Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DEL VAC LLP LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS 0 LITIGATION 0 MUNICIPAL ADVOCACY 11611 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 DALE GOLDSMITH Tel: (310) 209-8800 LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 DIRECT DIAL: (310) 254-9054 Fax: (310) 209-8801 E-MAIL: [email protected] WEB: www.AGD-LandUse.com May 10,2011 VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL The Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the Los Angeles City Council 200 North Spring Street, Room 350 Los Angeles, California 90012 Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant Re: Appeal of CPC-2008-3087 -ZC-HD-ZAA-SPR, VTTM No. 70 119-CN and ENV-2007-5750-EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2008011113) (Item No.6 on the Committee's May 10,2011 Agenda) Dear Chairman Reyes and Hon. Committee Members: We represent 6104 Hollywood LLC, the applicant in the above cases. Our client is seeking to develop the property located at the southwest comer of Hollywood Boulevard and Gower Street with is an iconic mixed-use development with 176 residential units and approximately 7,200 square feet of neighborhood-serving ground-floor commercial/retail space (the "Project"). This letter and the attached memorandum respond to the arguments and assertions made by Appellant Doug Haines, La Mirada Neighborhood Association of Hollywood ("Appellant") challenging the City Planning Commission's ("CPC") approval of the above- referenced cases and its certification of the Hollywood & Gower Project Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR"). As discussed more fully in the attached memorandum and the attachments thereto, Appellant's arguments are without merit or supporting evidence and are entirely based on opinion, speculation, and misstatements of fact and law. Contrary to Appellants unfounded assertions: • The Project is compatible and consistent with surrounding uses, including the Columbia Square Project (28 stories), Hollywood & Vine (180 feet), Sunset Vine Tower (22 stories), Sunset & Gordon (23 Stories), Sunset Media Tower (22 Stories) and Yucca & Argyle (16 stories). The Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the Los Angeles City Council May 10,2011 Page 2 • The Project will not adversely impact The Music Box, the owners of which strongly support the Project. @ The City has granted similar adjustments for reduced yards to many other projects in the vicinity, including Boulevard 6200, Hollywood & Vine, Broadway Building, Jefferson at Highland, and Sunset & Gordon projects. e The Project and the yard adjustment conform to the General Plan, including Objectives 1 to 6. • The Project parking exceeds City's Zoning Code requirements and, as shown by the parking demand study, is adequate to meet demand. • The removal of the existing surface parking spaces will not create a parking shortage since that site has never been used as a public parking lot. • The CPC properly rejected the Reduced Density Alternative as infeasible because it fails to meet the basic project objective of maximizing housing. The comprehensive EIR fully complies with the requirements of CEQA. In short, Appellant simply does not want a tall building on the Project site. However, Appellant has failed to show any way the City has erred or abused its discretion in granting the Project approvals. Appellant has also failed to show any inadequacy in either the EIR or the City's environmental findings. Consequently, the City should uphold the CPC's determination, deny the appeal, certify the EIR, and approve the Project. cc: Jim Tokunaga, City Planning Department Katherine Hennigan, CD 13 City Attorney Rick Stinson RJ. Comer Ira Handelman Craig Lawson Jessica Pakdaman Enclosures ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH &DELVACLLP DATE: May 10,2011 TO: The Honorable Planning & Land Use Management Committee of the City Council FROM: Dale Goldsmith RJ. Comer CC Jim Tokunaga, City Planning Department SUBJECT: AppealofCPC-200S-30S7-ZC-HD-ZAA-SPR, VTTM No. 70119-CN and ENV-2007-5750-EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 200S011113) INTRODUCTION This memorandum responds to the arguments and assertions made by Appellant Doug Haines, La Mirada Neighborhood Association of Hollywood ("Appellant") challenging the City Planning Commission's approval ofthe above-referenced cases and its certification of the Hanover Hollywood & Gower Project Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR"). This memorandum also responds to Bradley Torgan's April 12,2011 letter incorrectly asserting that the hearing Notice is deficient. The Hanover Hollywood & Gower Project (the "Project") is an iconic mixed-use development with 176 residential units and approximately 7,200 square feet of neighborhood-serving ground-floor commercial/retail space. As discussed more fully below, Appellant's arguments are without merit or supporting evidence. Appellant offers opinion, speculation, and arguments that advocate for policies different than the City'S established policies. Appellant attempts to substitute his own interpretations of the City's codes and plans. Most importantly, Appellant fails to provide any substantial evidence that the City Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in approving the Project and certifying the EIR I 16 [ [ San Vicente Blvd. I Suite 900 I Los Angeles I CA I 900491fel: 310.209.8800 I Fax: 3 10.209.880 I ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP The Honorable Planning & Land Use Management Committee of the City Council May 10, 2011 Page 2 THE HEARING NOTICE IS PROPER Mr. Torgan is incorrect in his April 12, 2011 letter regarding his alleged "Deficiency in Notice for City Council File No. 11-0317." He erroneously asserts that the 500' radius notification and 24-day notice period set forth in LAMC Section 12.32.C.4(b) applies to the appeal hearings scheduled for the Hollywood & Gower Project It does not. Section 12.32.C.4(b) establishes hearing notice requirements for actions on the initiation or application for proposed land use ordinances and refers to the public hearing held by the Hearing Officer in order to make a recommendation for action to the Planning Commission (LAMC Section 12.32.C.3). LAMC Section 12.24.C.4(b) requires that a written notice be mailed to the owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject property at least 24 days prior to the date of the hearing by the Hearing Oflicer~not the Planning & Land Use Management Committee of the City Council. The City Planning Department fully complied with LAMC Section 12.32.C.4(b). The Project hearing governed by LAMC Section 12.32.C.4(b) was the August 25, 2010 Hearing Officer Hearing. The notice for that hearing was mailed 24 days prior to the date ofthat hearing in full compliance with LAMC Section 12.32.CA(b). No language in LAMC Section 12.32 (or any other LAMC section) requires a hearing notice for the City Council action on the land use ordinance. Only in the case of an appeal to City Council of the Planning Commission's initial decision is a l C-day hearing notice required, and then only if the appeal is initiated by the applicant appeal after the Planning Commission's recommended disapproval of the land use application. In the case of this Project, the City Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject Zone and Height District Change. Therefore, the appeal procedures under LAMC Section 12.32.C. are not applicable. The Appellant filed appeals to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Zoning Administrator's Adjustment, and Site Plan Review approvals by the City Planning Commission (the only actions in this case that are appealable by the Appellant). LAMC Section 17.06.AA (Appeals to Council for Tentative Maps) requires that notice ofthe City Council hearing be given to the subdivider, the appellant, the Appeal Board and the Advisory Agency, but does not specify any notification period for the hearing notice. On the other hand, LAMC Sections 16.0S.H.3. and 16.0S.G.3.b (Appeal Hearing Notice Procedures for Site Plan Reviews) require a IS-day hearing notice to the appellant, and to all other parties specified in Subsection G3.b, which include the applicant, owners and tenants of property within 100 feet of the boundary of the subject site, and other interested parties that request to be notified. Thus, the hearing notification procedures specified under LAMC Section 16.05 require direct notice to Appellant and other interested parties and govern this hearing. ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP The Honorable Planning & Land Use Management Committee of the City Council May 10,2011 Page 3 On or about April 22, 2011, the City Clerk sent the required notice of the May 10,2011 PLUM Committee Hearing. Thus, the City has complied with the applicable notice requirements. In any event, the Appellant has actual noticed and would not have been prejudiced even if the City had not provided such notice. RESPONSES TO APPEAL Substantial Evidence Supports the Zoning Administrator's Adjustment Findings. The Zoning Administrator's Adjustment (the "Adjustment") allows a zero-foot westerly side yard including the south and west side yards. Appellant challenges the Adjustment findings based on specious arguments that misstate the facts, applicable law or both. The Project is compatible and consistent with surrounding uses. Appellant attempts to limit any analysis of the Project's compatibility and consistency to only those existing uses adjacent to the Project site - particularly uses west of the Project site. Although this nan-ow analytical scope may serve Appellant's perspective, it is not the appropriate analytical scope for an urban, in-fill Project in a dense, urban environment and is not what the finding requires. The appropriate analytical scope is to consider compatibility and consistency with regard to "surrounding uses" - which includes adjacent uses, but also includes the surrounding area taking into consideration the urban context and functional compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding uses. The Project EIR and the City's findings acknowledge that the proposed Project is much taller than the existing Henry Fonda Theater adjacent to the Project's western boundary.