City of Los Angeles CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 LINN K. WYATT CHIEF ZONINS ADMINISTRATOR ASSOCIATE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS JACK CHIANG HENRY CHU LOURDES GREEN JAE H. KIM CHARLES J. RAUSCH, Jr. JIM TOKUNAGA FERNANDO TOVAR DAVID S. WEINTRAUB MAYA E. ZAITZEVSKY City of Los Angeles CALIFORNIA u V. $ o' «WiVi : s ^OED^ ERIC GARCETTI MAYOR I DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING MICHAEL J. LOGRANDE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION 200 N. Spring Street, 7,m Floor Los Angeles, CA (213) FAX: (213) January 8, 2016 Alon Abady (A)(0) Nordhoff 26, LLC Wilshire Boulevard, PH1010 Beverly Hills, CA Dominic Hong (R) Bid Group, Inc Calabasas Road, #1061 Calabasas, CA CASE NO. ZA (ZV) ZONE VARIANCE Nordhoff Street Chatsworth - Porter Ranch Planning Area Zone MR2-1/P-1 D. M. 195B109 C. D. 3 CEQA ENV MND Legal Description: Lot A, PM 4187 Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section B, I hereby DENY: a Zone Variance from Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to permit the conversion, use and maintenance of an existing 21,784 square-foot light industrial building to an Assisted Living Care Housing development in the MR2 Zone, and a Zone Variance from Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to permit the construction, use and maintenance of an 11,226 square-foot addition to the existing building in the P Zone. FINDINGS OF FACT After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the application, the plans submitted therewith, the analysis of the Project Planner thereon, the statements made at the public hearing on October 6, 2015, 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 zone variance under the provisions of Section D have not been established by the following facts: BACKGROUND The project involves an 11,226 square-foot addition to and conversion of an existing 21,784 square-foot light industrial building, for a total of 33,010 square feet, to a 95-bed Assisted Living Care Housing development in the MR2-1 and P-1 Zones

2 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 2 The subject property is a flat, irregular-shaped, approximately 47,132 square-foot corner lot with a 184-foot long frontage along Nordhoff Street and a 246-foot long frontage along Mason Avenue. The property is developed with a two-story, 21,784 square-foot, light industrial building, built in The property is located within the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan. The Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan Map designates the property for Light Manufacturing land use with corresponding zones of MR2 and M2. The applicant is seeking a Zone Variance to permit the conversion, use and maintenance of the existing 21,784 square-foot building to a 95-bed Assisted Living Care Housing development in the MR2 Zone and a Zone Variance to permit the construction, use and maintenance of an 11,226 square-foot addition to the existing building in the P Zone. Nordhoff Street, abutting the property to the north, is a Boulevard II (Major Highway - Class II), dedicated to a width of 100 feet and improved with asphalt roadway and concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mason Avenue, abutting the property to the east, is an Avenue II (Secondary Highway) dedicated to a width of 96 feet and improved with asphalt roadway and concrete curb gutter and sidewalk. Previous Cases. Affidavits. Permits, and Orders on the Applicant's Property: Case No. ZA (ZV): On September 27, 1990, the Zoning Administrator approved a variance from the provisions of Section B of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to permit the continued use and maintenance of a regional headquarters medical office complex in three existing buildings having a combined leasable floor area of approximately 89,024 square feet. Building Permit No. 1979VN01976: On May 28,1981, the Department of Building and Safety issued a Certificate of Occupancy for a two-story, 100' x 114'6" research clinic. Total parking required = 45; total parking provided = 46. Case No. CPC 23876: On November 22, 1972, the City Council adopted a Zone Change from M2-1 to MR2-1. (Ordinance No. 144,161; effective January 21, 1973) Previous Cases. Affidavits. Permits, and Orders on Surrounding Properties: Case No. ZA (ZV): On August 21, 2009, the Zoning Administrator approved a Variance from Section B granting continued use and maintenance of a metal fabrication business in the MR2-1 Zone previously approved under Case No. ZA (ZV) and expanding the use and maintenance of the metal fabrication business to 8944 Fulbright Avenue on an approximately 45,000 squarefoot lot within an approximately 20,000 square-foot building area, located at 8928 and 8944 North Fulbright Avenue.

3 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 3 Case No, ZA (ZV): On August 21, 2003, the Zoning Administrator approved a Variance from Section A of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to permit continued maintenance of a metal fabrication business, located at 8928 Fulbright Avenue. Public Hearing The public hearing was conducted on October 6, 2015 in the First Floor Conference Room at the Marvin Braude Building in Van Nuys. The public hearing was attended by the applicant, the applicant s representatives, a representative from the Council Office (CD 3), and several members from the general public. The applicant and the representative made the following points in regards to the project: Existing building has been vacant for three years and difficult to occupy, the proposed use is viable. There is a need for assisted living in the city especially for memory care facilities as existing population ages. The use is not technically a residential use since it is a business. The variance does not change the underlying light industrial zoning of the site. Operator has another facility in Northridge and has never had a problem. There is a waiting list for this type of facility. Six people spoke in opposition to the application. Most represented property owners in the vicinity who currently operate as a light manufacturing use. Their points in opposing the application are as follows: The proposed use is not consistent with zoning and not appropriate adjacent to industrial uses. Assisted living should be considered a residential use since people will be living at the facility. Proposed project will jeopardize the existing industrial uses and may lead to these types of uses leaving the area. Findings for approving the variance cannot be made, there are no special circumstances or hardships at this location that warrant a variance. Expansion into the P Zone will reduce the setback to the adjacent residential uses in the RS Zone. Allowing the assisted living use at this location puts a burden on the existing allowed manufacturing uses for alleviating potential impacts to the assisted living residents such as traffic and noise. Communications Received: Ten s were received from employees and the owners of Space Vector Corporation In opposition to the proposed project. Space Vector is an aerospace technology industry

4 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 4 that conducts testing 24 hours a day which include loud noises. Having a use that has permanent residents may hinder the operation of Space Vector at this location. It is not appropriate to put in a residential use as proposed in a manufacturing zone where the residents may complain about the manufacturing use. A letter was received from Rocketman Ventures, LLC in opposition to the proposed project. Reasons for opposing include disruption of light manufacturing uses in order to alleviate residential complaints. Impacts on traffic flow, parking, and noise abatement, and lowering of property values jeopardizing future use of the industrially zoned properties. A letter was received from Amir Development Company in opposition to the proposed project. The assisted living facility will negatively impact existing legitimate manufacturing uses to operate as an industrial use in order to mitigate the encroachment of a residential use. The legally required findings for a variance cannot be made in this situation as there are no special circumstances. Two s were received from adjacent property owners on Gresham Street in opposition to the proposed project. Reasons for opposing is that the encroachment of the facility into the P Zone will reduce the buffer between the use and the single family residence intruding on privacy for the residents. A letter was received from a doctor in support of the project. There is a need for these types of facilities as the population ages. A letter was received from Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, Third District, in conditional support of the project. The project has been vetted through the Winnetka Neighborhood Council and while there are still in opposition, the overall benefits of the project is needed. Conditions should be imposed pertaining to landscaping and increased setbacks to protect the adjacent property owners. MANDATED FINDINGS In order for a variance to be granted, all five of the legally 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: 1. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations. The applicant is seeking zone variances from Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (MR2 Zone - Restricted Light Industrial Zone) to permit the conversion, use and maintenance of an existing 21,784 square-foot light industrial building to a 95-bed Assisted Living Care Housing development and from Section of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (P Zone - Automobile Parking Zone) to permit the construction, use and maintenance of an 11,226 square-foot addition

5 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 5 to the existing building. The proposed use is not allowed in either the MR2 or P Zones. According to Section A of the LAMC, the purpose of the MR2 Zone is to: D to protect industrial land for industrial use, and prohibit unrelated commercial and other non-industrial uses, 2) to provide a reasonable range of interim uses in the zone, so that land owners can receive income from temporary use, while the industrial land reserve is being protected for future growth, 3) upgrade industrial development standards: a) so that industry will be a better neighbor to residences, b) to protect industrial investment against incompatible industry, and c) to prevent future industrial slums; 4) to preserve industrial land for light industrial uses and non-retail businesses which will enhance the City s employment base; and, 5) to reflect and accommodate the shift in industrial land uses from traditional industrial activity to uses such as those involving record management, Research and Development, information processing, electronic technology, and medical research. The applicant contends that the strict application of the zoning code creates a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because the proposed project for an Assisted Living Facility is not allowed in the MR2 Zone and would therefore not allow the applicant to repurpose the existing building for this use. The applicant also states that Assisted Living Care Housing are not permitted by-right in any zone within the City of Los Angeles. However this is not correct, Assisted Living Care Housing is first permitted by-right in the R3 and then in RAS3, R4, RAS4 and R5 Zones. Such zoning is located within!4 mile of the subject property. Additionally, assisted living facilities may be permitted by conditional use in other zones, but not the MR2 Zone. The project also entails a request to construct an additional 11,226 square feet, two story structure to the existing 21,784 square foot building by constructing the addition into the P Zone. The P Zone does not permit any structures or buildings and the purpose of the zone is for surface parking only which creates a buffer from an intensive use, in this case industrial from a residential zone. Specifically, the proposed addition would reduce the current setback of 100 feet from the rear lot line of the RS Zoned properties to approximately 23 feet. The current established 100-foot setback P Zone continues westward for approximately 2,000 feet, creating a clear and established buffer for the residential^ zoned properties to the south and industrially zoned properties to the north. Deviating from this development and zoning pattern would undermine the purpose and intent of the existing P Zone, and create a dangerous precedent for future encroachments into the established P Zone.

6 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 6 The applicant contends that market demand indicates that light manufacturing uses are not sought in this general area or on this particular property. The Zoning Administrator cannot consider economic convenience as part of the findings for a variance. There was public testimony and written correspondence that recently an adjacent parcel has been leased for light industrial use. However, the issue of the need or lack thereof for light manufacturing uses in the general area is appropriately done by the various policy-making bodies such as the City Planning Commission or the City Council and not by an individual decision maker such as the Zoning Administrator who can only look at the project at hand and its compliance with the current zoning code and land use plan. Neither the consideration of market demands, nor the applicant s assertion of where Assisted Living Care Housing is permitted by-right, presents a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. The Zoning Administrator must only balance the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships borne by the applicant and general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations. To that end, the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations. There is nothing unique about the subject site that prevents it from being used in compliance with the existing zoning regulation. 2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone and vicinity. The subject property is a flat, irregular-shaped, approximately 47,132 square-foot corner lot with a 184-foot long frontage along Nordhoff Street and a 246-foot long frontage along Mason Avenue. The property is developed with a two-story, 21,784 square-foot, light industrial building constructed in The properties to the north, northeast and west are zoned MR2 and P and are developed with one-story, light manufacturing uses, and surface parking. The properties to the east are zoned RS, C2, and P and are developed with one-story single-family dwellings, a one-story commercial building and surface parking. The properties to the south are zoned RS and are developed with one-story single family dwellings. The subject property is located at the periphery of what is known as the Chatsworth Industrial Area, but this setting is no different than the hundreds of other properties which are also at the periphery the Chatsworth Industrial Area and abut residentially zoned properties. In the application, the applicant states that a special circumstance exists in that the proposed assisted living facility is an important community benefit that is low intensity in use which will provide a buffer between the single family uses and commercial uses. This is not a special circumstance that does not apply to other properties in the area. The proposed use which will house up to 95 residents at the site is directly adjacent to existing light industrial uses. Although there are single

7 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 7 family residential uses to the south, these homes are currently buffered by a 100foot P Zone buffer that only allows parking and no structures. The project proposes to intrude into the P Zone and construct a 25-foot in height building up to approximately 23 feet from the existing single family property line. The project therefore will decrease the existing buffer from the existing residential. Additionally at the public hearing and in letters submitted, abutting industrial operators have stated that the existing light industrial uses need to be able to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week and the presence of a residential uses may hinder their operation especially since the industrial uses produce some noise and traffic during operation. It is their contention that it will become the burden of the permitted industrial users to modify their operation in order to not impact the residents of the assisted living facility which is not allowed by right to begin with. A variance is not intended to be used for the purpose of convenience, in this case the ability to convert an existing building, rather it s because the property cannot be put to effective use consistent with existing zoning. Based on the application materials submitted and public testimony and correspondence, the Zoning Administrator cannot determine any special circumstances that exists at the subject site which would allow the variance to be granted. The existing building can be repurposed for permitted uses in the MR2 Zone, it is not constructed or historically been used as an assisted living facility and the request to expand into the P Zone by 50% will only erode the existing buffer between the industrial MR2 Zone and the single family residential zone to the south. Approving the use variance for the proposed use will set a precedent for other properties in the adjacent area to ask for similar variances based on public benefit and convenience, and not due to some special circumstance. 3. Such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of such special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, is denied the property in question. No other similarly zoned properties in the immediate vicinity have been granted variances to allow a use prohibited by the underlying zone. An approval of the variance to permit an assisted living facility, a use not permitted in the MR2 Zone or the P Zone, when located in such proximity to existing and established light industrial uses and single family residential uses would erode the intended objective of the MR2 and P Zone. There has been nothing submitted in the application or in testimony to indicate that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity which is denied to the property owner. Granting a variance would have the effect of bestowing a special privilege to one property owner which is not enjoyed by others. No other property has been shown to have such a substantial property right in the same zone and vicinity. The applicant has not shown any cause for unnecessary hardship, special circumstance, or practical difficulty that prohibits the use of the property for what it is zoned for. Wanting to repurpose an

8 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 8 existing office building for the proposed use is not a special circumstance. Buildings are repurposed for other uses throughout the city and comply with the underlying zone. Additionally, while the need for assisted living facilities may be a benefit the community, it does not supercede the need to comply with zoning code regulations otherwise every beneficial project in every zone would be allowed by variance. 4. 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. The applicant states that the variance is necessary for the proposed use because there is an existing building on the site which can be repurposed for an assisted living facility and that these types of facilities are a public benefit. This is not a basis for granting a variance. Zoning regulations are placed not only in order to separate potentially conflicting uses, but so that there is some expectation of certainty and standards for property owners when purchasing and selling property. In this case there has been no evidence presented to warrant the granting of the variance other than for the convenience of the applicant. There are properties in the city where the proposed use is permitted by right so there is restriction on the use of the existing building. The existing building was not used as an assisted living facility so there is no continuation of a previous use and in fact the applicant is proposing to add to the existing building and build into the P Zone which does not permit any structures, further adding to the proposed projects non-compliance with zoning regulations. It is the merit of the variance request that is germane to this finding. Granting a non-permitted use in the MR2 and P Zones in the absence of legitimate findings of hardship, special circumstances, and substantial property right issues can set a precedent which can cumulatively impact the area. 5. The granting of the variance will adversely affect any element of the General Plan. The property is located within the Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan. The Chatsworth-Porter Ranch Community Plan Map designates the property for Light Manufacturing land use with corresponding zones of MR2 and M2. The zoning code is an implementing tool of the General Plan. Granting the requests will result in a use that is not consistent with the planned zone and plan designation. As such, granting the request will not be in conformance with the intent and purpose of the General Plan that promotes compatibility of land uses and preservation of residential neighborhoods. The Community Plan recognizes the potential incompatibility of residential uses near industrial uses, and the Plan seeks to prevent such situations and to protect the intrusion of non-industrial uses into the industrial zones. The proposed project is for Assisted Living Care where there will be residents directly adjacent to existing industrial uses. Additionally, the project proposes to intrude into an existing P Zone

9 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 9 that is currently buffering the single family residences to the south. Therefore, the granting of the variance would adversely affect the objectives of the Community Plan regarding a use that is not permitted in the zone and potential incompatibility with adjacent industrial parcels that are otherwise complying with the MR Zone. ADDITIONAL MANDATORY FINDINGS 6. 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 X, areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. 7. On October 7, 2015, the City Planning Department issued Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV MND. This Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency and determined that this project would not have a significant effect upon the environment provided the potential impacts are mitigated to a less than significant level. I hereby adopt that action. The custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision is based are located with the City of Los Angeles, Planning Department located at 200 North Spring Street, Room 750, Los Angeles, California APPEAL PERIOD - EFFECTIVE DATE The applicant's attention is called to the fact that this grant 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 if the same be not complied with, then the applicant or his successor in interest may be prosecuted for violating these Conditions the same as for any violation of the requirements contained in the Municipal Code. The Zoning Administrator s determination in this matter will become effective after JANUARY 25, 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

10 CASE NO. ZA (ZV) PAGE 10 final pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section There may be other time limits which also affect your ability to seek judicial review. Inquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Oliver Netburn, Planning Staff for the Office of Zoning Administration. Oliver Netburn Planning Assistant (213) /7 //.- 4 '/ / / JIMTOKUNAGA Associate Zoning Administrator JT:ON Cc: Councilmember Bob Blumenfield Third District Adjacent Property Owners