City Planning Department

Office of the Zoning Administration                                                                                        May 26, 2006

200 North Spring St.
7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012

Attachment to: Master Appeal Form Response submitted by Hollywood Heritage

Re: Case No. ZA-2005-6712(ZV)(ZAA)(ZAD)
Zone variance Administrator’s determination adjustment, Zoning Administrator’s determination 1802-1816 N. Whitley Ave., Hollywood.

Reasons For appealing:

1) How you are aggrieved by the decision?

Hollywood Heritage Inc., is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation founded in 1980 to protect Hollywood’s cultural and architectural history and has over 600 active members. We have gone on record at the January 19, 2006 public hearing with our opposition to this project and its plans to demolish an historic structure and replace it with one significantly out of context in scale and design for the surrounding buildings.

The protective status granted 1810-16 N. Whitley Avenue was based on two reports prepared for the CRA and adopted by the Los Angeles City Council as part of CEQA (the 1986 and 2003 Project EIRs) and as part of the 1986 Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. The report was prepared in 1985 by Johnson-Huemann Research for Hollywood Heritage as per the directions of the CRA. We are therefore defending the legally adopted report that the city paid us to prepare.

2) Why do you believe the decision makers erred or abused their discretion?

The abuse of this discretion is based on allowing variances resulting from non-relevant issues. At no point during the January 19 hearing, nor in the Zoning Administrator’s report of May 11, 2006 (ZA Report) is it claimed that the project will not go forward if the variances are denied. The issue is therefore one of maximizing profits for the developer.

This is not a condition to justify variances, as no hardship is shown. Recent rulings (March 9, 2006) by the City Planning Commission (case #2005-7325-V2-2V-SPR) for a project also in Hollywood demonstrate this. Responses in this case include:

“7.a. All of the zone variance requests are a result of project design and not a result of some practical difficulty created by the zoning regulation.”

“b. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a new structure from the ground up. There is no reason why the project cannot be designed with the permitted number of units . . .”

“c. The requested variance is not a result of special circumstances or practical difficulties encountered on the site; rather the variance necessity is being created by the applicant’s project design.”

“e. Zone variance procedures are established to grant relief when certain hardships and site impracticality makes compliance with the zoning regulations impossible. The applicant’s have shown only that the requested variances are necessary as a result of the project design, an (sic) not because of existing circumstances. The project involves the demolition of existing structures and the construction of a new building. The project can be redesigned to conform with the Zoning Code regulations and thereby comply with the General Plan.” (pages F3 and F-4 of the report)

The above is a perfect match for the response to this project. The ZA Report echoes this as its reasons given for granting all the variances are: 1) they could do this or more if they were building apartments; 2) they could do this if the “Q” conditions on the site did not exist; 3) it’s only a small difference from the code (i.e. design issue); 4) Other buildings in the area did it, so why not this one.

The answers to these are simple: 1) build apartments, not condos; 2) removal of “Q” conditions is beyond the authority of a ZA and would require a review of area-wide development cumulative impacts, as this is what originally triggered creation of the “Q” conditions; 3) there may be such “small” as well as not so small, additions being applied for in the area and, as each one goes through, there is a negative impact being added for the cumulative impacts without review; 4) other periods of development are immaterial to the ZA’s decision, previous impacts are what created the zoning codes, the General Plan, and “Q” conditions and the ZA cannot be second guessing what went on in the 1920s-1980s, only what the current code states.

Although the ZA Report goes on about the need for housing it misses the main area of concern, which is affordability. No prices for the condos are given, though a starting price of $500,000 and up was given earlier, hardly affordable. The ZA Report refers to the Hollywood Community Plan Area as 98.65% renters, yet how many are rented condos is not mentioned (page 10). But a conclusion of “Therefore Hollywood is an area in need of newly constructed condominiums for sale housing units,” is somehow made of this. Cost is not mentioned, vacancy rates are not mentioned, nor any figures for pent up demand for condos. This conclusion is baseless and rings more of a developer’s hucksterism rather than sound findings for variances.

Also, as in the above cited denial, here the ZA claims the variances are an issue of design. “An odd number of units would create an architectural design that would appear unbalanced and irregular. The buildings even number of units will improve the exterior façade’s appearance,” (page 10). Or: “This was found to be feasible in a five-story structure with a mezzanine, which provides for a more articulated building,” (page 12, referring to the building’s height).

It appears that not just are these findings in direct opposition to the March 9 decision, but that the ZA is now a design critic explaining the applicant’s designs. If the issue of architecture is to be an area of consideration, this must be made clear ahead of time so all could comment. But it still does not justify a variance, rather it reinforces why the variances should not be granted, as previously shown.

Finally, the ZA Report states “The various sizes and prices of units will allow a variety of income levels to live in close proximity,” (page 13) with no information on sizes and prices to back up this finding. But what is known is that over twenty units of affordable rental housing, of which the city has a dire shortage, are being demolished for this project. The $800,000 and up condo crisis is not as serious as developers would have the city believe. Especially when one report after the other, including one by the Federal Reserve Bank, state that 30% of home buying in Los Angeles is speculative. In contradiction to the ZA’s claim, the stable “stakeholders” are not necessarily the home owners, but the area’s renters. (I, as a 15 year renter at 1737 N. Whitley Avenue, personally take offense at the ZA’s claim. In addition there are many other long-term renters in the area who are actively involved in the community, including one lady who lived over 50 years at 1802 Whitley Ave. Maybe in some areas this claim can be made, but it can also be made of owners and to make blanket statements as the ZA Report did is both insulting and without merit.)

The decision maker erred in their discretion.

At the January 19 public hearing, Hollywood Heritage testified that the project did not meet the conditions and requirements of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan (Plan) (1986 and as amended) and the 2003 Hollywood Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report (2003 FEIR).

The site is located in the Hollywood Boulevard District of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project, sub area 2 (see map). According to the Plan, section 506.2.1 Hollywood Boulevard District, “The objectives of this District are to: 1) Encourage preservation, restoration, and appropriate reuse of historically or architecturally significant structures; 2) Assure that new development is sympathetic to, and complements, the existing scale of development; . . .

To meet these and other goals:

An urban design plan, including design guidelines and criteria and a parking and a circulation program to achieve these objectives shall be developed by the Agency within two (2) years of the adoption of the plan.” (emphasis added)

The Plan was adopted on May 7, 1986. Guidelines were worked on but have not been accepted by the City Planning Department, nor the City Council. This is demonstrated in the 2003 Plan amendment where the deadline is extended to 5 years after that version of the Plan is approved, over 20 years after the adoption of the Plan itself.

If one accepts the city’s argument that no guidelines exist for the Hollywood Boulevard District, then these guidelines could not, obviously, have been met by this project. Section 506.2.1 continues:

“All new development in the District shall meet the design guidelines to ensure that the objectives of the District are achieved.” (emphasis added)

Therefore the project cannot be in compliance with the Plan as the method to approve it does not yet exist. The city can hardly claim a hardship as they have had 20 years to prepare these guidelines and their dereliction does not allow for the law (Plan) to be circumvented. The 2003 amended Plan reinforces the city’s inability to act in a timely manner as prescribed in their own law and by CEQA (2003 FEIR).

It should be noted that some maps of the Project Area locate the structures across from the Hollywood Boulevard District, into what the Plan calls the “Franklin Avenue Design District,” section 505.2 of the Plan. One of the stated goals was to review “The development plans including the building massing, orientation, height, and bulk.”

Furthermore, section 505.2 states:

“The Agency shall, within four years after the development of the Redevelopment Plan, prepare a detailed design plan for this area which addressees preservation of architecturally and/or historically significant buildings, parking, circulation, and views to and from the Hollywood Hills including the height, orientation, and massing of a new development within the District.” (emphasis added)

As before, the guidelines do not exist and the 2003 Plan amendment extended the deadline another 5 years. So it is therefore impossible to determine if compliance is being met with the project or any other until the guidelines are approved.

Whichever District the CRA considers this building to be located in, the guidelines it is required to meet do not exist due to the negligence of the city. The city therefore cannot approve this project. To do so is both a violation of the Redevelopment Plan and denial of due process as the public has been kept out of the city approval process, which would also include violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Under CEQA, the violations continue. The 2003 FEIR. Page III. D-4 states: “There are approximately 448 properties in the Project Area that contain historic resources listed, or eligible for listing, on the California Register. This is based on an update of the historic surveys prepared for the Agency in 1985 and updated in 1994.” This list was again updated by the CRA in 2001 (page III.D-4).

The structure at 1810-16 N. Whitley has been on all of these lists as eligible for designation as a local landmark (which is consideration of the California Register), and is one of the 448 buildings referred to in the 2003 FEIR. The 2003 FEIR refers to section 511 of the Plan which “addresses the preservation, rehabilitation, and retention of properties within the Project Area” (page III.D-4). It goes on to state how section 511 deals with de-designation from the list and the process required.

Nowhere in section 511 of the Plan, nor in the 2003 FEIR, is there any discussion or allowance for the owner of one of the 448 historically designated properties to propose their own determination of the property’s historic significance. This is an obvious conflict of interest, is in violation of both CEQA (through the approved 2003 FEIR), and state redevelopment law (through the Plan) and denial of due process as the list was publicly prepared, with comment possible, where the new evaluation process provides no formal or legal procedure in which to challenge it, or even notification of when it is occurring.

This same situation exists with Section 518 of the Plan, where the CRA was to have developed guidelines and policies for the entire project area for, “Circulation, Parking, and Loading Facilities,” within 2 years of the adoption of the Plan. Again, they put in an additional extension of 5 years in the 2003 Plan Amendment. Cumulatively impacts of traffic and parking would have been included that could have impacted this project. This is in itself a shocking CEQA violation that an 1100 acre project area has been approved twice (1986 and 2003) without an adequate circulation and parking component.

For these reasons, the ZA’s approval does not meet the conditions of the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan. The ZA cited the Plan in the report as having been met on such relevant issues, but obviously this could not be the case.

Hollywood Heritage therefore respectfully asks that that Zoning Administrator’s determination for 1802 and 1810-16 N. Whitley Avenue be overturned to allow for further review by the Planning Commission.

Sincerely,

Robert W. Nudelman
Director of Preservation Issues
Hollywood Heritage

jc/RWN