Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTALTO THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
ENVIRONMENTALDOCUMENT:CITY PLANNING CASE: COUNCIL DISTRICT:
ZA-2016-1485-CU-1A ENV-2016-1484-MND CD 12 - ENGLANDER
PROJECT ADDRESS:
10650 NORTH DE SOTO AVENUE
APPLICANT TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS:
818-700-7550 [email protected] LUBRAN (A)AMERICAN CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION, INC 21704 DEVONSHIRE STREET CHATSWORTH, CA 91331
n New/Changed
VICTOR SAMPSON (O)10735 DES MOINES AVENUE NORTHRIDGE, CA 91326
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS:
ROBERT B. LAMISHAW (R)JPL ZONING SERVICES6257 VAN NUYS BOULEVARD, SUITE 101VAN NUYS, CA 91306
818-781-0016 [email protected]
APPELLANT TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS:
APPELLANT #1 KRISTINA ZITKOVICH 21308 NASHVILLE STREET CHATSWORTH, CA 91331
818-923-8088 [email protected]
APPELLANT #2 ANDRE VAN DER VALK 21128 STANWELL STREET CHATSWORTH, CA 91331
818-882-3661 [email protected]
PLANNER CONTACT INFORMATION: TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS:
ENTITLEMENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
1Transmittal Rev 04/05/17
FINAL ENTITLEMENTS NOT ADVANCING:
ITEMS APPEALED:
ATTACHMENTS: REVISED: ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: REVISED:
7 Letter of Determination
r Findings of Fact 7 Staff Recommendation Report 7 Conditions of Approval r Ordinance
r Zone Change Map
r GPA Resolution
r Land Use Map
r Exhibit A - Site Plan
7 Mailing List r Land User Other____________________
P Categorical Exemption
r Negative Declaration
7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
P Environmental Impact Report P Mitigation Monitoring Program
r Other_____________________
r rr rr rr rr rr rrrrrrr
NOTES / INSTRUCTION(S):
TRANSMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 245 OF THE LOS ANGELES CITY CHARTER
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
I" Yes r No
*If determination states administrative costs are recovered through fees, indicate “Yes”.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
r City Planning Commission (CPC) r Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) r Central Area Planning Commission
r East LA Area Planning Commission
r Harbor Area Planning Commission
7 North Valley Area Planning Commission
r South LAArea Planning Commission
r South Valley Area Planning Commission
r West LAArea Planning Commission
2Transmittal Rev 04/05/17
PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATE: CO M M ISS I ON VOTE :
FEBRUARY 2, 2017 3-1
LAST DAY TO APPEAL: APPEALED:
02/02/2017
TRANSMITTED BY: TRANSMITTAL DATE:
CLAUDIA RODRIGUEZ COUNCIL LIAISON
213-473-5797
3Transmittal Rev 04/05/17
ffffnr**rO)
North Valley Area Planning Commission200 North Spring Street, Room 532, Los Angeles, California, 90012-4801, (213) 978-1300
www.planninq.lacity.orgfl
28
LETTER OF DETERMINATION
WAR 2 S 202MAILING DATE:
Case No.: ZA-2016-1485-CU-1A CEQA: ENV-2016-1484-MND Plan Area: Chatsworth-Porter Ranch
Council District: 12 - Englander
Project Site: 10650 North De Soto Avenue
Applicant: Martin Lubran, American Classic Construction Inc. Representative: Robert Lamishaw, JPL Zoning Services
Appellant No. 1: Kristina Zitkovich
Appellant No. 2: Andre Van Der Valk
At its meeting of February 2, 2017, the North Valley Area Planning Commission took the actions below in conjunction with the disapproval of the following project:
A Conditional Use for a new 7,098 square-foot church with 150 seats in the (T)(Q)RE11-1 Zone.
1. Granted the appeal and overturned the Zoning Administrator’s determination to approve a Conditional Use for a new 7,098 square-foot church with150 seats in the (T)(Q)RE11-1 Zone;and
2. Adopted the attached findings as stated by the Commission.
This action was taken by the following vote:
Moved:Seconded:Ayes:Nays:Recused:
NamGarciaReyesHarootoonianSampson
Vote: 3 -1
ZRenee Glasco,North Valley Area Planning Commission
'mrffission Executive Assistant I
Fiscal Impact Statement: There is no General Fund impact as administrative costs are recovered through fees.
ZA-2016-1485-CU-1A
Effective Date/Appeal Status: The decision of the North Valley Area Planning Commission is final upon the mailing date of this letter, and it is not further appealable.
If you seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which the City's decision became final pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may be other time limits which also affect your ability to seek judicial review.
Attachment: Findings by the North Valley Area Planning Commission
c: Henry Chu, Associate Zoning Administrator
Findings by theNorth Valley Area Planning Commission
February 2, 2017.
Based on the North Valley Area Planning Commission’s (“NVAPC”) review of: the evidence that was presented to the Zoning Administrator; the record, findings, and decision of the Zoning Administrator; and the consideration of arguments presented orally and in writing to the NVAPC, the NVAPC granted the appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s initial determination to approve a conditional use for a new church based on the use of a mitigated negative declaration as the environmental clearance for the project. Instead, the NVAPC, based on the record, determined the Zoning Administrator erred by not fully taken into account the full range of potential traffic safety impacts related to proposed driveway, the reported history of accidents, and the level of traffic congestion at this site.
1. The project will not enhance the built environment in the surrounding neighborhood nor will it perform a function or provide a service that is essential or beneficial to the community, city or region.
The project proposes a church building on the subject site that is surrounded by single-family homes immediately to the east and to the south. Also, there are single-family homes to the north across Chatsworth Street and to the west across De Soto Avenue. Public testimony at the February 5, 2017 NVAPC meeting included substantial concerns about traffic congestion and driving hazards related to proposed driveway and its impacts on the intersection of Chatsworth Street and De Soto Avenue. One of the appellants stated there was a serious and deadly accident at this same intersection last October. Additional testimony in the record described how this intersection had a history of traffic accidents. In addition, statements were made regarding the intersection being heavily congested throughout many times of the day.
Based on this testimony and its review of the record, the NVAPC determined that a more thorough analysis of the project’s traffic impacts should have been conducted for this particular intersection. While the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) thresholds did not automatically trigger a Traffic Analysis Report, the NVAPC considered the credibility of the conclusions from the traffic study voluntarily submitted by the applicant’s representative. The NVAPC, after weighing the public testimony and their own familiarity with the traffic conditions at or near the project site, determined that the DOT should have been requested to review the submitted traffic study in light of the public concerns about traffic safety related to the placement of the driveway and because of the intersection’s reported accident history and congestion. The public testimony about a history of traffic accidents at this location, also led the NVAPC to determine that the submitted traffic analysis was not reflective of the actual existing conditions and hazards as it failed to adequately evaluate the impacts from the proposed driveway location, including the last-minute proposed change to move the driveway closer to the intersection, and the potential vehicle queuing likely to occur due to a single shared entrance/exit. In particular, the NVAPC determined the project’s potential increase in traffic safety impacts from vehicles making right and left turns from the project site and from vehicles turning into the property from the east and westbound lanes of Chatsworth Street would create more hazardous conditions to a congested intersection with a history of traffic accidents.
In addition, at the hearing, the Applicant’s representative submitted revised site plans which were different from the plans originally reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator on October 14, 2016. The revised plans showed the proposed driveway along Chatsworth Street
F-2ZA-2016-1485-CU-1A
approximately 32 feet further west than proposed on the original site plan. This modification would move the driveway closer to the Chatsworth Street and De Soto Avenue intersection. The Applicant’s representative stated that the abutting neighbor would only support the project if the proposed driveway was moved further away from his property and closer the intersection. NVAPC staff also testified that at the Zoning Administrator public hearing, the Applicant's representative stated that DOT had recommended the driveway be located on Chatsworth Street and as far away from the intersection as possible. The NVAPC found that the relocation of the driveway would conflict with DOT's recommendation. As a result, the NVAPC determined that further research as to the potential impacts from the placement of the driveway was warranted. The NVAPC determined that the proposed relocation of the driveway further west and closer to the intersection of Chatsworth Street and De Soto Avenue would reasonably foreseeably add to the traffic safety impacts at the intersection due to the shortened response time of motorists seeking to enter or exit the site. Therefore, based on the entirety of the record, the NVAPC finds the project, as originally proposed and as revised, would be detrimental to the built environment.
2. The project’s location, size, height, operations and other significant features will not be compatible with and will adversely affect or further degrade adjacent properties, the surrounding neighborhood, or the public health, welfare and safety.
At the February 5, 2017 NVAPC meeting, the NVAPC determined that the traffic related to the operation of the subject church before and after each service and classes would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood since it would increase the number of potential traffic safety hazards of the intersection and as a result, adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. Public testimony at the hearing included comments about the area’s history of traffic congestion and accidents. One of the appellants specifically stated there was a serious and deadly accident at the intersection of De Soto Avenue and Chatsworth Street last October, and that these types of collisions happened frequently at this intersection.
As such, the NVAPC determined that there was enough information in the record to find that the intersection had heavy congestion and was a dangerous traffic intersection which warranted further traffic analysis beyond that provided. The NVAPC also had a concern with the number of services that would be held as it would reasonably foreseeably exacerbate existing traffic/safety hazards by increasing the times of day in which increased congestion could occur at or near the intersection. In addition, the proposed relocation of the driveway 32 feet west and closer to the Chatsworth Street and De Soto Avenue intersection as proposed by the Applicant’s representative suggested that the abutting east neighbor’s concerns remained based on the original site plan. Therefore, based on the entirety of the record, the NVAPC finds the project, as originally proposed and as revised, would not be compatible with and would adversely affect the adjacent properties, and the public health and safety given the unconsidered traffic safety impacts.
The project substantially conforms with the purpose, intent and provisions of the General Plan, the applicable community plan, and any specific plan.
3.
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan divides the city into 35 Community Plans. The Chatsworth - Porter Ranch Community Plan Map designates the property for Very Low II Residential land use with a corresponding zones of RE15 and RE11. The Chatsworth - Porter Ranch Community Plan text is silent with regards to church facilities. In such cases, the Zoning Administrator must interpret the intent of the Plan. Meanwhile, the corresponding zones do permit churches if the appropriate conditions can be adopted.
F-3ZA-2016-1485-CU-1A
Schools, churches, play grounds are all generally considered to be integral to the social fabric of communities. Except for the traffic safety concerns listed above, the proposed project would otherwise meet a number of objectives from the Chatsworth - Porter Ranch Community Plan including, but not limited to:
Objective 1 states that an objective of the Plan is to coordinate development in the Chatsworth- Porter Ranch community with other parts of the City of Los Angeles. The intent of the community plan is to manage growth within the context of each community area by utilizing policies, goals, objectives.
Objective 3 of the Community Plan states an objective is to encourage the preservation and enhancement of the varied and distinctive residential character of the Community. The intent is to ensure compatible development with the surrounding community.
Objective 6 states that another objective is to make provisions for a circulation system coordinated with land uses and densities and adequate to accommodate traffic; and to encourage the expansion and improvement of public transportation service. The intent is to address the issue of circulation and the problems of congestion stemming from growth.
Again, except for the specific traffic safety concerns listed above, churches are generally considered to be important to the social fabric of communities and with appropriate conditions would substantially conform to the General Plan, applicable community plan and specific plan for this project site.
ADDITIONAL MANDATORY FINDINGS
4. 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.
On August 17, 2016, the City Planning Department issued Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV-2016-1484-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.
5.
