11-0990 Misc 6-28-11C.Pdf

Brandt-Hawley Law Group Chauvet House · PO Box 1659 Glen Ellen, California 95442 707 938.3900 · fax 707.9il8.:3200 preservation lawyers.eom Dale: Submitted in i.J ~Commit!ee June 27, 2011 P(..; Council File No: I I ' Ofj q 0 . Item No.: ___q.._· _______ , Councilmember Ed P. Reyes, Chair Councilmember Jose Huizar ~:-~~---- Councilmember Paul Krekorian Planning and Land Use Management Committee City of Los Angeles City Hall 200 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 via email: Legislative Assistant Mic:b.ael.E;;p_i)[email protected] Subject: PLUM Agenda Item 4, June 28, 2011 Council File 11-0990 ZA-2009-1836-ZV-ZAA CD 1 Honorable Chair Reyes and PLUM Committeemembers: On behalf of the West Adams Heritage Association, I am writing to request that this Committee support the thoughtful actions of the Zoning Administrator and the South Area Planning Commission in denying the variance appeal of Rudolfo and Anatalia Brambila. By way of introduction, since I have not appeared before PLUM in recent years, my law practice is focused on public interest law and in particular the application of CEQA to historic resources statewide. Among the published environmental decisions of this office are Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre, Lincoln Place Tenants Association v. 1 City of Los Angeles, League for Protection v. City of Oakland, Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus, Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, Architectural Heritage Association v. County of Monterey, and Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose. This appeal involves a variance requested for two illegal units for a total of eleven units on the subject site. Potentially significant adverse impacts from the use include parking and traffic safety, overcrowding of occupants and automobiles on the site, inconsistency with local community plans and zoning, and its cumulative impacts relating to the density and character of the historic neighborhood. The variance request was documented by a mitigated negative declaration, which is inadequate in light of evidence of environmental impacts. (The variance may be exempted from CEQA for purposes of denial.) As documented in many of the cases listed above, a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate only when a project clearly has no potential significant impacts. The "fair argument" standard applies to this determination. If there is a "fair argument" of potentially significant impacts, presented via facts or fact-based assumptions or expert opinions, the negative declaration is unlawful. A variance by its very nature involves a project with potential inconsistency with adopted zoning and local plans. Here, substantial evidence has been provided by the West Adams Heritage Association and others, including the Zoning Administrator and the South Area Planning Commission, that the rigorous standards for a variance have 2 not been met. This is an environmental and essentially legal question as to whether the strict requirements for a variance and mitigated negative declaration have been met. It is not a political decision. In light of the record before you, the appeal should be denied. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Susan Brandt-Hawley 3 WAHA West Adams Heritage Association West Adams Heritage Association, 2263 Harvard Boulevard, Historic West Adams, Los Angeles, CA 90018 Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee Los Angeles City Council c/o City Clerk City Hall I Room 395 200 North Spring Street I Los Angeles Calif 90012 June 28, 2011 I by hand RE: Council File No. 11-0990 Case No. ZA 2009-1836 (ZV) (ZAA) I CEOA No. ENV 2009-1837-MND 851 West 23rd Street I University Park HPOZ I CD-I I SLAP A Public Hearing June 28, 2011 I 2:30am I City Hall Room 350 I am writing as Chair of the Historic Preservation Committee of West Adams Heritage Association (WAHA) to provide comment on the above referenced Case and MND. The West Adams Heritage Association is comprised of over 3 50 households in the West Adams I University Park area, which includes the project site. WAHA routinely comments on land use applications and environmental documents on behalf of the Association members. We ask that PLUM in asserting its jurisdiction take very careful note of the facts of the case and sustain the September l, 2010 decision of the Zoning Administrator and the June 7, 2011 written decision of the South Area Planning Commission (SAPC) in denying the appeal of the applicant Rudolfo and Anatalia Brambila. The decision of the SAPC was a unanimous 4-0 decision and was a careful, fact based analysis of the case and its implications. The well being of the community, and its provision oflivable and safe housing, requires that you deny this appeal as we illustrate below and as the ZA and SAPC decisions so eloquently demonstrate. Both the ZA and the SAPC found that the five requirements and prerequisites for granting a variance as enumerated in Section 562 of the City Charter and Section 12.27-B, 1 of the Municipal Code were findings that could not be made. The PLUM and City Council cannot, based on the record, make these five required findings (1 though 5 below.) 1. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations. The applicant has illegally maintained seven units in a legal four-unit structure. "Maintaining modifications to the permitted four unit structure ... for use as a seven unit 1 apartment, without benefit of permit, constitutes a self imposed hardship by the owner." · (ZA Decision, Page 7.) 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other property in eth same zone and vicinity. There is no circumstance specifically unique to the site identified as having no other reasonable recourse other than a variance - a requirement to make an affirmative finding. 3. Such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, is denied the property in question. The need for the variance is self imposed hardship occasioned by the request for additional density and an unsafe parking configuration. It would confer special privilege to this owner without any justification. 4. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or inj nrious to the property or imprcwements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located. Open space, light, air, circulation and emergency access are all important factors to livability and safety and also quali~ of life. The parking would require backing out of vehicles to both Norwood and 23' Street. Over use of the property will set a negative precedent for other property uses in the surrounding area. 5. The granting of the variance will adversely affect an element of the General Plan. The ZA carefully analyzed the project and found that the proposed development of eleven units was not in keeping with the Community Plan objectives including the preservation and integrity of existing residential neighborhoods. The ZA also noted that the applicant has been selective in citing Plan objectives which may serve to substantiate their request but failed to acknowledge equally relevant Plan policies within the context of the full neighborhood and community which support denial of the request. We are sensitive for the need for housing and have supported many legitimate projects that provide affordable housing in this community. A carefully vetted review of this housing project in context of the established record shows that, for the community well being and safety, this variance is not a positive action. In this instance, the rationale for supporting housing and therefore granting this variance would require an arbitrary, capricious and poorly thought out analysis of the record. And again, the five required findings cannot be made based on the record. Further the lead agency "finds that there is substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment." WAHA agrees with this finding and the action take by the ZA and SAPC in not adopting ENV 2009-1837. 2 I will add the following additional comments are based on my review of the Case file and the MND, including the Initial Study and Checklist which W AHA previously brought to the decision makers attention. " The applicant's conclusion that since the subject site was once zoned R-4 and that because the R-4 designation would have allowed for an even more intensification of use than his request for an 11-unit total, he will suffer a special hardship unless the Variance is granted is erroneous. " The change in the City's zoning designation for this area, which was finalized with the lengthy implementation of the AB-283 requirements, resulted in zoning that was compatible with the long established community plan resulting in down-zoning for the majority of property owners. But this was not a sudden arbitrary act. Since this was a CRA area since 1979, the community plan overrode any higher zone designation where the community plan was lesser in density. Since the zoning adjustment was implemented law, to have the zoning and community plan designation is consistent, and applied to all property owners, there is no unnecessary individual hardship on the applicant by his required compliance with the current RD-1. 5 zoning . ., The applicant asserts that he should now be allowed to utilize the unspent portion of the past R4 zoning opportunity, which was unfulfilled when it was applicable.

Load more