LOS ANGELES CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPEAL STAFF REPORT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 28, 2006 TIME: 8:30 a.m.* PLACE: Van Nuys City Hall 14410 Sylvan Street, Room 201 Van Nuys, CA 91401 Public Hearing completed on June 20, 2006 Tentative Tract Map appealable to the City Council, Project Permit Modification is not further appealable. CASE NO S: CPC-2003-6205-M1-SPR-1A, PROJECT PERMIT MODIFICATION- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CEQA: ENV 2002-6453-MND(REC) Council District: 5 Plan Area: Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake- Cahuenga Pass Plan Land Use: General Commercial, High Medium Residential Zones: (T)(Q)C2-1VL, (T)(Q)R3-1VL Expiration Date: October 12, 2006 PROJECT LOCATION: 14121-14153 Ventura Boulevard, 14124-14160 Moorpark Street PROPOSED PROJECT: The construction of a mixed-use development, consisting of 88 condominium units and 3 commercial condominiums with a total of 349 parking spaces (176 residential, 44 residential guest parking, and 129 commercial parking spaces) in the (T)(Q)C2-1VL, and (T)(Q)R3-1VL Zones. REQUESTED ACTION: APPEAL FROM the decision of the Deputy Advisory Agency's approval of Tentative Tract No. 64149 and the Director of Planning approval of a Project Permit Modification under CPC-2003-6205-M1- SPR. APPELLANT: APPLICANT: Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association John Laing Urban RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Deny the Appeals. 2. Sustain the decision of the Advisory Agency dated July 18, 2006 for Tentative Tract Map No. 64149. 3. Sustain the decision of the Director of Planning dated July 14, 2006 for CPC 2003-6205-M1-SPR. S. GAIL GOLDBERG, AICP Director of Planning Michael LoGrande Jim Tokunaga, City Planner (213) 978-1470 Acting Chief Zoning Administrator Luciralia Ibarra, Planning Assistant (213) 473-9983 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 City Planning Commission Secretariat, 200 North Spring Street, Room 500, Los Angeles, CA 90012 (Phone No.213-978-1300). While all written communications are given to the Commission for consideration, the initial packets are sent to 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) 978-1300.
CPC 2003-6205-M1-SPR-A1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS STAFF REPORT... 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION... 3 PROJECT BACKGROUND... 3 THE APPEAL... 4 STAFF RESPONSE TO APPEAL... 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION... 7 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (PLANNING COMMISSIONER S / APPELLANTS REPORTS ONLY) Exhibit A : Vicinity Map Exhibit B : Radius Map Exhibit C : Site Plan and Elevation Exhibit D : ENV 2002-6453-MND(REC) Exhibit E : Appeal by Sherman Oaks Homeowner s Association Exhibit F : CPC 2003-6205-M1-SPR (Director s Determination of July 14, 2006) Exhibit G : Tentative Tract Map No. 64149 (Advisory Agency approval of July 18, 2006) Exhibit H : CPC 2003-6205-ZC-SPE-ZAA-SPR-SPP (City Planning Commission approval of March 25, 2004). Exhibit I : Los Angeles Department of Transportation letter dated May 1, 2006.
CPC 2003-6205-M1-SPR-A1 3 STAFF REPORT Project Description The proposed project is for the new construction of a mixed-use project consisting of 88 residential condominium units and 16,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space along Ventura Boulevard. The building heights will vary from 35 to 54-feet, and from two to five stories. On-site parking will provide for 176 spaces for the condominium residents, 44 residential guest spaces, and 129 retail/restaurant parking spaces for a total of 349 spaces in a subterranean garage. The subject site is a 78,709 net square foot, irregular-shaped site, consisting of two lots. The site consists of two zones established by a previous zone change approved in 2004, (T)(Q)C2-1VL fronting along Ventura Boulevard, and (T)(Q)R3-1VL fronting Moorpark Street. A 20-foot alley running generally east-west divides the two lots. The property has less than a 10% slope and is currently improved with a parking lot on the northern portion of the site fronting Moorpark Street, an auto sales business, a restaurant, and two vacant commercial buildings on the southern portion of the site fronting Ventura Boulevard. The site is located within the Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake-Cahuenga Pass Community Plan and designated for General Commercial and is also located in the Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Specific Plan for which a Project Permit Compliance is required. Adjacent uses include multi-family residences to the north across Moorpark Street in the RD1.5-1 zone, a parking lot and retail uses to the east in the [Q]P-1VL and C2-1VL zones, office and retail uses to the south across Ventura Boulevard in the C2-1VL zones, and a parking lot and retail uses to the west across Calhoun Avenue in the C2-1VL and [Q]P-1Vl zones. The Q condition on the site imposes: a maximum height of 35 feet (or two stories) within 35 feet of the Ventura Boulevard property line, and not to exceed 50 feet thereafter; vehicular access for patrons of commercial uses to be from the alleyway only; a maximum height within 40-feet of the Moorpark Street property line not to exceed 45-feet (and four stories), and not to exceed 58-feet thereafter, and; all primary vehicular access to the residential units shall be from Moorpark Street. Project Background The proposed project is a modification to a previously approved project by the City Planning Commission on March 25, 2004 (see attached Exhibit H). The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the Zone Change from C2-1VL and P-1VL to (T)(Q)C2-1VL and (T)(Q)R3-1VL and the City Council approved the zone change on July 23, 2004 and adopted Ordinance 176,140. The City Planning Commission also approved Specific Plan Exceptions, Zone Variances, Zoning Administrator s Adjustment, Site Plan Review, and Project Permit Compliance (with the Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Specific Plan). A Preliminary Parcel Map (AA 2003-6204-PMLA) to merge and re-subdivide various parcels including portions of the alley into one lot was approved by the Deputy Advisory Agency on March 18, 2004. The project approved by the City Planning Commission in 2004 was for 118 apartment units, and 16,500 square feet of retail/restaurant floor area and 359 parking spaces. Since the original approval, a request for a modification to the Project Permit Compliance conditions has been submitted. The modified project is for 88-condominium units (a decrease of 30 units) and 16,500 square feet of groundfloor retail space in three commercial condominiums. There are no modification requests to the other entitlements. On June 20, 2006, a public hearing was held for the Tentative Tract Map and for the Project Permit Compliance modification. Specifically, the public hearing was for:
CPC 2003-6205-M1-SPR-A1 4 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 64149 for a proposed one-lot subdivision for a new 88-unit residential condominium with 220 parking spaces, including 44 guest spaces, and; 16,500 square feet of commercial and restaurant space with 129 commercial parking spaces. 2. A Modification to a (previously issued) Specific Plan Project Permit Compliance from the original approval by the City Planning Commission on March 25, 2004 (from the Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan). The modification request is to: a. Reduce the number of residential units from 118 apartment units to 88 condominium units with no change in the amount of approved commercial space (16,500 square feet) or in the building envelope as previously approved; b. Modify the residential parking requirement by requiring two residential guest parking spaces and one-half guest parking space for each residential unit. The end result is a net decrease in the total number of residential parking space from 200 to 176 spaces but a increase in the per unit parking requirement from 1.7 per unit (as approved) to 2.0 per unit (as requested). Guest parking would increase from 30 spaces to 44 parking spaces. c. Reduce the common open space area required from approximately 19,472 square feet to 16,486 square feet to coincide with the revised plan of reduced units. 3. Site Plan Review for a project consisting of more than 50 dwelling units. On July 14, 2006, the Director of Planning issued a decision approving the modification requests to the original Project Permit Compliance and for Site Plan Review findings on the revised project (see attached Exhibit F). On July 18, 2006, the Advisory Agency issued approval of tract map for 88 condominium units and three commercial condominium units (see attached Exhibit G). It is these approvals for the modified project that are the subject of the appeal. THE APPEAL One appeal was filed by the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association (see attached Exhibit E), represented by Ellen Vukovich and Nancy Kaleel. Appeal Points. In summary, the appellant contend that: 1. Inadequate parking for commercial uses. 2. Clarification of total parking required. 3. Clarification of total open space. 4. Traffic impacts not adequately analyzed (appellant submitted photos and video). 5. Site Plan Review findings for Specific Plan compliance not made or are inaccurate. 6. Site Plan Review findings for General Plan compliance not made or are inaccurate. 7. Building height is not compatible with Specific Plan. 8 & 9. Updated traffic analysis needed.
CPC 2003-6205-M1-SPR-A1 5 STAFF RESPONSE TO APPEAL POINTS: 1. Inadequate parking for commercial uses. There is no change in the commercial component of the project and no modification to the previous square footage is being requested. The approved total square footage for commercial development in the 2004 decision was for 16,500 square feet. The current project is also for 16,500 square feet in three commercial condominiums. The required 129 commercial spaces is based on the Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Specific Plan of one space per every 250 square feet of commercial use (non-office) and one space per every 100 square feet of restaurant space. The applicant s have proposed that 6,000 square feet will be for commercial use (24 parking spaces) and 10,500 square feet will be for restaurant use (105 parking spaces). Based on this, 129 spaces are required. The appellants contend that if all 16,500 square feet of commercial space is used as restaurant space (which would require 165 parking spaces), then the 129 parking spaces will be 36 spaces short. The required 129 parking spaces for the commercial component is a minimum and not based on the entirety of the commercial space devoted to restaurant use. If the applicant at a later date requires less commercial space and more restaurant space, then additional parking will be required and the Department of Building and Safety will not approve a Certificate of Occupancy for the restaurant if adequate parking is not available on-site. At that point the applicant must either provide the additional parking or apply for specific plan exception. 2. Clarification of total parking required. The appellant is seeking a clarification to the total parking required under the modification. Page C- 2 of the Director s Decision under the Modification Conditions of Approval specifically states: Parking: The site shall provide 176 parking spaces for the residential units and 44 residential guest parking spaces (two parking spaces per unit plus ½ guest parking space per unit). The site shall provide 129 parking spaces for the commercial development. The appellant requests that a total amount be used of 385 parking spaces to reflect the additional 36 spaces that would be required if all of the commercial space was for restaurant use. As stated in the previous staff response, the 129 parking spaces for commercial development is based on 6,000 square feet of non-office commercial use and 10,500 square feet of restaurant use. If additional parking is necessary to accommodate more commercial uses, then the total parking will have to be adjusted by subsequent actions. However, changes to the commercial parking requirement was not a subject of the current modification request. 3. Clarification of total open space. The open space requirement is being reduced to compensate for the reduction in the number of units. The original project which consisted of 118 dwelling units required a minimum of 19,472 square feet of common open space. In the 2004 decision, the total 19,472 square feet of open space included 2,422 square feet of the motor court area. The modified project of 88 dwelling units requires a minimum of 12,175 square feet based on Code required open space requirements (Section 12.21.G). If the motor court is included as open space in the current project as in the previous approval, then the current project is actually providing for 16,486 square feet of open space. For clarification purposes, the Conditions of Approval are only requiring the minimum open space required per Code which is 12,175 square feet, and the project without the motor court is providing 12,656 square feet of open space, 481 square more than the minimum.
CPC 2003-6205-M1-SPR-A1 6 4. Traffic impacts not adequately analyzed. A significant concern of the appellant is the traffic impacts. The appellant contends that the traffic analysis is inaccurate and that even though the revised project is for a reduction of 30 dwelling units from the previous approval, traffic impacts will still occur. Photos of the intersection of Tyrone Street and Moorpark Street were submitted as well as a DVD video taken on the morning of May 1, 2006. Also at question is whether the traffic study for the 2004 case is being used or a revised traffic study prepared in 2006, and the appellant requests specific mitigation measures. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) reviewed a traffic study prepared by traffic consultants (prepared in March of 2006) for the applicant on the revised project. It is the 2006 study that was reviewed by LADOT and their assessment is that the proposed project will not have significant traffic impacts on the surrounding eight intersection studied (see Exhibit I). It is this assessment that the Department of City Planning has used to recommend approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the modifications to the Project Permit Compliance. While the photos and the video do show cars in queue to make turns, many factors can contribute to traffic flow and LOS levels. As a requirement of the Ventura/Cahuenga Boulevard Specific Plan, the developer must pay a Project Impact Assessment (PIA) Fee to mitigate traffic impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Site Plan Review findings for Specific Plan compliance not made. The Site Plan Review finding pertaining to compliance with the Specific Plan specifically states that: The modified project complies with all provisions of the Zoning Code and the Specific Plan, except for the request to allow two, 0-foot side yards required for the commercial portion of the building and exceptions from the Specific Plan for floor area ratio, height of building, and percent of lot coverage, all of which have been previously approved under Case No. CPC- 2003-6205-ZC-SPE-ZAA-ZV-SPR-SPP, including findings and justifications. The modified project is consistent with these findings and justifications and the modified project therefore complies with all applicable provisions of this Code and the Specific Plan. This finding clearly states that compliance is based on exceptions previously granted under CPC 2003-6205-ZC-SPE-ZAA-ZV-SPR-SPP. All of the previous conditions of approval for the other entitlements are still valid and must be complied with. 6. Site Plan Review findings for General Plan compliance not made. The appellants assert that the proposed 88 condominium units are high end units and therefore do not comply with the General Plan objective to To promote and ensure the provision of adequate housing for all persons regardless of income, age, or ethnic background. The fact that the proposed units may be considered high end by the developer or by the appellant does not constitute non-compliance with this objective of the General Plan. The development of 88 for-sale units is in conformance with the intent of the Goal which is to provide housing. The project is in substantial conformance with the building envelope constraints required by the existing entitlements, and complies with Los Angeles Municipal Code requirements and the Advisory Agency s parking policy for condominiums. No additional changes to the original grants of approval are necessary including no changes to the existing (T) and (Q) conditions. Unless the applicant is requesting additional density through other entitlements such as a Density Bonus or SB 1818 incentives, the Planning Department cannot condition affordable housing to be provided as there are currently no adopted ordinances of this type. The objective of the General Plan is to encourage all types of housing without restrictions on whether the housing is affordable, market rate, or upper end.
CPC 2003-6205-M1-SPR-A1 7 7. Building height is not compatible with Specific Plan. The requested modifications are for a reduction in the total number of dwelling units, a reduction in residential parking requirements, and a reduction in the total open space. There are no additional requests for changes to the height restriction previously imposed under the Q limitations now attached to the zoning on-site. The existing Q condition for the (Q)C2-1VL portion reads as follows: Height. The maximum height within 35-feet of the Ventura Boulevard property line shall not exceed 35-feet and two stories. Thereafter it shall not exceed 50-feet as measured from Ventura Boulevard. All heights include any architectural elements. The existing Q condition for the (Q)R3-1VL portion reads as follows: Height. The maximum height within 40-feet of the Moorpark Street property line shall not exceed 45-feet and four stories. Thereafter it shall not exceed 58-feet as measured from Moorpark Street. All heights include architectural elements. The proposed project complies with the Q conditions pertaining to height and is therefore not subject to additional restrictions being placed at this time. Enforcement of the height limitations will occur once the project applicant applies for building permits. The Planning Department will be responsible for reviewing the project before clearing all Q conditions for a building permit. 8 & 9. Updated traffic analysis needed. Please see response to #4. Staff Recommendation: The project is in substantial conformance with the building envelope constraints required by the existing entitlements, and complies with Los Angeles Municipal Code requirements and the Deputy Advisory Agency s parking policy for condominiums. No additional changes to the original grants of approval are necessary including no changes to the existing (T) and (Q) conditions. The site is currently entitled for 118 residential apartment units and 16,500 square feet of commercial space. Even without the requested tract map for the condominiums and the modification to the project permit compliance, the developer can build a mixed-use development on this site. The current request is to develop the site as 88 residential condominium units and three commercial condominium units, and to reflect these changes on a existing approval for compliance with the Specific Plan. No other changes to the zone, or additional variances are being requested. In consideration of the foregoing, staff recommends that the decisions of the Deputy Advisory Agency and the Director of Planning be sustained and the appeals be denied.