CITY OF Los ANGELES CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 LINN K.WYATT CHIEF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ASSOCIATE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS JACK CHIANG HENRY CHU LOURDES GREEN JAE H. KIM CHARLES J. RAUSCH, JR. JIM TOKUNAGA FERNANDO TOVAR DAVIDS. WEINTRAUB MAY A E. ZAITZEVSKY February 25, 2016 CITY OF Los ANGELES CALIFORNIA ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION 200 N. SPRJNG STREET, 7'" FLOOR Los ANGELES, CA (213) FAX: (213) Aaron Golchet (A)(O)(R) A&H Property Investments LLC Mayfield Avenue, #103 Los Angeles, CA CASE NO. ZA (ZV)(ZAA) ZONE VARIANCE/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ADJUSTMENT 2689 and 2691 East 8th Street Boyle Heights Planning Area Zone RD1.5-1,R2 D. M A221 C. D. : 14 CEQA : ENV ND Legal Description: Arb 3, Lot 247 and 248, La Mesa Tract Pursuant to Charter Section 562 and Los Angeles Municipal Code Section B, I hereby APPROVE: a Zone Variance from Section B,4 to allow a second dwelling with 1, 160 square feet of lot area and a third dwelling unit with zero square feet of lot area in lieu of the minimum lot area of 1,500 square feet otherwise required per dwelling unit in the RD1.5 Zone provided that the third unit (Unit No. 3) meets the definition and criteria set for an affordable housing unit reserved for a Low Income Household to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department; and, a Zone Variance from Section C,5(h) of the Municipal Code to allow required parking for the main building in the RD1.5 Zone to be located in a more restrictive zone, the R2 Zone, Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.28, I hereby APPROVE: a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment from Section B, 1 of the Municipal Code to allow a varying front yard setback between zero feet and 6 feet 10 inches in lieu of the minimum 15 feet otherwise required in the RD1.5 Zone; and, a Zoning Administrator's Adjustment from Section B, 2 of the Municipal Code to allow a varying southeasterly side yard setback between zero feet and 3 feet 3 inches, in lieu of the minimum 4 feet 6 inches otherwise required, all in conjunction with the legalization and conversion of a single-family dwelling into a three-family dwelling, upon the following additional terms and conditions:

2 PAGE2 1. All other use, height and area regulations of the Municipal Code and all other applicable government/regulatory agencies shall be strictly complied with in the development and use of the property, except as such regulations are herein specifically varied or required. 2. The use and development of the property shall be in substantial conformance with the plot plan submitted with the application and marked Exhibit "A", except as may be revised as a result of this action. 3. The authorized use shall be conducted at all times with due regard forthe character of the surrounding district, and the right is reserved to the Zoning Administrator to impose additional corrective Conditions, if, in the Administrator's opinion, such Conditions are proven necessary for the protection of persons in the neighborhood or occupants of adjacent property. 4. All graffiti on the site shall be removed or painted over to match the color of the surface to which it is applied within 24 hours of its occurrence. 5. A copy of the first page of this grant and all Conditions and/or any subsequent appeal of this grant and its resultant Conditions and/or letters of clarification shall be printed on the building plans submitted to the Development Services Center and the Department of Building and Safety for purposes of having a building permit issued. 6. Prior to the issuance of any permits relative to this matter, a covenant acknowledging and agreeing to comply with all the terms and conditions established herein shall be recorded in the County Recorder's Office. The agreement (standard master covenant and agreement form CP-6770) shall run with the land and shall be binding on any subsequent owners, heirs or assigns. The agreement with the conditions attached must be submitted to the Development Services Center for. approval before being recorded. After recordation, a certified copy bearing the Recorder's number and date shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator for attachment to the subject case file. 7. No parking variance has been requested for the addition of two dwelling units. Required parking shall be provided in accordance with the Municipal Code in the abutting R2 Zone under the same ownership but in no event shall less than five spaces be provided on-site. 8. The proposed second unit (Unit No 2 in Exhibit A) shall not exceed 646 square feet and shall be maintained as a one-bedroom unit. 9. The third dwelling unit (Unit 3 in Exhibit A) shall not exceed 670 square feet and shall be maintained as a one-bedroom unit. 10. The second and third dwelling units, which remain vacant, shall not be rented out until all required permits and discretionary approvals have been complied with and cleared by all affected City Departments. 11. Within 30 days of the effective date of this action, the applicant shall initiate all applications for building permits with the Department of Building and Safety to

3 PAGE3 legalize the conversion of the two dwelling units and to insure that the units comply with all building code regulations. 12. Within 30 days of the effective date of this action, the applicant shall initiate all necessary proceedings with the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department to offer the third unit (Unit No. 3) as an affordable housing unit for Low Income Household in compliance with the California Health and Safety Code, for a 30-year term to the satisfaction of the Housing and Community Investment Department. Copies of documentation that such process has been initiated with the Housing and Community Investment Department, shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for inclusion in the file, including a copy of the final covenant entered into with said Department. This covenant is separate from the covenant required to be filed with the Department of City Planning pursuant to Condition No. 6 of this grant. 13. Prior to any sign-off of plans by the Development Services Center, the applicant shall submit the plot plan for review and approval to the Fire Department. Said Department's approval shall be included in the form of a stamp on the plans submitted to the Development Services Center. 14. No Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for the change of use from singlefamily dwelling to a three-unit building until the applicant has submitted documentation in the form of an approved revocable permit from the Bureau of Engineering that said Bureau has approved the continued use and maintenance of the concrete block wall within the Fickett Street public right-of-way. If the request has been denied or modified, the applicant shall provide documentation that he has complied with any action of the Bureau of Engineering. Under this action, no request for any over-in-height fencing within the public right-of-way has been requested or approved. 15. INDEMNIFICATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION COSTS. Applicant shall do all of the following: a. Defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all actions against the City relating to or arising out of, in whole or in part, the City's processing and approval of this entitlement, including but not limited to, an action to attack, challenge, set aside, void or otherwise modify or annul the approval of the entitlement, the environmental review of the entitlement, or the approval of subsequent permit decisions or to claim personal property damage, including from inverse condemnation or any other constitutional claim. b. Reimburse the City for any and all costs incurred in defense of an action related to or arising out of, in whole or in part, the City's processing and approval of the entitlement, including but not limited to payment of all court costs and attorney's fees, costs of any judgments or awards against the City (including an award of attorney's fees), damages and/or settlement costs. c. Submit an initial deposit for the City's litigation costs to the City within 10 days' notice of the City tendering defense to the Applicant and requesting a

4 PAGE4 deposit. The initial deposit shall be in an amount set by the City Attorney's Office, in its sole discretion, based on the nature and scope of action, but in no event shall the initial deposit be less than $25,000. The City's failure to notice or collect the deposit does not relieve the Applicant from responsibility to reimburse the City pursuant to the requirement in paragraph (b). d. Submit supplemental deposits upon notice by the City. Supplemental deposits may be required in an increased amount from the initial deposit if found necessary by the City to protect the City's interests. The City's failure to notice or collect the deposit does not relieve the Applicant from responsibility to reimburse the City pursuant to the requirement (b). e. If the City determines it necessary to protect the City's interests, execute an indemnity and reimbursement agreement with the City under terms consistent with the requirements of this condition. The City shall notify the applicant within a reasonable period of time of its receipt of any action and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding in a reasonable time, or if the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel, including the City Attorney's office or outside counsel. At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any action, but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of any obligation imposed by this condition. In the event the Applicant fails to comply with this condition, in whole or in part, the City may withdraw its defense of the action, void its approval of the entitlement, or take any other action. The City retains the right to make all decisions with respect to its representations in any legal proceeding, including its inherent right to abandon or settle litigation. For purposes of this condition, the following definitions apply: "City" shall be defined to include the City, its agents, officers, boards, commission, committees, employees and volunteers. "Action" shall be defined to include suits, proceedings (including those held under alternative dispute resolution procedures), claims or lawsuits. Actions includes actions, as defined herein, alleging failure to comply with any federal, state or local law. Nothing in the definitions included in this paragraph are intended to limit the rights of the City or the obligations of the Applicant otherwise created by this condition. OBSERVANCE OF CONDITIONS - TIME LIMIT - LAPSE OF PRIVILEGES All terms and conditions of the approval shall be fulfilled before the use may be established. The instant authorization is further conditional upon the privileges being utilized within three years after the effective date of approval and, if such privileges are not utilized or substantial physical construction work is not begun within said time and carried on diligently to completion, the authorization shall terminate and become void.

5 PAGE5 TRANSFERABILITY This authorization runs with the land. In the event the property is to be sold, leased, rented or occupied by any person or corporation other than yourself, it is incumbent upon you to advise them regarding the conditions of this grant. VIOLATIONS OF THESE CONDITIONS, A MISDEMEANOR Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides: "A variance, conditional use, adjustment, public benefit or other quasi-judicial approval, or any conditional approval granted by the Director, pursuant to the authority of this chapter shall become effective upon utilization of any portion of the privilege, 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 connection with the granting of any action taken pursuant to the authority of this chapter, shall constitute a violation of this chapter and shall be subject to the same penalties as any other violation of this Code." Every violation of this determination is punishable as a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $2,500 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period 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 variance is not a permit or license and that any permits and licenses required by law must be obtained from the proper public agency. Furthermore, if any condition of this grant is violated or not complied with, then this variance shall be subject to revocation as provided in Section of the Municipal Code. The Zoning Administrator's determination in this matter will become effective after MARCH 11, 2016, 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 201 North Figueroa Street, 4th Floor Los Angeles, CA (213) Marvin Braude San Fernando Valley Constituent Service Center 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Room 251 Van Nuys, CA (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.

6 PAGE6 NOTICE The applicant is further advised that subsequent contact regarding this determination must be with the Development Services Center. This would include clarification, verification of condition compliance and plans or building permit applications, etc., and shall be accomplished BY APPOINTMENT ONLY, in order to assure that you receive service with a minimum amount of waiting. You should advise any consultant representing you of this requirement as well. FINDINGS OF FACT After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the application, the plans submitted therewith, and the statements made at the public hearing on February 9, 2016, 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 and prerequisites for granting the variances and adjustments as enumerated in Section 562 of the City Charter and Sections B, 1 and 12.28, respectively, of the Municipal Code have been established by the following facts: BACKGROUND The property, which consists of two adjoining lots - Arbs 3 of Lot 247 and Lot 248, is a northerly-sloping, rectangular-shaped, approximately 4,460 square-foot parcel of land. The property is split between the RD1.5-1 and R2-1 Zones. Arb 3 of Lot 247 is a 1,800 squarefoot interior lot in the R2-1 Zone with a 40-foot frontage along Fickett Street. Arb 3 of Lot 248 is a 2,660 square-foot corner lot in the RD1.5-1 Zone with a 45-foot frontage along 8th Street and foot frontage along Fickett Street. The property is located in the Boyle Heights Community Plan Area, the East Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone, and a Special Grading Area (BOE Basic Grid Map A-13372). The adjoining properties to the north are zoned R2-1 and characterized by single-family dwellings. The adjoining properties to the south, across 8th street, are zoned RD1.5-1 and characterized by multi-family dwellings. The adjoining properties to the east and west are zoned RD1.5-1 and characterized by single- and multi-family dwellings. 8th Avenue, adjoining the property on the south, is an Avenue 11, designated a right-of-way width of 86 feet, and improved with asphalt roadway, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, and trees. Fickett Street, adjoining the property to the east, is a Local Street, designated a right-ofway width of 60 feet, and improved with asphalt roadway, concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, and trees. Previous zoning related actions in the area include: Case No. ZA (ZV) - On May 18, 1995, the Zoning Administrator approved a variance from the provisions of Section A,4(a) of the Municipal Code to permit 94 parking spaces for a 75-unit family housing development in lieu of the 150 spaces required at 2601 East Olympic Boulevard.

7 PAGE? Case No. ZA (ZV) - On February 13, 1991, the Zoning Administrator approved a variance from the provisions of Section A of the Municipal Code to permit the use and maintenance of an approximately 42-space automobile parking area on the R2-zoned portion of the site to accommodate required parking for a 17-unit apartment project to be constructed on two adjoining lots zoned RD1.5 at 1021 Soto Street. Case No. ZA (ZV) - On October 19, 1988, the Zoning Administrator approved a variance from the requirement that a use must be greater than 500 feet from a more restrictive zone at 840 Mission Road. CORRESPONDENCE Abundant Housing LA, an organization advocating for more housing in Los Angeles, submitted a letter in support of the project stating that "since there is no land acquisition or demolition cost, and the shell of the structure already exists, this type of housing can be created at a much lower cost than entirely new structures." ZONE VARIANCE FINDINGS In order for a variance to be granted, all five of the legally mandated findings delineated in City Charter Section 562 and Municipal Code Section 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: 1. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations. The variance entails a request to legalize two existing units on a property developed with a permitted single-family dwelling in the RD1.5 Zone and a variance to allow required parking in the R2 Zone. The property is developed with an asphalt-paved parking lot with five standard parking spaces on Arb 3 of Lot 247 in the R2-1 Zone and a two-story, 2,575 square-foot three-family dwelling on Arb 3 of Lot 248 in the RD1.5-1 Zone. The three-family dwelling was built as a single-family dwelling in At some point in time unknown to the applicant, the building was divided into three separate dwelling units, with two one-bedroom units on the first floor and a three-bedroom unit on the second floor. This conversion of the single-family dwelling to the existing three-family dwelling was done without the required approvals and permits. While no building permits were found in relation to the initial construction of the residence, subsequent applications for building permits filed for various work conducted over the years confirms the existing use of the property as a single-family dwelling. It should be noted that a building permit application submitted in 1954 indicates that Lot 248 was zoned R4 at the time. It was subsequently downzoned to the RD1.5 Zone. The prior R4 Zone allowed a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of 400 square feet. Assembly Bill 283 amended the Boyle Heights Community Plan under Case No. CPC GPC, which changed the zoning of Arb 3 of Lot 248 from R4 to RD1.5 in order to "roll back" zoning on many parcels, effectively reducing permitted densities throughout the City.

8 PAGES According to the applicant, the conversion was made prior to his purchase of the property in No Order to Comply has been issued by the City but the applicant noted at the hearing that when he discovered that the additional units were illegal, he proceeded to seek their legalization. The dwelling is completely located in the RD1.5 Zone portion of the ownership. In the RD1.5 Zone, a lot area of 1,500 square feet per unit is required. Since the RD1.5 Zone lot is only 2,660 square feet, is does not have the lot area to allow more than one unit. Therefore the request is for a variance to allow (1) a second dwelling unit with 1, 160 square feet of lot area and a third dwelling unit with zero square feet of lot area in lieu of the minimum 1,500 square feet otherwise required per dwelling unit in the RD1.5 Zone and (2) required parking to be located in a more restrictive zone (R2) than that of the main building (RD1.5). In this instance the request to legalize a conversion of a single-family dwelling to a three-unit development does not on its own result in a hardship that is associated with the zoning provisions or with any unfair application of the permitted zoning regulations. It is recognized that if this request is denied, compliance with the Code requirement can be attained and that the zoning provisions do not impair the applicant from enjoying the use of the property in the same manner as other properties in the area which have legally permitted densities. It can be argued that at the core of the variance findings it would be difficult to ascertain that this situation is one where the variance is necessary to reconcile a situation where there is no demonstration that an outright disparity of privileges exists. This grant recognizes the importance of the findings and notes that the legalization of one of the dwelling units can result in the provision of an affordable housing unit. In this instance the variance grant has been tied to the third unit being reserved for affordable housing for a Low Income Household as the term is defined by the State and implemented and monitored by the Housing and Community Investment Department. The unit is vacant so making it available to a tenant who meets the required income/household criteria is facilitated. The approval of the unit is contingent on its requirement to be registered with the City's Housing and Community Investment Department and committed by covenant as affordable housing for a minimum term of 30 years. The requirement to maintain the unit as a registered affordable unit provides some measure of benefit which can be given back to the community. Required parking will be provided in the abutting lot. A second variance request is to allow said required parking to be located in the R2 Zone which is a more restrictive zone than the RD1.5 Zone. Since surface parking is a use that would be permitted on the RD1.5 Zone, there is no discrepancy between the zones in permitting such use. The abutting R2 Zone property is physically tied to the property where the housing is located and allows for easy parking availability. Both properties are developed with substandard lot sizes for their respective zones and as such it would be difficult to accommodate parking and a development on each lot separately. The available R2 Zone lot is a readily accessible option to provide all the required parking. The parking lot would continue to provide parking for the property, which reduces the impacts of on-street parking and serves as a buffer between the three-family dwelling and the abutting residential property.

9 PAGE9 Among the purposes and intent of the Code is to limit the density of population, to conserve and stabilize the value of property, and to provide adequate open spaces for light and air. The project does not deviate from the authorized multi-family use of the land or the character of multi-family housing developments within the same zone. Since the additional units have been in use as such for an unknown number of years, the population density resulting from the legalization of the conversion is to remain the same. Approving the request to legalize the units can be appropriate and non-invasive as there are no structural changes planned. However, it is noted that without the ability to make one of the converted units an affordable dwelling, the findings for the grant of a variance would otherwise be compromised. As such, a denial of the variance would create an unnecessary hardship in that the resultant density would not provide additional needed affordable housing with required parking which can be accommodated on-site without any significant change to the existing development pattern in the area and the footprint of the existing building. 2. There are 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 special circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone and vicinity. These circumstances include the split zoning of the property, and the small lot size area and arrangement of the parcels with orientation to a corner location. Since different zones exist on the property, each portion of the property must be analyzed independently. All zoning requirements for any building or use are determined by the respective zones. The three-family dwelling is located in the RD1.5-1 Zone, which allows for multifamily dwellings with a minimum lot area of 1,500 square feet per dwelling unit. Furthermore, the adjoining piece of the property is located in the R2-1 Zone, which only allows up to two-family dwellings. The need to abide by separate zoning requirements make the combined development of the property difficult. If the two parcels were tied together, there would be almost enough lot area (4,460 square feet) to accommodate the three dwelling units( which would require a 4,500 squarefoot lot) and remain compatible with the residential density planned by the underlying RD1.5-1 Zone. 3. Such variance is 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. The request and grant herein allows the applicant to provide for a bona fide affordable housing unit, which will be monitored by the Housing and Community Investment Department. The grant allows the development to be on par with developments citywide that have been granted similar approvals in order to add to the affordable housing market under State and local provisions. A record search of surrounding properties within a 1,500-foot radius does not show that there has been similar deviations from the Code granted. However, the surrounding properties would be given similar consideration if they are burdened by similar circumstances

10 PAGE10 and could provide similar community benefits (i.e., affordable housing units and extra parking on-site). 4. The granting of such variance will not 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. As conditioned, the grant is not anticipated to adversely impact the existing character of the area. The two additional dwelling units would be contained within the existing structure and no construction is being proposed or considered herein. The request for variances to allow a second and third unit with less than the minimum lot area per dwelling required and required parking to remain in a more restrictive zone than that of the main building would simply legalize uses that have existed prior to the current property owner's purchase of the property. The threefamily dwelling and parking lot has existed under its current configuration for an unknown period of time and functioned compatibly within the community. The conversion/legalization of two additional units is not anticipated to cause any adverse impacts. Instead, approval of the proposed project would maintain the character of the immediate neighborhood since some of the surrounding properties have an equal or greater number of units. It would also allow the property to maintain the five parking spaces on site, which would reduce the impact of using street parking in the area. A review by the Fire Department is also a condition of this grant to insure that fire safety issues are addressed. Other conditions require that the applicant initiate the required proceedings for legalizing the additional units, including one as an affordable housing unit, within 30 days of the effective date of this action. A condition also reaffirms that the subject two units, which are currently empty, shall not be rented out until all the required approvals have been cleared by the City Departments. Since the units have been vacant, there is no impact to any existing tenants. As noted, a review by the Department of Building and Safety and the Housing and Community Investment Department is also identified as it is required nonetheless in conjunction with the legalization of the units, the issuance of a new Certificate of Occupancy and the processing of the affordable housing unit. There exists perimeter fencing on the property which encroaches into the public right-of-way. A condition of this grant requires that the applicant obtain a revocable permit from the Bureau of Engineering that such encroachment is approved if it is to remain. No other testimony or correspondence was received on the matter. As conditioned, the request is anticipated to not be materially detrimental or injurious to nearby properties. 5. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect any element of the General Plan. The Boyle Heights Community Plan designates the property for Low Medium II Residential and land uses with corresponding zones of R2 and RD1.5 and Height District No. 1.

11 PAGE 11 While the density of the project exceeds that of the RD1.5 corresponding zone, it complies with Objectives 1 and 2 of the Boyle Heights Community Plan, which are intended to "conserve and improve existing viable housing for persons desiring to live in Boyle Heights, especially low and moderate income families" and "provide new housing opportunities that accommodate a range of income needs, provide public amenities, and maximize the opportunities for individual choice," respectively. While the proposed density in terms of lot area exceeds the maximum density established by the plan designation, the provision of an affordable unit and adequate parking is in keeping with the intent of the Plan to provide housing opportunities that meet a variety of needs. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS In order for an adjustment from the zoning regulations to be granted, all of the legally mandated findings delineated in Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code 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. While site characteristics or existing improvements make strict adherence to the zoning regulations impractical or infeasible, the project nonetheless conforms with the intent of those regulations. The request also includes adjustments to allow a reduced front and southerly side yard setback, respectively. The provided setbacks vary as some reflect overhang measurements and deeper building footprints than the overhang would suggest. The intent of setback regulations is to ensure adequate open space, separation between buildings, and emergency access to all units on a property and to promote orderly, attractive, and harmonious development. The subject property is a corner lot with frontages on both 8th Street and Fickett Street. The requested reduction in front yard setback is along 8th Street and the requested reduction in side yard is along Fickett Street. There is no residential use or structure immediately adjacent to the reduced southerly side yard since this is a corner location. Observations of the area through a staff site investigation and review of aerial photos indicate that there are number of buildings or structures in the area that also observe reduced front and side yards, including the two adjacent properties to the west of the subject property on 8th Street. Approval of the requested adjustment would allow the subject property to remain compatible with many of the other properties in the area. Due to the split zoning of the site, the parcel in the RD1.5 Zone on which the building is located is substandard in lot area and width. This makes it difficult for any development to conform to the required setbacks while providing functional floor plans. In addition, the grant is to allow the existing nonconforming setbacks to remain for the property. No further reduction in setbacks is being proposed. Although the building on the subject property would remain closer to the front and southerly side property lines, it would not impede light, air, open space, or fire safety. As proposed, the request would not impact the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood nor conflict with the spirit and intent of the Code. Alternatively, denial of the requested adjustments would force the property to

12 PAGE12 conform to the required setbacks, which would substantially alter the footprint of the building and limit what can be built on the property. Site characteristics and existing improvements make strict adherence to the zoning regulations impractical. 7. In light of the project as a whole including any mitigation measures imposed, the project's location, size, height, operations and other significant features will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, welfare and safety. The request is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts to the surrounding area since reduced yard setbacks exist on several properties in the area. The reduced front and side yard setback being observed by the proposed three-family dwelling is a feature that is in character with adjacent properties. Any potential adverse impacts created by the request would be remedied by the conditions imposed as part of this grant as noted more in detail in Finding No. 4. A condition of this action includes a review by the Fire Department, which would ensure that emergency access and structural integrity of the building remains optimum. Another condition requires the applicant to begin all required permit applications to legalize the three-family dwelling within 30 days of the effective date of the grant. This would allow the Department of Building and Safety to inspect and ensure that the conversion is in compliance with all other building code regulations. In addition, there has been no testimony in opposition from property owners or other interested parties in the surrounding neighborhood. As proposed and conditioned, the request would be compatible with and would not adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, welfare and safety. 8. The project is in substantial conformance with the purpose, intent and provisions of the General Plan, the applicable community plan, and any specific plan. The Boyle Heights Community Plan designates the subject property for Low Medium II Residential land uses with the corresponding zones of R2 and RD1.5 and Height District No. 1. As noted in the findings above, the subject action is in conformance with the General Plan and Boyle Heights Community Plan. Most notably, the character of the immediate area is defined by similar structures with reduced setbacks. Given the reduced lot areas of the properties, the existing setbacks allow for the continuation of existing development in a manner that is viable and functional. ADDITIONAL MANDATORY FINDINGS 9. 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.

13 PAGE On December 9, 2015, the City Planning Department Environmental Staff Advisory Committee (ESAC) issued Negative Declaration No. ENV ND (Article V - City CEQA Guidelines) and determined that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. I hereby adopt that action. This Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. The records upon which this decision is based are with the Environmental Review Section of the Planning Department in Room 750, 200 North Spring Street. Inquiries regarding this matter shall be directed to Kenton Trinh, Planning Staff for the Office of Zoning Administration at (213) LOURDES GREEN Associate Zoning Administrator LG:KT:lmc cc: Councilmember Jose Huizar Fourteenth District Adjoining Property Owners