CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) Ogamdo Cafe & Restaurant. CONDITIONAL USEIZONE VARIANCE 842 South La Brea Avenue South La Brea Avenue

Transcription

1 LlNN K. WYATT CHIEF ZONING ADMINISTIRTOR ASSOCIATE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS R. NICOLAS BROWN SUE CHANG LOURDES GREEN MAYA E. ZAITZEVSKY June 30,201 1 ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING MICHAEL I. LOGRANDE DIRECTOR - OFFICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION 200 N. SPRING STREET, 7"' FLOOR Los ANCELES, CA (213) FAX: (213) Jun Ho Lee (A)(O) CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) Ogamdo Cafe & Restaurant CONDITIONAL USEIZONE VARIANCE 842 South La Brea Avenue South La Brea Avenue Los Angeles, CA Wilshire Planning Area Zone : C2-1 King R. Woods & Associates (R) D. M. : 132B North Diamond Bar Boulevard, #204 C. D. : 4 Diamond Bar, CA CEQA : ENV MND Legal Description: Lot 131 and 129, Block: 0, Tract: 4642 Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section W,1, I hereby DENY: a conditional use permit, as modified by the applicant, to allow the continued sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption in conjunction with an existing restaurant (permitted under a prior conditional use as a 2,479 square-foot ground floor restaurant with seating for 76 patrons and 19 on-site parking and 6 off-site parking spaces) and the additionllegalization of a non-permitted 850-square foot patio and a 420 square-foot kitchen and a new 980 square-foot second floor restaurant with hours of operation from 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. daily and patron seating for a maximum of 158 seats, of which 36 seats are in the patio. Pursuant to Charter Section 562 and Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.27,l hereby DENY: a variance from Section E,5 of the Municipal Code to allow the provision of 30 required parking spaces to be provided off-site by lease in lieu of a recorded covenant. FINDINGS OF FACT After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the application, the plans submitted therewith, the report of the Zoning Analyst thereon, the statements made at the public hearing on January 24, 201 1, all of which are by reference made a part hereof, as well as knowledge of the property and surrounding district, I find that the requirements for authorizing a conditional use permit and a variance under the provisions of Sections W and have not been established by the following AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

2 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 2 BACKGROUND The property is a level, rhombus-shaped interior lot, 12,867 square feet in area with frontage of approximately 103 feet along La Brea Avenue, sides for a distance of approximately feet along northerly and southerly side yard property lines, and rear lot line of approximately 103 feet. The site is currently developed with a 1,994 square-foot, one- and two-story buildings operating as a restaurant, with an on-site parking lot containing 13 parking spaces. There is a small storage building (approximately 486 square feet in area) at the rear of the lot in the parking area. Vehicular ingresslegress is through a driveway along La Brea Avenue. The applicantlrestaurant provides ten on-site parking spaces. Northerly, properties are classified in the C2-1 Zone and are developed with an auto repair facility, a surface parking lot, retail stores, and a cafe. The property located one block farther north is currently under construction. Southerly, properties are classified in the C2-1 Zone and are developed with a mix of autorelated uses, and one- and two-story neighborhood serving retail uses. Easterly, properties are classified in the R2-1 Zone and are developed with one- and twostory multi-family buildings. Westerly, properties are classified in the C2-1 Zone and are developed with a mix of autorelated uses, a dance hall, and one- and two-story neighborhood serving retail uses. La Brea Avenue, adjoining the property along its westerly property line, is a Major Highway Class II with a variable width of 80 to1 00 feet, and improved with sidewalk, curb and gutter. One-hour metered street parking is available from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., except Sundays. There is no stopping allowed from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m., except Sundays. 9th Street, the closest cross street to the subject property, intersecting with La Brea Avenue approximately 100 feet south of the subject property, is a Local Street with a variable width of 60 to 62 feet, and improved with sidewalk, curb and gutter. Previous zoning related actions on the sitelin the area include: Subject Property Case No. ZA (CUB)(ZV) - On October 25,2006, the Zoning Administrator denied a Conditional Use to permit the sale and dispensing of a full line of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption in conjunction with an existing restaurant (Ogamdo Cafe and Restaurant); dismissed a Conditional Use to permit an outdoor dining area within a 900 square-foot patio inasmuch as the applicant has withdrawn this portion of the request; and denied a Variance to allow 13 on-site parking spaces in lieu of the required 45; and to allow reduced on-site parking with 12 leased off-site parking spaces within 750 feet of the proposed site by lease agreement in lieu of the recorded covenant and

3 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 3 agreement. The Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use to allow the sale and dispensing of beer and wine only for on-site consumption in conjunction with an existing restaurant (ground floor dining area only), and, approved a Variance to allow 19 on-site and six off-site parking spaces within 750 feet of the proposed site by lease agreement in lieu of the recorded covenant and agreement. Case No. ZA (CUB)(ZV) - On December 19, 2001, the Zoning Administrator partially approved a conditional use request for on-site beer and wine consumption and a Variance for parking for a restaurant. Surrounding :Properties Case No. ZA (CUB) - On December 17,201 0, the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use permit to allow the upgrade of alcohol license from beer and wine (Type 42) to Type 48 - On-sale - General for public premises for an existing 50-seat bar (Little Bar) that operates from 10 a.m. to 2 a.m. daily. The Little Bar's original license was Type 48 but a change in ownership caused the down grading of said license to Type 42. The current owner requested authorization to upgrade it back to Type 48. The bar is located at 757 South La Brea Avenue. Case No. ZA (CUB) - On June 6, 2008, the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use permit to allow the sales of beer and wine for on-site consumption in an existing restaurant that accommodates 48 patrons and operates from 11 a.m. to 1 a.m. daily located at 801 South La Brea Avenue. Case No. ZA (CUB) - On October 6,2005, the applicant and the Office of Zoning Administration terminated an application for a Conditional Use to allow the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption in conjunction with an existing market (Royal Food Mart), having hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., daily in the C2-1 Zone located at 5279 West Olympic Boulevard. Case No. ZA (CUB)(CUX)(SP) - On February 12, 1996, the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use to allow an existing restaurant approximately 3,500 square-feet with a full line of on-site alcoholic beverages, live entertainment and patron dancing, to expand by approximately 800 square feet, with seating capacity to increase from 94 to 120 having hours of operation from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m., daily, with shared parking also requested to use the 60 spaces provided onsite. Parcel zoned C2-1, located at 740 South La Brea Avenue. Case No. ZA (CUB)(CUX)(ZV) - On July 14,1998, the Zoning Administrator denied a Conditional Use to allow on-site sale of alcoholic beverages with adult entertainment for private special events at a boxing clublrestaurant in the C2-1 Zone, located at 726 South La Brea Avenue. Case No. ZA (CUB)(ZV) - On August 20, 1992, the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use to allow the sale and dispensing of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption in conjunction with operation of a restaurant with live entertainment and dancing, accommodating 94 patrons, having hours of operation

4 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 4 from 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and from 11 a.m. to 12 midnight in the C2 Zone, and variance to allow required parking through a lease agreement, located at 740 South La Brea Avenue. Case No. ZA (CUB)- On May 12,1989, the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use to allow the sale and dispensing of beer and wine only for off-site consumption in conjunction with a proposed 1,500 square-foot mini-market with 13 on-site parking spaces, having hours of operation from 6 a.m. to 12 midnight, daily, with alcoholic beverage sales limited to 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on a parcel in the C2-1-0 Zone. located at 901 South La Brea Avenue. Case No. ZA (CUB) - On October 10, 1986, the Zoning Administrator approved a Conditional Use to allow the sale and dispensing of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption in conjunction with a proposed restaurant having dancing and live entertainment, accommodating approximately 130 patrons, on a parcel zoned C2, located at 740 South La Brea Avenue. Case No. ZA (CUB) - On March 14,1986, the Zoning Administrator denied a Conditional Use to allow off-site sales of beer and wine at an existing mini-market on a property zoned C2-1, located at 5279 West Olympic Boulevard. BASIS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS A particular type of development is subject to the conditional use process because it has been determined that such use of property should not be permitted by right in a particular zone. All uses requiring a conditional use permit from the Zoning Administrator are located within Section W of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. In order for the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption to be authorized, certain designated findings have to be made. In these cases, there are specific conditional use categories which have additional findings in lieu of the four standard findings for most other conditional use categories. FINDINGS Following (highlighted) is a delineation of the findings and the application of the relevant facts to same: 1. The proposed location will not be desirable to the public convenience or welfare and is not proper in relation to adjacent uses or the development of the community. The property is developed with a restaurant which fronts onto La Brea Avenue. Under a prior approval, a conditional use permit for alcohol sales for beer and wine was granted on October 25, 2006 (Case No. ZA (CUB)(ZV). Said conditional use permit was subject to a five-year term grant which will expire November 11, The approval represented a modification of the original request by the applicant which included a request for a full line of alcohol sales, an expansion into a rear patio (which had already been in use) and the expansion into a second floor or a banquet room. Coupled with that 2006 request was a zone

5 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 5 variance for off-site parking by lease as the patio would occupy required on-site parking. The 2006 ZA approval reflected modifications by the applicant made after the public hearing which were to withdraw the request for a full line, to remove the patio area and provide no second floor expansion and restore 19 on-site parking spaces. The record shows that neighbors had already been affected by the operation of the restaurant and the non-permitted use of the patio which has no buffer from adjoining residential uses. The 2006 ZA conditional use approval was for a 2472-square-foot ground floor restaurant with 76 seats. A subsequent plan approval due between 12 and 18 months from the effective date of the original approval was also required. The required plan approval was never filed. On August 31,2007, the Zoning Administrator of record on the 2006 ZA case sent a letter to the applicant warning him of complaints that had been received regarding non compliance with the hours of operation, the continuous use of the non permitted patio for dining and non-compliance with other operating conditions established in the 2006 case. The location is currently the subject of a Court case initiated by the City due to the unapproved construction of a kitchen expansion and of the conversion of required parking to outside dining. The Court has held hearings and continued the most recent hearing date pending the action on this subject case. The Department of Building and Safety has submitted a packet documenting the history of this property that is the subject of the Court case. On October 19,2004, unapproved construction was observed of a kitchen addition. An Order to Comply was issued effective October 26,2004 to stop the work and obtain the required permits. According to the Department of Building and Safety, work continued without the permits and inspections until completion and the new kitchen was occupied without any approvals. In the fall of 2006, a complaint was submitted to the City Attorney and the case was filed with the Court. Court hearings began in the spring of It was also noted that a portion of the required parking was converted to the patio dining. According to Building and Safety, 16 of the 24 required parking spaces were covered by the unapproved construction and patio dining. As noted, the Court case continues to this day. The packet submitted by Building and Safety includes copies of the Order to Comply, copies of the original plot plan and building permit approved in 2001 when the restaurant was permitted as a change of use from retail, as well as photos on the non-permitted construction. The building permit approved was for a 2,320 square-foot restaurant with required parking of 24 spaces, which all were provided on-site without the need for a variance for off-site parking. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued on May 17, The records show that other Orders to Comply were issued on August 31, 2005 and August 30, 2007 for non permitted construction and electrical work. The history of the property and the applicant and property owner shows a record of continuous non compliance with the conditions of the current 2006 ZA approval as

6 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 6 well as with Building and Safety violations which have ultimately led to an ongoing Court case. The 2006 ZA approval was based on the submitted modifications to the original request which were offered by the applicant. In that case, the Zoning Administrator relied on that representation in granting an approval of the request, as modified. As evidenced none of the offers made to remove the outdoor patio dining, restore the parking and not expand the restaurant to a second floor were ever fulfilled. To approve the entitlements sought, is to reward the applicant for non compliance with the approved discretionary action that governs the restaurant's operation as well as for noncompliance with other Building and Safety permitting issues. The applicant should seek to resolve the other permitting issues and the Court case before seeking additional entitlements for privileges that should be earned and not expected. The ongoing non-compliant operation of the restaurant has had impacts on neighbors in terms of noise, odors, and parking overflow. The Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council (GWNC) has noted its opposition to the request and its support of the neighbors' opposition. In its communication, the Chair of the Land Use Committee noted that there had been no changes evident from the problems identified in 2006 and that the request should be denied. The Sycamore Square Neighborhood Association also noted that it voted unanimously to oppose the request citing the problems that neighbors have endured and the history of non compliance with the 2006 case. The communication further indicates that the nearest neighbors to the restaurant are separated by a small wall and have bedrooms backing up to the patio. The letter also asserts that valet parking has been provided with a charge which is a violation of one of the conditions of the 2006 ZA case. Additional letters from neighbors in opposition to the request were received. One letter noted that the patio is used for barbequing which impacts neighbors with the blowing of smoke and cooking smells. Another concern relates to parking overflow impacts from patrons who do not want to pay for valet service. The writer indicates that although Sycamore Avenue has permit parking after 6 p.m., individuals with no permits park illegally on the street and no parking enforcement is evident. At the public hearing, the applicant's representative acknowledged that there had not been compliance with many of the conditions. A neighbor testified that noise is a major issue and that the site is too crowded with the patio to provide safe on-site parking. He noted that the restaurant was opened late hours and that there would be the burning of logs, all of which have generated complaints from neighbors. The original application considered at the January 24,201 1 hearing was for a full line of alcohol, a 2,098 square-foot patio and a 4,207 square-foot restaurant which included an expansion into a second floor. Seating was proposed for 177 patrons which included 54 patrons in the patio. A representative of the Office of the Fourth Council District indicated having received input from neighbors in opposition to the request. She noted that the perception amongst neighbors is that the applicant will not comply with any new conditions. She questioned why the applicant was not complying.

7 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 7 Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the record was maintained open to allow for additional time for a review of the case and for the representative to submit new parking leases after he noted that he was not satisfied that the parking leases that had been submitted originally were appropriate. At the end of the advisement period, no information had been provided by the applicant or his representative. In response to a request for additional information, including the parking leases, the representative noted that meetings were scheduled with the community. One had taken place with the GWNC Land Use Committee after the public hearing. Subsequently, community members indicated that no invitation to a specific meeting cited by the applicant on May 12, had been received. The representative noted that invitations had been sent out to 19 neighbors who lived abutting the rear of the property and that no neighbors showed up at the meeting which had been organized by the applicant and representative. Subsequently, modifications were submitted with revised plans. A full line of alcohol request was withdrawn and beer and wine sales were requested. The patio request was reduced to 850 square feet with seating proposed for 36 patrons. Abutting the residential area, a garden is proposed which is approximately 1,440 square feet and provide an approximate 36-foot setback from the patio dining area. There is no guarantee that such area could not be used in the future by patrons even if no seating is permitted there. The revised plan indicates 11 on-site parking spaces as well as the kitchen addition and a second floor dining addition converted from existing space. An assessment of the past history and the lack of efforts to comply with conditions as well as ongoing operation of the restaurant without any valid building permits, do not establish a basis to approve the requests. The applicant has in the past been provided ample opportunity to correct violations, has received a prior approval based on modified request which has not been honored. The restaurant continues to operate in a manner which has resulted in impacts to the neighbors and has also led to Court hearings, pointing out the severity of the violations. As noted, a grant of any discretionary approval is based on a fundamental belief that the applicant will comply with all conditions of approval. Such belief cannot be asserted herein based on a clear history of continuous violations. Thus no finding of public welfare and no finding of desirability can be made that the request would further serve public convenience or be proper in relation to the adjacent uses. 2. The use will be materially detrimental to the character of the development in the immediate neighborhood. The operation of the restaurant has already established a track record of impacting the neighborhood by not observing conditions of a prior discretionary grant nor complied with Building and Safety requirements that address building permits. Given the chronic lack of observance of conditions and other regulations, the request is not anticipated to improve the character of development in the area.

8 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 8 The history of the operation of this facility has been already documented in detail. The request will not materially improve the area due to the surrounding sensitive uses in the area which include abutting residential uses. The request will potentially further create a demand for City resources which have already been devoted to this location due to the absence of compliance which is evident in the time that has been spent on investigations and follow-up oversight. Given this very clear history of the operation, an approval of the request would undermine any efforts to improve the area and would be detrimental to the character of the vicinity. 3. The proposed location will not be in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan. The Wilshire Community Plan Map designates the property for General Commercial land uses with corresponding zones of C1.5, C2, C4, RAS3 and RAS4 and Height District No. 1. The sale of alcohol is permitted by conditional use in accordance with certain findings provided that the findings are made in the affirmative. As further noted in Finding Nos. 1 and 2, the findings cannot be made in the affirmative. 4. The location for the sale for on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages will adversely affect the welfare of area residents and result in an undue concentration in the Area of establishments dispensing for sale or other consideration, alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine, giving consideration applicable State laws and to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's guidelines for undue concentration; and also giving consideration to the number and proximity of these establishments within a 1000-foot radius of the site, the crime rate in the area and whether revocation or nuisance proceedings have been initiated for any use in the Area According to the California State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control licensing criteria, four on-site and three off-site licenses are allocated to Census Tract No , which has a population of 4,324. There are currently eight onsite and one off-site license in this census tract. Located within 600 feet of the subject property, there are six on-site and one off-site license existing. These figures suggest that there is an undue concentration of on-site alcohol sales establishments in the area. It should be noted that according to ABC records, there have been no disciplinary actions regarding subject establishment. The figures indicate that there is a higher concentration of on-site alcohol sale licenses in the area. The request as modified for beer and wine sales only, would have not resulted in an additional license as the license already exists. Statistics from the Los Angeles Police Department's Wilshire Division Vice Unit reveal that in Crime Reporting District No. 745, which has jurisdiction over the subject property, a total of 281 crimes were reported in 2008, compared to the

9 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 9 citywide average of 235 crimes and the high crime reporting district average of 282 crimes for the same period. By comparison, a total of 293 crimes were reported in 2005, compared to the citywide average of 278 crimes and the high crime reporting district average of 322 crimes for the same period. These numbers do not reflect the total number of arrests in the subject reporting district of the accountable year. Arrests for each calendar year may reflect crimes reported in previous years. The number of crimes in the Reporting District is higher, than those for the City. The proposed sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption will detrimentally affect the nearby residentially zoned communities in the Area after giving consideration to the distance of the proposed use from residential buildings, churches, schools, hospitals, public playgrounds and other similar uses and other establishments dispensing for sale or other consideration, alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine. In proximity to the subject site, there are a variety of residential uses which are provided no buffer from the open patio. There are also other alcohol-selling establishments as well as a number of churches on La Brea Avenue. VARIANCE FINDINGS In order for a variance to be granted, all five of the mandated findings delineated in City Charter Section 562 must be made in the affirmative. Following (highlighted) is a delineation of the findings and the application of the relevant facts of the case to same: 6. 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. Under the prior approval in 2006, six required parking spaces were permitted to be provided off-site and 19 spaces were to be restored on-site. Under the current request, a variance to provide 30 spaces off-site by lease in lieu of a covenant has been requested. The revised plans indicate that 40 parking spaces are required and that 11 would be provided on-site. Although this would signify that 29 parking spaces would be requested off-site, the representative has requested that 30 spaces be permitted by lease off-site. A parking lease has been submitted to park 30 vehicles at an abutting site at 834 South La Brea which abuts the property to the north. Said property is part of an ownership that includes other abutting lots. The specific address at 834 South La Brea has also had a history of Orders to Comply, which have been closed, but which were issued for unapproved open storage with compliance attained in after a 2008 citation. There are a number of other Orders dating back to 2003 on this specific property. The property appears to be in transition. A permit for a shopping center on this and the abutting lots was approved in March, It is unclear whether the permit remains valid as records show that an extension to begin work was granted with a deadline of April 29, Nonetheless, the use of this property may be transitory at best as it appears that there is an intent to consider its

10 CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 10 development to a more intense use that would potentially eliminate the ability to provide any additional parking for lease to other parties. The request for this variance is a direct result of the applicant and the property owner's conversion of the existing required parking to patio dining and the expansion of the restaurant at ground level and at the second floor. The original building permit approved in 2001 to allow the change of use from retail to a restaurant and the Certificate of Occupancy required 24 parking spaces which the approved plans show were to be provided on-site without the need for a variance. The applicant and property owner have the option to provide the parking required by complying with the originally permitted use of the property. The choice to expand without any permits and to continue to operate in direct violation of the conditions of approval of the current ZA conditional use and variance is a self-imposed hardship. Compliance with the Code can be attained and the zoning provisions do not impair the applicant from enjoying the use of the property as legally permitted. Thus, it is not the zoning provisions which impair the applicant from enjoying use of the property. The originally-approved use can be accommodated without a variance through a reduction of square footage to that legally permitted and the restoration of required parking. Charter Section 562 states that a variance shall not be used to grant a special privilege nor to permit a use substantially inconsistent with the limitation on other properties. A variance is an appropriate means to seek relief from a condition that is not self-imposed and to remedy a disparity of privileges. There is no disparity of privileges in the permitted use of the property. In this case a grant of the variance request would be akin to the granting of a special privilege not enjoyed by other similar properties. 7. 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 the same zone and vicinity. There are no special circumstances as the original approval of the restaurant was based on the ability to provide parking on-site. The site's characteristics do not constitute an impediment to the application of the zoning regulations as the continued use of the property is viable. 8. 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 such special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, is denied the property in question. No evidence of other similarly zoned properties has been submitted for the same vicinity indicating that variances have been granted to allow for required parking offsite by lease, when uses have expanded without the required approvals. Granting a variance would have the effect of bestowing a special privilege to one property

11 - CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 11 owner which is not enjoyed by others. No other property has been shown to have such a substantial property right. 9. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located. A grant for parking off-site where such parking may not be available, does not result in a mitigation of spillover parking impacts on the residential streets in the area. Furthermore, a grant of the request would represent a corresponding approval to permit the increase in square footage and occupancy of the restaurant which has been shown to have had adverse impacts. There already is a parking shortage in the area as further evidenced by the permit parking district in the abutting residential area. Thus, a grant to allow approximately 60% of the required parking off-site where there is no guarantee of continuous availability is likely to further create cumulative impacts. This will be further aggravated as other properties in the area are to be redeveloped. 10. The granting of the variance will adversely affect any element of the General Plan. The Wilshire Community Plan Map designates the property for General Commercial land uses with corresponding zones of C1.5, C2, C4, RAS3 and RAS4 and Height District No. 1. The use is permitted by the Plan and zone but the Plan seeks to provide adequate parking for commercial development to mitigate impacts on abutting uses. The lack of on-site parking as a result of the overdevelopment of a property is not consistent with the objectives of the Plan. ADDITIONAL MANDATORY FINDINGS 11. The National Flood Insurance Program rate maps, which are a part of the Flood Hazard 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 located in Zone C, areas of minimal flooding. 12. On August 26,2009, the Department of City Planning Environmental Staff Advisory Committee (ESAC) issued Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV MND and determined that by imposing conditions, project-related impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels (Section 15074, State CEQA Guidelines). I do not adopt said action as it does not address nor can it mitigate more substantive issues of violations identified as part of testimony and subsequent written correspondence related to the location.

12 I CASE NO. ZA (CUB)(ZV) PAGE 12 APPEAL PERIOD - EFFECTIVE DATE The Zoning Administrator's determination in this matter will become effective after JULY 15, 201 1, unless an appeal therefrom is filed with the City Planning Department. It is strongly advised that appeals be filed early during the appeal period and in person so that imperfections/incompleteness may be corrected before the appeal period expires. Any appeal must be filed on the prescribed forms, accompanied by the required fee, a copy of the Zoning Administrator's action, and received and receipted at a public office of the Department of City Planning on or before the above date or the appeal will not be accepted. Forms are available on-line at Public offices are located at: Figueroa Plaza Marvin Braude San Fernando 201 North Figueroa Street, Valley Constituent Service Center 4th Floor 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Room 251 Los Angeles, CA Van Nuys, CA (213) (818) If you seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section , the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which the City's decision became final pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section There may be other time limits which also affect your ability to seek judicial review. LOURDES GREEN Associate Zoning Administrator Direct Telephone No. (21 3) cc: Councilmember Tom LaBonge Fourth District Adjoining Property Owners l nspector Todd Robertson Department of Building and Safety 3950 Wilshire Boulevard, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA