The appellant claims that the Zoning Administrator's Adjustments do not meet the requirements
for approving variances to code. The appellant states that the project deviates from R4 Zone
requirements in regard to side and rear yards.
Response to Appeal Point No. 7.
As a point of clarity, the findings needed for an Adjustment differ from that needed for a Variance.
The subject project requested Zoning Administrator's Adjustments to allow reduced westerly side
and rear yards. These deviations are permitted at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator
provided that all the required findings pursuant to LAMC Section 12.28 can be made in the
affirmative. For this project a Zoning Administrator's adjustments for a reduced side yard and rear
yard are deemed appropriate, as justified in Joint Determination (Findings No. 9, 10, and 11 ). As
stated in the determination:
Due to the site's narrow width, shallow depth, and relatively small size, strict adherence to
the zoning regulations is not practical as it would constrain the building footprint to a width
of only 32 feet. While strict application of the zoning regulations would result in a smaller
footprint, the reduced yards provide the site flexibility to achieve articulation and
modulation and to provide step backs on the upper levels that maintain a pedestrian scale
and provide adequate light and ventilation. The reduced rear yard setback on the ground
level is necessary in order to provide structural support for the proposed second and third
floors. The reduced westerly side yard setback enables a more functional design that is
consistent with the yards on the ground floor and maintains consistency with the spirit and
intent of the zoning regulations ...
Although the requested 0-foot westerly side yard setback and 5-foot rear yard setback
deviate from the R4 Zone requirements, the proposed yards are consistent with the
prevailing setbacks along Abbot Kinney Boulevard. Many other lots along this portion of
Abbot Kinney Boulevard have commercial structures built to the property line. The
adjoining properly to the west is improved with a commercial structure that is built to the
side lot line abutting the subject site. The adjoining property to the east is improved with a
commercial structure with an accessory structure built to the side lot line abutting the
subject site. The properly across the rear alley is a large, three-story artist-in-residence
structure that maintains a 6-foot rear setback from the lot line abutting the alley ...
Appeal Point No. 8
The appellant claims that two parking spaces are inadequate for its use as a real estate office.
D1R-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP-1A
ZA-2017-2340-ZAA-1 A A-7
Response to Appeal Point No. 8
The project complies with Section 13 of the Venice Specific Plan, which requires two parking
spaces for each artist-in-residence dwelling unit. Therefore, the Director did not err in finding that
the project meets the parking requirements set forth in the Venice Specific plan.
Appeal Point No. 9
The appellant contends that approving the project will prejudice the City's ability to prepare a
certified Local Coastal Program (LCP).
Response to Appeal Point No. 9
As previously stated, the project is consistent with the development standards stated in the
certified LUP. There is no conflict between the project and the LUP's development standards.
Finding No. 2 of the Director's Determination discussed the project's conformance to the policies
of the certified LUP and regulations of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan. The City's ability
to approve a certified LCP would not be prejudiced by the approval of this project. Therefore, the
Director did not err in finding that the project would not prejudice the City from preparing a certified
LCP.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Commission deny the appeal and sustain the Director's Determination
(DIR-2016-2330-CDP-MEL-SPP & ZA-2017-2340-ZAA) approving a change of use of a one-story
1,107 square-foot residence to one artist-in-residence dwelling unit, in conjunction with the
addition of 366 square feet to the ground floor, and a new second and third story, resulting in a
three-story 4, 111 square-foot artist-in-residence dwelling. Staff also recommends the
Commission find that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act. Upon review and analysis of the issues raised by the appellant for the proposed
project, no errors or abuse of discretion by the Director of Planning or his designee were found in
regards to the appeal points raised. The appeal of the Director of Planning's approval of the
Coastal Development Permit, Project Permit Compliance, Zoning Administrator's Adjustment, and
Mello Act Compliance Review for the proposed project cannot be substantiated and therefore
should be denied.