RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING RECOMMENDATION REPORT WEST LOS ANGELES AREA PLANNING COMMISSION Date: November 5, 2008 Time: after 4:30 p.m.* Place: Henry Medina West Los Angeles Parking Enforcement Facility W. Exposition Boulevard 2 nd Floor Roll Call Room Los Angeles, CA Public Hearing: September 26, 2008 Appealable Status: City Council Expiration Date: November 8, 2008 CASE NO.: APCW SPE-SPP CEQA No.: ENV CE Related Case: None Council No.: 11 Plan Area: Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Specific Plan: Pacific Palisades Commercial Village & Neighborhoods Certified NC: None GPLU: Neighborhood Commercial Zone: [Q]C2-1XL Applicant: Samer Elias, Sam s Restaurant PROJECT LOCATION: 106 N. West Channel Road PROPOSED PROJECT: The continued use and maintenance of a 3-foot, 6-inch wide by 8-foot high, two faced projecting sign for a existing restaurant. REQUESTED ACTION: Pursuant to Section F of the Municipal Code, an Exception from Section 13.B.9 of the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan (Ordinance No. 160,515 as amended by Ordinances 168,246 and 168,579) to permit a 28 square foot sign to project approximately 3- feet 6-inches from the building wall in lieu of the Specific Plan requirement of sign faces being parallel to building wall or façade. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Approve a Specific Plan Exception from Section 13.B.9 of the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan for the continued use and maintenance of a 3-foot, 6-inch wide by 8- foot high, two faced projecting sign, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. 2. Approve Project Permit Compliance with the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan. 3, Approve ENV CE. 4. Adopt the attached Findings. 5. Advise the applicant that, pursuant to California State Public Resources Code Section , the City shall monitor or require evidence that mitigation conditions are implemented and maintained throughout the life of the project and the City may require any necessary fees to cover the cost of such monitoring. S. GAIL GOLDBERG, AICP Director of Planning Betsy Weisman, Principal City Planner Jim Tokunaga, Hearing Officer (213) 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 (Phone No ). While all written communications are given to the Commission for consideration, the initial packets are sent the 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 this 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 on the basis of disability, and upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities. 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 not later than three working days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by calling the Commission Secretariat at (213)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Analysis...1 Project Summary Prior Relevant Case Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Issues Conclusion Conditions of Approval...3 Entitlement Conditions Administrative Conditions Findings...5 General Plan Land Use Designation General Plan Text Specific Plan Exception Environmental Public Hearing and Communications...9 Exhibits A-Sign Drawing B-Photos (copies) of existing sign C- Radius Map D- E-ENV CE

3 APCW SPE 1 Project Summary PROJECT ANALYSIS The subject property consists of a flat, rectangular-shaped parcel, approximately 4,800 square feet in size. The site is zoned [Q]C2-1XL and located on the south side of West Channel Road 100-feet east of the Pacific Coast Highway in Pacific Palisades. The site is currently developed with a 2-story approximately 1,600 square building currently occupied by Sam s Restaurant and Lounge (Applicant). In 2004 the restaurant was issued an Order to Comply (Case No ) by the Department of Building and Safety. The order required the building owner to Remove or obtain the required permit for the unapproved projection sign installed in the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Exception request is necessary in order for the Applicant to proceed with the necessary sign permit. The current sign was attached to the building in The sign is a handcrafted sign, approximately 28 square feet and 42-inches by 96-inches in size. The sign itself is painted onto an acrylic sheet mounted onto a steel frame. The copy reads Sam s in cursive letters near the top of the sign and Restaurant and Lounge in all capital block lettering near the bottom. The majority of the face of the sign depicts a painting of a man in a boat in silhouette with ripples of water. The sign projects from the side of the building approximately 27-feet above the sidewalk and there is no illumination within the sign. The original building at this location based on historic record was constructed in the 1930 s. Department of Building and Safety records show that in 1956 a sign permit was issued for the building. The 1956 sign permit was for a projecting sign, 25 square feet in size. The sign at that time was for Louis Coffee Shop. In 1994 during the Northridge earthquake, the building was destroyed as well as the sign. The building was rebuilt in 1998 without the projecting sign. In 2000 the Applicant asked the owner if a sign could be added to the building for increased visibility and based on the existence of the prior sign, the owner agreed to a new sign and the current sign was added without permits. It is the lack of sign permit that resulted in the Order to Comply. Prior Relevant Case. ZA CUB-PA1 Conditional Use, Plan Approval to permit the selling of a full line of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant. The Associate Zoning Administrator approved the request on February 24, Surrounding Land Use and Zoning All of the surrounding properties are zoned [Q]C2-1XL and developed with restaurants, commercial offices, and retail businesses in two story structures. Residentially zoned properties are further out approximately 300-feet north and southeast of the site however these properties do not have direct access to the West Channel Road. Further west of the site is public open space zoned OS-1XL (Will Rogers State Beach). One hour metered parking is available along West Channel Road. The street itself has one lane eastbound into the residential neighborhoods from Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) two lanes are westbound intersecting at PCH where there is a traffic signal. A center turning lane is available in the median of West Channel Road.

4 APCW SPE 2 Issues No major issue has occurred during the investigation of this request. Conclusion The Planning Department has recommended approval of the Specific Plan Exception. In this instance records show that a projecting sign has been at this location since It is a result of an earthquake in 1994 that the previous building and sign were destroyed. The restaurant itself is a local restaurant frequented mostly by local residents. The sign is not obtrusive in the sense that it is not illuminated or otherwise overtly conspicuous. It is a one of a kind, hand painted sign, specifically for the restaurant, and it is not a nationally recognized logo or brand that could deter from the community s local character. The skyline surrounding the sign is a hodgepodge of overhead utility poles and cables and the sign does not particularly stand out. Granting of an exception for this particular case will not compromise the integrity of the Specific Plan since the circumstances leading to the sign are unique to this case.

5 APCW SPE 3 A. Entitlement Conditions CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Sign. One projecting sign (two sided) for business identification shall be permitted on the building. The sign shall be no greater than 28 square feet in size and in substantial conformance with the signage plan labeled as Exhibit A attached to the subject case file. 2. Sign Prohibition. The following signs are expressly prohibited: i. Off-site commercial signs. ii. Roof signs. iii. Window signs (except store names, store hours, logos, and holiday paintings which must be removed within five business days after the holiday). iv. Animated signs, including flashing neon signs. v. Bench signs. vi. Pole signs and monument signs (except as provided in Section 13.C of the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan). B. Administrative Conditions 3. Approval, Verification and Submittals. Copies of any approvals, guarantees or verification of consultations, review or approval, plans, etc., as may be required by the subject conditions, shall be provided to the Department of City Planning for placement in the subject file. 4. Code Compliance. Area, height and use regulations of the zone classification of the subject property shall be complied with, except where herein conditions are more restrictive. 5. Covenant. Prior to the issuance of any permits relative to this matter, an agreement concerning all the information contained in these conditions shall be recorded in the County Recorder=s Office. The agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding on any subsequent property owners, heirs or assigns. The agreement shall be submitted to the Department of City Planning for approval before being recorded. After recordation, a copy bearing the Recorder=s number and date shall be provided to the Department of City Planning for attachment to the file. 6. Definition. Any agencies, public officials or legislation referenced in these conditions shall mean those agencies, public offices, legislation or their successors, designees or amendment to any legislation. 7. Enforcement. Compliance with these conditions and the intent of these conditions shall be to the satisfaction of the Department of City Planning and any designated agency, or the agency=s successor and in accordance with any stated laws or regulations, or any amendments thereto. 8. Utilization of Entitlement. The applicant/owner shall have a period of two years from the effective date of the subject grant to effectuate the terms of this entitlement by securing a sign permit for the authorized sign, or unless prior to the expiration of the time period to

6 APCW SPE 4 utilize the privileges, the applicant files a written request and is granted an extension to the termination period for up to one additional year pursuant to Section C.4(e) of the Municipal Code. Thereafter, the entitlement shall be deemed terminated and the property owner shall be required to secure a new authorization for the use. 9. Project Plan Modifications. Any corrections and/or modifications to the Project plans made subsequent to this grant that are deemed necessary by the Department of Building and Safety, or other Agency for Code compliance, and which involve a change in signage shall require a referral of the revised plans back to the Department of City Planning for additional review and final sign-off prior to the issuance of any building permit in connection with said plans. This process may require additional review and/or action by the appropriate decision making authority including the Director of Planning, or Area Planning Commission. 10. Indemnification. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, or employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval which action is brought within the applicable limitation period. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.

7 APCW SPE 5 FINDINGS 1. General Plan Land Use Designation. The subject property is located within the Brentwood- Pacific Palisades Community Plan, which was adopted by the City Council on June 17, 1998 (pursuant to CPC CPU). The Plan Map designates the subject property for Neighborhood Commercial land uses with corresponding zones of C1, C1.5, C2, C4, RAS3, and RAS4. The subject site is zoned [Q]C2-1XL and is consistent with the land use designation. The [Q] Qualifying Condition attached to the zone limits commercial uses to C1 uses. Restaurants are permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial designation and the C1 Zone. The height district of 1XL limits the floor area to one and one half times the buildable area of the site and a height of 30-feet. The restaurant is in an existing building and no construction is proposed as part of this request. 2. General Plan Text. Chapter III of the Brentwood-Pacific Palisades Community Plan contains the following Objective and Policy regarding the commercial sector of the plan area. Objective 2-4: Policy 2-4-2: To enhance the appearance of commercial districts consistent with the character of, and quality of the surrounding neighborhood. Preserve community character, scale, and architectural diversity. The Specific Plan Exception request is for the sign only. The restaurant is a permitted use in the Community Plan. The sign is designed specifically for the restaurant and is not illuminated, animated, or otherwise obtrusive to the commercial district. It is a hand painted sign that identifies the business and the majority of the two sides are of a silhouette of a man in a boat. The uniqueness of the sign will contribute to the commercial character of the street and enhance the community oriented nature of the businesses and preserve the individual quality of the restaurant use. 3. Specific Plan Exception Findings. Pursuant to Section F of the Municipal Code. A. The strict application of the policies, standards and regulations of the Specific Plan to the subject property will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the Plan. The Applicant is requesting an Exception from the regulations of the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan requiring building signs be parallel to the building facade. The Specific Plan regulates signs in order to control the number and size of signs thereby eliminating an overabundance of signs and maintaining a unifying characteristic among the commercial neighborhood. In this case the Applicant has constructed a business identification sign approximately 3-feet 6-inches in width by 8- feet in height that projects out from the façade on the second story of a 27-foot height building. The sign added to the building in 2000 was constructed without city permits. The owner of the property approved the addition of a sign for the restaurant since prior to an earthquake in 1994 that destroyed the previous building, a projecting sign had been on the building. The building itself was rebuilt in 1998 replacing the original 1930 s structure. The sign serves to identify the restaurant for east/west pedestrian and vehicular traffic along West Channel Road. The restaurant is located approximately 100-feet east of Pacific Coast Highway, a major north/south thoroughfare along the coast. Without the projection sign, only one other sign identifies the business that is visible only when looking

8 APCW SPE 6 directly at the building. Building and Safety records do show that a projecting sign was permitted in 1956 for the previous building. The addition of the current sign was an effort by the building owner to allow the restaurant operator a business identification sign similar in size to the previous projecting sign. A practical difficulty exists in taking down a identification sign for a locally owned business when the sign itself replaces a previous sign. B. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions that are applicable to the subject property or to the intended use or development of the subject property that do not generally apply to other properties within the Specific Plan area. Prior to the construction of the existing building, a commercial building with a similar footprint had been at this location since at least 1939 (Department of Building and Safety Records indicates a permit was issued for the site although the permit itself is no longer available). In 1994 during the Northridge earthquake, the original building collapsed. In 1998 a new building was reconstructed with essentially the same footprint as the 1939 building. The reconstructed 1998 building is the current building and occupied by the Applicant as Sam s Restaurant and Lounge. In 2000 the Applicant approached the owner of the building and inquired about putting up a sign on the building since many potential customers were driving past the restaurant not noticing the business. The owner remembered that the previous earthquake demolished building had a projecting sign and suggested that a similar sign be built for this restaurant. A sign was designed and attached to the building (current sign) without permits. Records with Building and Safety indicate that in 1956, a sign permit was issued for the previous building (a projecting sign, approximately 6-feet by 10-feet in size). Based on the existence of the previous projecting sign and the destruction of the building due to the 1994 earthquake, a sign could have been reattached to the building in 1998 during the reconstruction but at the time was not considered. Due to this oversight, an exceptional circumstance can be found to warrant an exception to permit a projecting sign similar to the sign that was destroyed in the earthquake. C. The requested exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property within the geographically Specific Plan in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of such special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships is denied to the property in question. The sign is for a small locally owned restaurant that has been at this location for past 10 years. The commercial neighborhood is an assortment of small businesses catering to the immediate neighborhood. The Specific Plan was created to maintain the street character and in regards to signs to enhance pedestrian orientation by reducing the size and location of signs. In addition to the projection sign, the only other sign for the restaurant is the name Sam s above a central awning above a first floor window. The projecting sign located on the second story of the restaurant building is perpendicular to the façade of the building along the street (north face) but is parallel to the east face of the building. The height of the sign in relation to the sidewalk and street does not detract or obstruct from the pedestrian views along West Channel Road. The sign is a handpainted color sign mostly in shades of orange and blue depicting a man in a boat. The street is lined with utility poles that contain utility lines to the different buildings. The overall effect is a skyline of poles, cables, and wires and the sign does not stand out amongst this clutter. The sign has been designed with minimal lettering. Special

9 APCW SPE 7 circumstances include the existence of a similar projecting sign prior to the 1994 earthquake that destroyed the previous sign. In addition, there are several other signs in the general vicinity located in the Specific Plan that are similar or exceed the sign regulations. A large illuminated pole sign for the Chevron gas station sign is located at the intersection of Entrada Drive and PCH and directly across the street is an illuminated pole sign for a liquor store. Along West Channel Drive there are two signs that stand out. The Golden Bull restaurant located just north of the subject site on the same side of the street has a illuminated pole sign and Café Delphini on the north side of the street has a small roof top sign. D. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to property or improvements adjacent to or in the vicinity of the subject property. Conditions have been placed to ensure that only the existing non-permitted sign be allowed to remain. Any additional signs must conform to the requirements of the Specific Plan. Conditions have been placed to prohibit certain types of signs not permitted by the Specific Plan. E. Granting of the exception is consistent with the principles, intent and goals of the specific plan and any applicable element of the General Plan. The Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan was adopted in The Specific Plan, an implementing tool of the General Plan, has many purposes all of which are geared towards enhancing commercial development in the Specific Plan area. One of the stated purposes of the Specific Plan is To provide guidelines and a process for review and approval of exterior and site design, renovations, signs for buildings and structures and other developments. The restaurant sign is not a brand or logo type sign used to identify a franchise or chain, rather it is for a small locally owned restaurant. Inasmuch as the existing sign is designed as a unique, one of a kind sign specific for this restaurant, and it replaces a previous sign originally permitted in the 1950 s that was destroyed in an earthquake, granting of the exception is consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and General Plan. 4. Specific Plan Project Permit Compliance. Pursuant to Section C of the Municipal Code: A. The project substantially complies with the applicable regulations, standards and provisions of the specific plan. With approval of an Exception from the Pacific Palisades Commercial Village and Neighborhoods Specific Plan for the for the projecting sign, the project complies with Section 6.A (Land Use Limitations) of the Specific Plan inasmuch as the proposed project is a sign for a restaurant located in the [Q]C2-1XL Zone, a commercial zone that permits restaurant uses. The restaurant use has been in operation since 1998 and is not a subject of the Project Permit Compliance. B. The project incorporates mitigation measures, monitoring measures when necessary, or alternatives identified in the environmental review which would mitigate the negative environmental effects of the project to the extent physically feasible.

10 APCW SPE 8 Environmental mitigation measures have not been included as Conditions of Approval since the project was found to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 5. Environmental. The subject proposal has been determined to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 11, Category 1 of the City CEQA Guidelines. The project consists of an on premise sign in a Specific Plan area that is not permitted. A Notice of Exemption was filed as ENV CE on March 10, 2008

11 APCW SPE 9 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMUNICATIONS The public hearing on this matter was held at the West Los Angeles Municipal Building on Friday, September 26, There were four people in attendance at the hearing which included the Applicant, the property owner, the representative for the Applicant, and one person from the public who belonged to a local civic association and community council. Summary of Public Hearing Testimony The restaurant owner gave a history in the establishment of the restaurant, the resulting nonpermitted sign, and the remedies he is seeking to make the sign legal. The representative gave a description of the sign. The property owner elaborated on the history of the original building, the subsequent earthquake, and verification of a previous projecting sign on the building. A local resident did have concerns about maintaining the integrity of the Specific Plan and the potential effect of granting an exception. Upon hearing the merits of the request and the understanding that the prior building did have a projecting sign, he testified that he was not opposed to the sign. Communications Received One letter has been received from a nearby business owner in support of the sign and the exception request.