Law Offices of Palo Alto Office William D. Ross

1

William D. Ross Kypros G. Hostetter Karin A. Briggs Isabel Birrueta

Law Offices of

William D. Ross A Professional Corporation 520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610 Telephone: (213) 892-1592 Facsimile: (213) 892-1519

Palo Alto Office: 400 Lambert Street Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 Facsimile: (650) 843-8093

File No: 469.3

February 16, 2010

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Office of the City Clerk City Council c/o Planning and Land Use Management Committee 200 North Spring Street Room 395, City Hall Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: Appeal of VTT-65583-CN-DB-2A, 6527-6531 Leland Way; February 23, 2010, Planning and Land Use Management Committee Meeting

Dear Councilmember Ed Reyes and Planning Land Use Committee Members: This office represents applicant Leland Condominiums, LLC (“Applicant”), owner of the property currently improved with a surface commercial parking lot located at 6527-6531 Leland Way (“Property”) in the City of Los Angeles (“City”) that is the subject of the above-referenced agendized February 23, 2010 Planning Land Use Committee (“PLUM”) hearing. This letter specifically responds to Mr. David Carrera’s appeal of the Vesting Tentative Tract (“VTT”)-65583-CN-DB,1 Mr. Carrera’s comments to the Project’s MND reconsideration approved by the City Planning Commission (“CPC”) on December 10, 2010 (“Reconsideration”) and Maria Hinton’s comments to the Reconsideration (collectively “Appellant”). This communication is made after a review of the Area Planning Commission’s (“APC”) determination to sustain the Advisory Agency’s approval of the VTT, Mr. Carrera’s VTT appeal, Mr. Carrera and Ms. Hinton’s comments to the Reconsideration, and a September 17, 2009 meeting (“Meeting”) with Mr. Michael Young, Mr. Joey Vasquez, Mr. Hadar Plafkin,2 Mr.

1 The VTT and density bonus application was filed on December 12, 2006 and later was amended on September 26, 2007. 2 Mr. Plafkin is the Environmental Review Section Supervisor.

mailto:[email protected]



Letter to PLUM Re: Leland VTT Appeal February 16, 2010 Page 2

2

David Weintraub, and Mr. Garland Cheng of the City Planning Department (collectively “Staff”) concerning this case. During the Meeting, Staff and Applicant discussed the continuance of the VTT appeal to prepare a reconsideration (i.e. addendum) to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV-2006-10262-MND) (“MND”)3 to revise the Project description to include the subsequently filed application for a Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) and Zone Variance (“ZV”)4 to permit the Applicant to continue to use of the Property for commercial parking. Staff acknowledged that the Reconsideration is not required to approve the VTT for the development of 11 condominiums and associated residential parking because the MND adequately addresses the VTT for the condominiums. Rather, the Reconsideration was be completed prior to PLUM’s consideration of the VTT only as a courtesy to Appellant and to allow the Zoning Administrator (“ZA”) to hear the CUP and ZV at subsequent public hearing.

Staff correctly determined that the VTT appeal can be considered by PLUM without having first considered the CUP and ZV for commercial parking. The PLUM hearing for this case was ultimately continued to February 23, 2010. A. The Mitigated Negative Declaration Is Adequate for Approval Of The VTT.

Appellant incorrectly states that PLUM cannot approve the VTT unless it addresses the Property’s continued use for commercial parking addressed in the Reconsideration. Appellant is incorrect because the CUP and ZV to continue the use of commercial Property will not be before PLUM on February 23, 2010. Rather, the VTT for residential development is the only discretionary action that will be before PLUM and City Council. Nevertheless, as a courtesy to Appellant, Staff prepared the Reconsideration and on December 10, 2009, the CPC approved the Reconsideration.

The approval of the VTT for a residential development can be analyzed separately under

CEQA from subsequent approvals to complete a project. A separate environmental document for the CUP and ZV would appropriately address any environmental impacts under CEQA because VTT, CUP, and ZV are separate and distinct approvals. The VTT is for a subdivision subject to the Subdivision Map Act (“Map Act”).5 The Map Act authorizes legislative bodies of local agencies to regulate and control the design and improvements of subdivisions in their

3 A “Mitigated Negative Declaration” is defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15369.5. The “CEQA Guidelines” implement the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”). All references to “CEQA Guidelines” are to the State CEQA Guidelines. Future references to the CEQA Guidelines will be cited as “CEQA Guidelines” followed by the referenced section in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The CEQA Guidelines state “[t]hese guidelines are binding on all public agencies in California.” CEQA Guidelines § 15000. 4 The CUP and ZV application was filed on August 13, 2009. 5 Government Code §§ 66410-66499.37


3

jurisdiction.6 The City’s authority under Map Act is to regulate the design and improvements of the VTT for the sale of the proposed condominiums. Accordingly, the VTT is not the correct approval to determine whether the continued use of the Property for commercial parking is appropriate. Such a determination will be reserved for the ZA that will be charged to review the ZV and CUP application.

Appellant’s concern that the Project will permit commercial parking without an adequate CEQA analysis is unfounded because the ZA will have the discretion to deny a CUP and/or ZV if the ZA determines the continued use of the Property for commercial parking would be inappropriate. Moreover, the VTT does not entitle the Applicant to the CUP or ZV, or any other discretionary approvals. The proper body to hear Appellant’s Reconsideration comments concerning the continued use of the Property for commercial use will be the ZA assigned to hear the CUP and ZV application.

Staff is correct that the Reconsideration is not necessary to approve the VTT because any time the City considers additional discretionary approvals for a project where the City adopted an MND,7 the City has the discretion to require additional environmental review, such as a reconsideration, before the City approves the subsequent approvals. Moreover, the City approved the VTT with the condition that, if Applicant desired to use the Property for commercial parking, the Applicant would need to apply for the CUP and VZ. (See VTT Approvals, Department of City Planning Specific Conditions, page 5, Section c.1)

Mr. Plafkin’s conclusion that a reconsideration is the appropriate environmental document to modify the Project description to include the proposed commercial parking level is consistent with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Mr. Plafkin’s conclusion is supported by the attached Environmental Assessment Form (“EAF”) which expressly states that the Applicant proposed 49 commercial parking spaces for the Project.8 (The City requires submittal of the EAF to advise the City’s Environmental Unit of the proposed project, allow the Environmental Unit to determine the appropriate environmental document, and prepare such document.)

The Applicant properly notified the City of his desire to continue to use the Property for

commercial parking to comply with the off-site parking covenant in favor of the City when it filed its VTT application. Under the EAF heading entitled, “Project Description,” the EAF for the VTT application states:

6 Government Code § 66411. 7 A prior MND is treated the same as a prior Environmental Impact Report for purposes of determining whether subsequent environmental review is required. See, e.g., American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth v. City of American Canyon (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1062. 8 When the Applicant amended the VTT and density bonus application on September 26, 2007, the Applicant advised the City that the existing commercial parking lot is legal nonconforming and thereby the Applicant did not require the CUP or ZV to continue to use the Property for commercial parking. On August 13, 2009, the Applicant filed a CUP and ZV as a result of the Central Area Planning Commission’s (“APC”) denial of Applicant’s appeal to the APC that the existing commercial parking is legal nonconforming.


4

“Demolish surface parking lot and construct 11 townhomes over three levels of parking, one ground level and two subterranean levels. Parking to be provided for residential condominiums and commercial uses abutting to the north as required pursuant to a Covenant and Agreement in favor of the City.” (Emphasis Added.)

(See page 3 of EAF attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Moreover, the EAF expressly states that the Project would include 49 commercial

parking spaces. (See page 5 of EAF attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Finally, the Applicant proposed mitigation measures to substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the commercial use may have on the environment. Under EAF heading entitled, “Mitigation Measures,” the Applicant provided that:

“The proposed parking structure will minimize the conflict between the residential and commercial uses. Access for the Commercial Building’s tenants to the proposed parking structure will be provided from Sunset Blvd. through a driveway that leads to the Commercial Building abutting to the north of the subject property, rather than providing access from Leland Way. Additionally, the proposed parking structure will respect the residential neighborhood’s character because all commercial parking will be subterranean and, thus, shielded from public view.” (See page 4 of EAF attached hereto as Exhibit A.)

Mr. Plafkin correctly concluded that the MND adequately analyzed the continued use of

the Property for commercial parking and, as explained above, the EAF supports Mr. Plafkin’s conclusion. The conclusions of Mr. Plafkin as a City Planner are entitled to great weight in the interpretation of CEQA’s application to the Project. Finally, the plot plans that were submitted with the Project application for the VTT depict a level of commercial parking. B. The Los Angeles Municipal Code (“LAMC”) Does Not Bar the City From

Separately Considering Subsequently Required Approvals For A Project.

Procedures for processing vesting tentative maps must be set forth in local implementing ordinances, which local agencies are required to adopt.9 The City adopted an ordinance specifying map approval procedures.10 The LAMC’s map approval procedures do not bar the City from separately considering discretionary approvals for a project so long the project’s subsequent discretionary approvals are addressed through the same or another environmental

9 Government Code § 66498.8. 10 Government Code § 66411.


5

document. Nor does the LAMC map approval procedures state that the City is required to process the CUP or ZV with the VTT before the VTT can be approved. To the contrary, the LAMC anticipates that there will be instances were a VTT is approved and subsequent approvals are later filed for a project. For this reason, the LAMC provides that the City retains the authority to impose “reasonable conditions on subsequently required approvals or permits necessary for the development.”11

In this case, the APC’s action to sustain the Advisory’s Agency approval of the VTT is

consistent with City’s policy and LAMC. The APC sustained the Advisory Agency’s approval of the VTT upon the condition that, if the Applicant desired to continue to use the Property for commercial parking, the Applicant would be required to: 1) file an application for the necessary approvals to permit such use; and 2) access from to Leland from the commercial parking would be prohibited. Specifically, a VTT condition of approval provides that:

“There shall be no commercial parking unless there is a new discretionary action. If commercial parking is allowed in a residential zone through a discretionary action, access to Leland Way shall be prohibited.” (Emphasis added.)

(See VTT Approvals, Department of City Planning Specific Conditions, page 5, Section c.1) C. Appellant Has Not Provided Substantial Evidence To Support A Conclusion That

The MND For The VTT Is Inadequate.

Appellant’s conclusion that MND is not adequate for the approval of the VTT is merely an unsubstantiated opinion rather than a reasonable assumption based on facts or expert opinion. In a proceeding to review a CEQA determination, a court applies the substantial evidence test to review the agency’s factual determinations. “Substantial evidence” means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion even though other conclusions might be reached.”12 Substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Substantial evidence does not include argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of economic or social impacts that do not contribute to or are not caused by physical environmental impacts.13

1. Aesthetics/View Staff correctly determined that potentially significant impacts caused by the Project can

11 LAMC § 17.15.C4(a). 12 CEQA Guidelines § 15384(a); See Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393. 13 Public Resources Code §§ 21080(e), 21082.2 (c); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(5)-(6), 15384.


6

be reduced to a less than significant level with the proposed mitigation measures. Staff also determined that the Project is representative of the area surrounding the Project site. The area that surrounds the Project site is highly urbanized area with a mix of hotel, office, commercial, and multi-family development. Staff also correctly determined that the Project would improve the visual character of the area through the demolition of the existing commercial surface parking lot and development of the residential building with attractive landscaping. The residential building would blend with the neighborhood’s residential character as it would enclose the commercial parking and, thus, hide commercial parking from the neighbors view.

Appellant’s opinion that the Project will not improve the visual character of the Project

vicinity is not supported by facts. Rather, Appellant’s statement is merely an unsubstantiated opinion. Moreover, Appellant’s conclusion that the Project will be inconsistent with the permitted density and building height is incorrect because Appellant fails to note that the LAMC and State law permit the proposed density and height because the Applicant is restricting 11 percent of the total units to Very Low Income Households, entitling the Applicant to 35 percent density bonus, or three additional units, and the height, which was approved by the CPC on December 10, 2009.

Moreover, Mr. Carrera did not provide sufficient facts or expert opinion supported by

facts to support a conclusion that the Project will have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista. Mr. Carrera’s comment is mere speculation. The Hollywood Community Plan does not protect private views to the Hollywood sign. Furthermore, Mr. Carrera’s comment contradicts his comment that the tall trees that are currently located on the south side of the Property shield most of the Project site. If the existing trees that are well over 36 feet shield most of the project site, how is it possible that the Project will block views of the Hollywood sign for the property located on 6532 Leland Way, which property is located south of the Project site? Moreover, several tall commercial buildings in excess of 36 feet are located immediately adjacent to the Property. The commercial zone south of the Property allows building in excess of 36 feet. Therefore, even if the Project were not developed, the resident of the 6532 Leland Way unit that allegedly has a view of the Hollywood sign, is not protected from future development of buildings well over 36 feet on the commercial zone that would block any alleged view to the Hollywood sign. Also, the Project’s height is minimal as it is only a six foot increase from the RD1.XL zone 30 foot height limit, a twenty percent increase. Finally, Mr. Carrera does not own the property located on 6532 Leland Way and, thus, even assuming that the Project would have an adverse affect on a scenic vista, the affect does not personally impact Mr. Carrera.

Ms. Hinton’s opinion that the “36-foot tall structure would result in significant, adverse

aesthetic impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings” is not supported by facts. Rather, Hinton’s statement is merely an unsubstantiated opinion. Moreover, Ms. Hinton fails to note that the LAMC and State law permit the 36 foot height, which was approved by CPC on December 10, 2009, because the Applicant is restricting 11 percent of the total units to Very Low Income Households, entitling the Applicant to 35 percent


7

density bonus, or three additional units. 2. Air Quality

Staff identified appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate the impacts of the proposed

commercial parking. Neither Mr. Carrera nor Ms. Hinton provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support a conclusion that the MND does “not factor in the commercial parking component.”

Nor does Mr. Carrera provide facts or expert opinion to support a conclusion that the

parking emissions will harm the neighborhood. The neighborhood is currently exposed to vehicle exhaust due to the Property’s existing open air parking lot and neighborhood’s proximity to Sunset Blvd, a major transportation corridor. Leland Way is located only one block south of Sunset Blvd. Moreover, Mr. Carrera did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support a conclusion that the vehicle exhaust from the parking structure will be vented out on the south side opening directly onto the residential neighborhood. At the December 10, 2009 CPC hearing, the Applicant agreed to close all of the proposed windows for the parking structure and instead include a mechanical ventilation system. Accordingly, vehicle exhaust will not be vented out onto the residential neighborhood. Finally, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook supports a finding that the Project would not result in potentially significant air quality impacts because the Project does not reach the minimum 297 condominium unit and 96, 221 commercial square footage thresholds.14

3. Biological Resources Mr. Carrera did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support a

conclusion that the MND does not adequately analyze the potential impact of the loss of the trees currently located on the Property. Neither Mr. Carrera nor Ms. Hinton provided facts to support a conclusion that the City’s proposed mitigation measures to replace the trees that will be removed will not be effective. The trees currently located on the Property are not protected trees and can be removed. Additionally, the Project will comply with the mitigation measures identified in the MND for the unavoidable loss of the trees located at the Project site.

Additionally, Mr. Carrera did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to

support his comment that the Project site contains a significant area of open space and of significant biological resource value and the removal of the trees could cause a significant impact on a sensitive species and needs further study. Mr. Carrera’s comment is merely a speculation and opinion. In fact, the Department of Fish and Game determined the removal of the existing trees would not harm biological resources.

4. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

14 See pages 6-12 and Exhibit B.2.1.


8

Staff correctly determined that the Project will not result in any impacts and, thus, no

mitigation measures are necessary. Appellant did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support a conclusion that the MND does “not factor the intended commercial use” when considering hazards and hazardous materials.

5. Hydrology and Water Quality

Staff correctly determined that the Project will not result in any impacts and, thus, no mitigation measures are necessary. Specifically, Mr. Carrera did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support his comment that runoff could increase and groundwater recharge could be affected. Mr. Carrera’s comment is merely a speculation. Neither Mr. Carrera nor Ms. Hinton provided facts to support a conclusion that the mitigation measures imposed by the City concerning possible runoff from a storm are inadequate.

6. Land Use and Planning

Staff correctly determined that the Project will not result in any impacts and, thus, no mitigation measures are necessary. Appellant did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support a conclusion that project is not consistent with the surrounding area or with the City plans and LAMC. To the contrary, Appellant’s conclusion is clearly inaccurate because within 500 feet of the Property there are several multi-family buildings that are least 40 feet in height, include well over 11 units, and are located in the same zone as the Property. For example, the property located at 6619 E. Leland Way is at least 40 feet in height and contains at least 20 units. Additionally, Appellant fails note that per the LAMC and State law, the Applicant is entitled to a 35 percent density bonus, or three additional units and the 36-foot building height.

Ms. Hinton is incorrect that the proposed commercial parking level must be included as part of the floor area calculation. LAMC section 12.03 defines floor area as “the area in square feet confined within the exterior walls of a building, but not including the area of the following: exterior walls, stairways, shafts, rooms housing building-operating equipment or machinery, parking areas with associated driveways and ramps, space for the landing and storage of helicopters, and basement storage areas.”

Document No. P/BC 2002-021, the document Ms. Hinton cites to, does not apply to this

case. Document No. P/BC 2002-021 refers to the applicability of section12.21.1-A-5 to determine the number of required parking spaces for uses that are independent or unrelated to the building in which they are located. However, those independent or unrelated uses must first meet the definition of floor area noted above to be subject to the policy identified in Document No. P/BC 2002-021.

7. Noise


9

Staff correctly determined that potentially significant impacts caused by the Project can

be reduced to a less than significant level with the proposed mitigation measures. Neither Mr. Carrera nor Ms. Hinton provided facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support a conclusion that the MND did not consider potential noise impacts caused by the proposed residential development or proposed commercial parking. To the contrary, Appellant’s conclusion is clearly inaccurate because Staff correctly determined that the proposed parking garage is designed to reduce noise impacts to abutting residential uses. The walls of the proposed parking structure will contain noise caused by vehicles inside the structure and any mechanical equipment would be required to comply with the City’s noise regulation ordinance.

Additionally, Mr. Carrera’s comment that noise from the commercial parking level will

escape through the Leland Way ramp is incorrect because the ramp to Leland Way will not be open to the commercial parking level. Mr. Carrera’s comment is merely an opinion. Further, the City imposed mitigation measures to mitigate possible noise caused by the mechanical lifts proposed for the commercial parking level. The mitigation measures that were imposed comply with the City’s CEQA threshold guidelines.

Finally, during the December 10, 2010 CPC hearing, the Applicant agreed to remove any

window openings of the parking garage and instead included a mechanical ventilation system to further mitigate noise. The CPC agreed that this additional condition would be adequate to contain noise within the proposed parking structure.

8. Population and Housing Appellant did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support a

conclusion that the VTT is inconsistent with the City’s adopted and State law because the Project is “a mixed-use development and not primarily residential but commercial.” To the contrary, Appellant’s conclusion is clearly inaccurate because Staff correctly found that per the LAMC and State law, the Applicant is entitled to a 35 percent density bonus, or three additional units. A density bonus project cannot be disapproved on the grounds the project would be inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.

Moreover, the LAMC expressly permits the City to grant on-menu incentives for

Housing Development Projects that mix commercial and residential uses. The LAMC defines Housing Development Projects as:

“the construction of five or more new residential dwelling units, the addition of five or more residential dwelling units to an existing building or buildings. . .or a mixed-use development in which the residential floor area occupies at least fifty percent of the total floor area of the building or buildings. . . ” 15

15 LAMC § 12.22, 25 (b).


10

The Project qualifies for the density bonus because it meets the Housing Development

Project definition. The Applicant proposes to develop a building that will mix a residential and commercial use and well over 50 percent of the building floor area will be residential.

Additionally, Mr. Carrera is incorrect that the commercial parking should be counted as

non-residential floor area. Per the LAMC, parking is not counted as floor area. LAMC section 12.03 defines floor area as “the area in square feet confined within the exterior walls of a building, but not including the area of the following: exterior walls, stairways, shafts, rooms housing building-operating equipment or machinery, parking areas with associated driveways and ramps, space for the landing and storage of helicopters, and basement storage areas.”

9. Transportation/Circulation Staff correctly determined that the increase of vehicular trips in the Project vicinity

would be considered minimal and impacts related to congestion at intersections, load, and capacity of the existing street system would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be necessary.

Mr. Carrera’s comment to the Reconsideration that the Project’s 78 parking spaces will

generate more than 43 trips in the afternoon and, therefore, are not minimal is incorrect. The MND analyzed the proposed residential parking and the Reconsideration clarified that the MND also analyzes commercial parking. Accordingly, the proposed 78 parking spaces were analyzed in the MND and Reconsideration. Neither Mr. Carrera nor Ms. Hinton provided facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support a conclusion that additional trips that may result from the development of the project are more than minimal. Additionally, Mr. Carrera failed to note that the Property has been developed with a commercial surface parking lot that accommodates at least 33 parking spaces for over 30 years.

10. Hydraulic Lifts Mr. Carrera did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by facts to support his

comment that the hydraulic lifts present a serious and potentially explosive situation. The City has previously approved the use of hydraulic lifts for commercial parking throughout the City. Mr. Carrera’s comment is merely a speculation. Nor does Mr. Carrera provide facts to support a conclusion that the mitigation measures imposed by the City are inadequate to address the inclusion of mechanical lifts in the commercial parking level.

11. Exportation of Soil

Mr. Carrera is incorrect that it is impossible dig up and export 8,000 cubic yards of soil

from the site over several days. Ms. Carrera did not provide facts or expert opinion supported by


11

facts to support his comment. Mr. Carrera’s comment is merely a speculation. Nor does Mr. Carrera provide facts to support a conclusion that the construction mitigation measures imposed by the City are inadequate. D. The Permit Streamlining Act Requires The City Make A Determination Regarding

the VTT AT The Hearing.

PLUM must to consider the VTT for approval on February 23, 2010. Under the Permit Streamlining Act (“Streamlining Act”)16 the local agency has 30 calendar days after receiving the application in which to inform the applicant in writing as to whether the application is complete and accepted for processing.17 If the agency considers the application incomplete, it must specify its deficiencies and any additional information required.18 If the agency fails to notify the applicant that the application is either complete or deficient within the 30-day period, the application is automatically deemed complete by operation of law.19 Additionally, the Streamlining Act requires the local agency to approve or disapprove a development project within 60 days from the time the MND was adopted unless the City and Applicant consent to an extension.20

Here, the VTT application is deemed complete by operation of law because the City did

not notify the Applicant that the application contained deficiencies or that additional information would be required in order for the City to consider the VTT for approval. Accordingly, PLUM must to consider the VTT for approval on February 23, 2010. E. Staff Correctly Determined That All Vesting Tentative Tract Findings Were Made

For Approval Of The VTT.

Subdivision map approvals or denials must be based on specific findings by the local agency.21 The findings in local adjudicatory land use decisions must be supported by adequate evidence in the record.22

Staff correctly determined that the VTT falls within the parameters of the General Plan,

Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, the Hollywood Community Plan and other City plans. These plans show the community’s commitment to the proposed residential development. Moreover, Staff correctly found that per the LAMC and State law, the Applicant is entitled to a 35 percent density bonus, or three additional units. A density bonus project cannot be disapproved on the

16 Government Code §§ 65920-65963.1. 17 Government Code § 65943. 18 Government Code § 665943. 19 Government Code § 65943. 20 Government Code § 65950(a)(3)-(4). 21 Government Code §§ 66473.5, 66474; See Woodland Hills Residents Association v. City Council (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 825. 22 Topanga Association for Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506.


12

grounds the project would be inconsistent with the zoning ordinance. The Project is consistent with the primary goal of the City’s General Plan Housing

Element - to provide a range of housing for all income groups.23 City is facing an unprecedented housing crisis because the increasing cost of housing has made it difficult for people to purchase a home or pay market rent.24 The crisis impacts are particularly serious for those with low incomes.25 Pursuant to State law, the City’s General Plan Housing Element must implement policies and programs to meet the City’s housing needs.26 To encourage development of affordable housing, especially for low income families, the City adopted policies and programs, including land use planning and financial incentive programs, such as the DB Ordinance.27 The Housing Element states that:

It is the overall housing goal of the City of Los Angeles to create for all residents a city of livable and sustainable neighborhoods with a range of housing types, sizes and costs in proximity to jobs amenities and services. In keeping with decades of federal Housing Acts and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that declared housing as a human right, the City will work towards assuring that housing is provided to all residents. (Emphasis added.)28

The Housing Element emphasizes that inclusion of affordable housing in mixed-use developments near public transit is particularly important to address housing needs in relation to the anticipated population growth. Policy 1.4.1 of the Housing Element states that the City should:

Provide incentives to include affordable housing in residential development, particularly in mixed use development, Transit Oriented Districts and designated Centers.29

The Housing Element identified high land, construction, and financing costs, and

restricted financing availability as constraints that can be addressed through programs, such as the DB Ordinance, to increase the affordable housing supply.30 The City recognizes that the implementation of the DB Ordinance is imperative for meeting the City’s primary goal of providing a range of housing for all income groups. The Housing Element states:

23 City of Los Angeles Housing Element 2006-2014 as adopted by the City Council on August 13, 2008, Council File No. 08-1933 (“Housing Element”), pg 6. 24 Housing Element, pg 1. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Housing Element, pg. 12. 29 Housing Element, Chapter 6, pg. 33. 30 Housing Element, pg. 11.


13

Financial incentives and land use policies and programs, such as density bonus …will be pursued to encourage the development of affordable housing across the City. (Emphasis added.) 31 Implementation of the State density bonus law also mitigates the effects of residential development standards by waiving or modifying such standards in return for providing certain percentage of affordable housing in market-rate residential projects. 32 The [DB Ordinance] is intended to facilitate requests for incentives by providing a streamlined process for projects opting for a “menu” of incentives.33

Additionally, the Housing Element notes that within redevelopment areas, the California Redevelopment Agency, such as the Hollywood Redevelopment Agency, also advances policies and programs that support the development of new housing.34 The Project is consistent with the Housing Element and Hollywood Redevelopment Plan because it proposes to include an affordable housing unit through the implementation of the DB Ordinance.

Appellant incorrectly states that “the MND completely ignored the applicant’s design to

establish commercial parking in tandem with Density Bonus Condominiums” and therefore Staff did not make the required VTT findings. As discussed above, Staff’s findings were based upon the review of the plot plans and map that were submitted with the VTT application. The plot plans and map depict a proposed level of commercial parking. Accordingly, Staff took into consideration the proposed commercial parking level that was included in the project’s design when it recommended approval of the VTT. Additionally, the CPC approved the Reconsideration which expressly addresses the proposed commercial parking.

Assuming arguendo that Staff did not consider the commercial parking level when it

reviewed the project design, Staff made the required findings to support the VTT for the development of 11 condominiums and associated residential parking because the VTT was conditioned to comply with applicable City plans and, thus, as discussed above, the Applicant is required to obtain the necessary approvals to use the Property for commercial parking.

The CUP and ZV to continue the use of the Property for commercial parking will not be

before PLUM on February 23, 2010. Rather, the approval of the VTT for residential development is the only discretionary action that will be before PLUM and City Council. Additionally, as explained above, the approval of the VTT for a residential development can and should be considered separately from subsequent approvals to complete a project because VTT, CUP, and ZV are separate and distinct approvals.

31 Id. 32 Housing Element, Chapter Two, pg. 11. 33 Id. 34 Housing Element, pg. 2-20.


14

In summary, the Applicant respectfully submits that there is no basis for PLUM to

recommend disapproval of the VTT at the February 23, 2010 hearing given the procedural and substantive law set forth above. The Applicant respectfully requests the PLUM recommend the approval of the VTT.

Very truly yours,

Isabel Birrueta Enclosure cc: Michael Weintraub

Garland Cheng Joey Vasquez Jonathan Hershey

Jesse Shannon Matt Sullivan

Documents

Law Offices of Palo Alto Office William D. Ross