Post on 07-Jul-2018
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
1/22
WEST
LOS NGELES
RE
PL NNING COMMISSION
200 N. Spring Street, Room 532 Los Angeles, California, 90012-4801, (213) 978-1300
www.lacity.org/PLN/index.htm
· DEC 1 8 2 15
Determination Letter mailingdate
Case No.: DIR-2015-290-BSA-1A
CEQA: N/A
Location
2716 S.
Krim
Drive,
2723 Anchor Avenue
Applicant
Mark Judaken
Representative: Ben Reznik, JMBM
Council
District: 11 - Bonin
Plan Area: West Los Angeles
Appellant
Carlyle Hall, Joanne Jackson, Los Angeles Neighbors
in
Action
Representative: Beverly Palmer
At its
meeting
on December 16, 2015,
the
West
Los
Angeles Area Planning
Commission
failed
to
reach a consensus. The Commission s failure
to
act results
in
the automatic denial
of the
appeal and
reaffirmation of the determination
of
the Director of Planning s Decision to deny an appeal that the
Department of Building and Safety erred or abused its discretion in the issuance of Permit No. 13010-
20000-01552 for the construction of a second single-family dwelling
on
a lot by applying (1) ZA
Memorandum
No.
120 instead
of
Section 12.24-W,43 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; and (2)
approving a 5-foot setback instead
of
complying with Section 12.08-C, 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code.
The deadlock
2
2 vote resulted
in
a
f ilure t ct by
the Commission. The Commission s vote was
as
follows:
Moved:
Seconded:
Noes:
Absent:
Vote:
Donovan
Halper
Margulies,
Merritt
Waltz-Morocco
2 2
Fiscal Impact Statement: There
is no
General
Fund
Impact as administrative costs are recovered through
fees.
ms,
Commission
Executive
Assistant
II
les Area Planning
Commission
Effective Date/Appeals:
The determination
of
the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission is final and
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 9Q
1
h day following the date on which the City s
decision became final pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may
be
other time limits which
also affect your ability to seek judicial review.
Attachment: Director s Determination dated July 22, 2015
Zoning Administrator: Lourdes Green
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
2/22
UNNK
. WYAn
CHifF ZO NING
1\
DMINISlR ATOR
IT
Y O F L
os NG
E LES
DEPARTMEN
T
OF
CITY PLANNING
ASSOCIATE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS
JACK
C
HIANG
LOURD
ES
GREEN
THEODOREL
IR
VING
C
HARLE
S
t
R
AUSCH J
R
CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL J. lOGRA
NDE
DIR
fClOR
JIM TOKUNA GA
FERNANDO TOVAR
DAVID S WEJNTRAU B
MAYA
E 2AITZ
EV SKY
ER
IC G
AR
CE
TTI
RECEIVED
IUL
24
2
5
OFFICE OF
ZONING ADMINISTRATION
N.SPRING
SnU H
7 fLOO •
l OS A
NGElfl
.
(1\
90012
213) 9/8 -
I B
F
AX
:
213
)
978
-
1334
July 22, 2015
Mark Judaken (Owner)(Applicant)
2716
South Krim Drive
Los Angeles ,
CA
90064
Carlyle Hall Joanne Jackson
(Appellant)(R)
Los Angeles Neighbors in Action
271 Krim Drive
Los Angeles,
CA
90064
Robert
L
Glushon (R)
Luna Glushon
16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1016
Encino ,
CA
91436
MAYOF
www .
pla nnin
g.lacity.org
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
BUILDING AND SAFETY APPEAL
2716 South Krim Drive/2723 Anchor Avenue
West Los Angeles Planning Area
Zone
R1
-1-0
D. M. : 126B165
C. D. : 5
Legal Description: Lot 16, Tract 19015
Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.26-K
of
the Municipal Code, I hereby
DENY:
an appeal that the Department
of
Building and Safety erred or abused its discretion
in the issuance
of
Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the construction
of
a second
single-family dwelling on a lot by applying (1) ZA Memorandum No. 120 instead of
Section 12.24 W,43 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code ; and (2) approving a 5-foot
setback instead
of
complying with Section 12.08-C,1
of
the Los Angeles Municipal
Code.
I find that the Department
of
Building and Safety did not err
or
abuse its discretion
regarding the issuance
of
Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the constructi
on
of
a
second dwelling unit and that it correctly determined that a minimum 5-front yard setback
was
required.
FINDINGS
OF
FACT
After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the appeal , the information
provided by the Department
of
Building and Safety, the statements made
at
the public
hearing on April 23, 2015, all
of
which are by reference made a part hereof, as well as
knowledge
of
the property and surrounding district, I find as follows :
AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUN TY AFFIRM ATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
3/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE2
B CKGROUND
The subject property is an 11,640 square-foot through located between Krim Drive and
Anchor Avenue in the Cheviot Hills area of West Los Angeles . The property
is
developed
with a single-family dwelling with
an
attached garage and swimming pool. Construction
of
an 825 square-foot, second dwelling unit is underway along the Krim Drive frontage. The
property
is
zoned R1-1-0. The property's 0 conditions regulate the area's oil drilling
regulations. The property is located within the West Los Angeles Community Plan,
Neighborhood Conservation Interim Control Ordinance, and within the Baseline
Mansionization Ordinance.
The surrounding properties in the area are zoned R1-1-0,
R1
-1 and OS-1XL. The area is
improved with one- and multi-story single-family dwellings.
Anchor Avenue is a Local Street dedicated to a width of 50 feet and improved with
sidewalks, gutters, and curbs.
Krim Drive
is
a Local Street dedicated to a width of 35 feet and improved with a curb,
gutter. and sidewalk on one side of the street.
The West Los Angeles Community Plan designates the property for Low density residential
land uses with corresponding zones ofRE9, RS,
R1
, RD6, RD5, and RU Height District No.
1.
The property
is
within the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation
Specific Plan area.
Previous zoning related actions on the site include :
DBS-140112-DCP- On October 30, 2014, an appeal was filed with Los Angeles
Department of Building and Safety challenging the issuance of Building Permit No.
13010-20000-01552 with respect
to
permitting a second dwelling unit and allowing a
reduced front yard setback. On December
31
2014, the Department
of
Building
and Safety issued a determination denying the appeal. Subsequently, on April22,
2015, the Department of Building and Safety issued a revision to a portion of the
report dealing with specific lot setback calculations which did not alter the
Department's original conclusion
Permit No. 13010-20000-01552- On September 23, 2014, LADBS issued a building
permit to construct a new detached second dwelling unit with
an
attached garage.
ST TUTORY PROVISIONS OF UTHORITY
The provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code establishing authority in regard to this
appeal include the following :
Section 12.26-A of the Municipal Code addresses the functions of the Department
of Building and Safety and provides in part: The Department shall have the power
and duty to enforce the zoning ordinances of the City.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
4/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE3
Section 12.
26-K
of the Municipal code provides
in
part, The Director of Planning
shall have the power and duty to investigate and make a decision upon appeals
from determinations
of
the Department
of
Building and Safety where it is alleged
there is error
or
abuse
of
discretion
in
any order, interpretation, requirement,
determination
or
action made by the Department of Building and Safety in the
enforcement or administration of Chapter 1 of this Code and other land use
ordinances in site specific cases...
ZONING ODE PROVISIONS
The applicable Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAM C) sections relative to this matter are as
follows:
SECTION 12.03. Definitions:
FRONTAGE. All property fronting on one (1) side of a street between intersecting or
intercepting streets, or between a street and right-of-way, waterway, end of dead
end street,
or
city boundary measured along the street line. An intercepting street
shall determine only the boundary of the frontage on the side of the street which it
intercepts.
LOT LINE, FRONT. In the case of an interior lot, the line separat ing the lot from the
street
or
place, and in the case of a corner lot, a line separating the narrowest street
frontage of the lot from the street, except
in
those cases where the latest tract deed
restrictions specify another line as
the
front lot line.
SECTIONS
12.07-C,1, 12.07.01-C,1,
12.07.1-C,112
.08-C.1 and 12.09-C.1
(RA,
RE, RS,
R and R2 Zones}
PREVAILING SETBACK. Prevailing Setback is a phrase used to define the front
yard regulations for RA, RE, RS, R 1, and R2 zoned lots. The Zoning Code reads in
part . . hat where all of the developed lots which have front yards that vary
in
depth
by not more than 1 0 feet comprised 40% or more of the frontage, the minimum front
yard depth shall be the average depth of the front yards of such lots. Where there
are two
or
more possible combinations of developed lots comprising 40% or more of
the frontage, each of which has front yards that vary in
depth by
not more than 10
feet, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average depth of the front yards
of
that combination which has the shallowest average depth. In determining the
required front yard, buildings located
on
key lots, entirely on
the
rear half
of
lots,
or
on lots in the C
or
M Zones, shall not be counted; provided, however that nothing
contained in this paragraph shall be deemed to require front yards which exceed
40
feet in depth.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S
INTERPRETATION
[ZA 2001-0331(ZAI) issued on
February 7, 2001]: The ZAI addresses prevailing front yard setback requirements
applicable to certain single-family zones throughout the city, including those properties
within designated hillside areas and/or on designated hillside streets :
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
5/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE
.. Consequently, it is determined that for properties within hillside areas, whether on
streets stamped hillside or not, the regulations calling for observance of the
prevailing setback shall apply on properties having a zoning classification which
contains the prevailing setback provisions, but in no event may the prevailing setback
result in less than a 5-foot setback being observed unless under an ICO or specific
discrete specific plan there is an express intent to supersede the prevailing setback
requirement
in
the zoning regulations.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMORANDUM NO . 120 (MAY 6, 2010)
A memorandum issued by the Directorof Planning supers.eding a prior inter-departmental
correspondence dated June 23 2003 addressing implementation of Assembly Bill 1866
which allows the creation of second dwelling units to be considered ministerially, without
discretionary review.
ZA Memo No. 120 established that a second dwelling unit
is
permitted by right on a lot if it
meets the following nine specific AB 1866 standards.
1. The second unit
is
not intended for sale and may be rented;
2. The lot
is
zoned for single-family or multi-family use;
3. The lot contains
an
existing single-family dwelling;
4. The second unit
is
either located within the living area
of
the existing dwelling
(attached) or on the same
Jot
as the existing dwelling (detached) ;
5. The total area of the increased floor area
of
an attached second unit does
not exceed 30 percent of the existing floor area;
6. The total area of the floor area for a detached second unit does not exceed
1 200 square feet;
7. The requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural
review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements
generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the
property are met;
8. The local building code requirements which apply to dwellings , as
appropriate, are also met; and,
9. A minimum of one additional covered or uncovered off-street parking space
is provided. If not otherwise prohibited by the zoning ordinance or any other
land use regulation, tandem parking is allowed and the parking space may
· be located in a required yard .
JUNE 23. 2003 - INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE ISSUED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING AND THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND
SAFETY
Correspondence issued by the Ch i
ef
Zoning Administrator and the Zoning Engineer
instructing City Planning staff and St ructural Plan Check Engineers and Building Inspectors
to allow second dwelling units by right it they meet all of the required conditions itemized in
Section
12
.24-W,43 of the Municipal Code, a conditional use category to permit second
dwelling units subject
to
a discretionary procedure.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
6/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290 BSA)
P GES
CTION OF THE DEP RTMENT OF BUILDING ND S FElY
On December 31, 2014, the Department of Building and Safety LADBS) issued Report
No. DBS-14012-DCP, which responded to the appeal filed by Los Angeles Neighbors n
Action following the issuance
of
Building Permit No. 13010-20000-0152 for the construction
of
a second single-family dwelling by applying ZA Memorandum No. 120 and approving a
5-foot setback instead of complying with Section 12.08-C, 1
of
the Municipal Code.
The Department
of
Building and Safety appeal report follows . References to exhibits are
to
those attached to the LADBS report located n the case file and are not included with this
decision letter.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
7/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE6
Report No. DBS-14012-DCP Permit No. 1301 0-20000-01552):
REPORT ON
APPEAL FROM LADBS DETERMINATION TO THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING PURSUANT TO
LA M C
. §12.26
REPORT NO. DBS-14012-DCP
JOB ADDRESS :
2716
South Krim Drive
ZONE: R1-1
C.D. : 5 (Councilmember:
Paul
Koretz)
PLANNING AREA: West
Los
Angeles
APPEAL:
Date of Report: December
26 2014
Effective
Date
of
Determination
:
December 2014
Deadline
to
Appeal
to
DCP
: January 19,
2015
Appeal Fee : $500.00
Determine that the Department of Building and Safety ( LADBS ) erred or abused its
discretion
in
issuing Building Permit No.1301 0-20000-01552 for the construction of a
second Single Family Dwelling by applying (1) ZA Memorandum
No.
120 (Exhibit B)
· instead
of
the 12.24W43 of the LAMC; and (2) approving a five foot setback instead
of
complying with 12 .08 C.1 of the LAMC.
EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT A: Building Permit No.13010-20000-01552, issued September 23, 2014,
Add New Detached 2nd Dwelling Unit with Covered Porch and
Attached One-Car Garage Per
ZA
Memorandum No. 120.
EXHIBIT B: Zoning Administrator's ( ZA ) Memorandum No. 120
EXHIBIT C: Department
of
City Planning, Zoning Administrator's
Case No. 2001-0331 (ZAI)
EXHIBIT D: Department of City Planning ZIMAS Map
EXHIBIT E: Information Bulletin Document No. P/ZC 2002-015, Determining
Front Yards , When Subject to the Prevailing Setback Regulations
EXHIBIT F: Prevailing setback calculation
EXHIBIT G: Zoning Administrator's (
ZA
) 90-1439 (ZAI)
EXHIBIT H: Zoning Administrator's Interpretation ( ZAI ) 1270
APPENDIX: Appeal package submitted by appellant
ERVIEW:
The site is located within the West Los Angeles Community Plan and fronts on a
Hillside street stamped with a purple color in ZIMAS (Exhibit D . The lot is a
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
8/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE
through lot and is zoned R1 -1. The lot is currently developed with a single family
dwelling with attached garage.
Background
On September 23 , 2014, LADBS issued Building Permit
No
. 13010-20000-01552 to
construct a New Detached Second Dwelling with an Attached Garage .
On October 30 , 2014, an appeal was filed challenging LADBS' issuance of Building
Permit
No
. 13010-20000-01552. The appeal is included in the Appendix of this
report.
The appellant claims that LADBS erred or abused its discretion in allowing the
construction of a second Single Family Dwelling pursuant to ZA Memorandum No.
120 (Exhibit
B
and erred in the calculation of the required setback. As a result,
Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 should be revoked .
This appeal was filed pursuant to
the
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code ( LAMC )
Section 12.26K which gives the Director of Planning the power and duty to
investigate and make a decision upon appeals from determinations of LADBS
where it is alleged there is error or abuse of discretion in any order, interpretation,
requirement, determination or action made by LADBS in the enforcement or
administration of land use ordinances in site-specific cases.
Discussion:
The following are the issues identified in the petitioner's brief (Appendix), along with
the corresponding responses from LADBS:
Issue No :
The appellant claims that LADBS erred by allowing a second dwelling unit with
attached garage pursuant to ZA Memorandum 120 (Exhibit
B
and should have
instead used Section 12.24W43 of the LAMC which, among other provisions : (1)
limits the maximum f loor area of second dwelling un its to 640 square feet, Section
12.24W43(a)(1 ; and (2) requires that second dwelling units , when viewed from the
street, to appear as if
there is only one dwelling unit on the lot, Section 12.24W43(f).
LADBS Response to Issue No 1
We follow ZA Memorandum 120 issued by the Department
of
City Planning's Office
ofZoning Administration to assist with implementing AB 1866. City Planning issued
ZA Memorandum 120 (Exhibit B on May 6, 2010.
ZA
Memorandum 120 allows the
creation of a second dwelling unit
on
residentially zoned lots
to
be considered
ministerial , without a discretionary review
or
hearing. A second dwelling unit is
allowed by right if it meets all ZA Memorandum 120 standards. ZA Memorandum
120 limits the maximum floor area of second dwelling units to 1 200 square feet,
and does not contain any requirement that second dwelling units,when viewed from
the street, appear as
if
there is only one dwelling unit on the
lot.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
9/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE 8
Building Permit No . 13010-20000-01552 provides for a floor area of 895 square feet
and does not take into consideration whether the proposed second dwelling unit,
when viewed from the street, appears
as
ifthere is only one dwelling unit
on
the lot.
Z
Memorandum 120 allows up to a maximum floor area to 1,200 square feet and
does not contain any requirement regarding appearance when viewed from the
street. Thus, Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 complies with ZA
Memorandum 120 and LADBS did not err
in
issuing the permit.
Issue
No 2:
The appellant claims that the calculation of the front yard setback was erroneous
because it was not done in accordance with LAMC section 12.08.C1, which requires
the front yard setback to be equivalent to the prevailing front yard setback for the
block, or to 20 of the depth of the subject site lot.
LADBS Response to Issue No 2
We follow Zoning Administrator Interpretation ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) issued by the
Department
of
City Planning's Office
of
Zoning Administration concerning the proper
application
of
the yard regulations in hillside districts affected by common problems.
Z
2001-0331 (ZAI) (Exhibit C) requires properties on hillside streets stamped with
a purple color in ZIMAS to maintain a 5 foot minimum front yard setback unless a
greater front yard is required by the prevailing setback. Pursuant to the zoning
codes applicable to front yard regulations for RA, RE, RS R1 and R2 zoned lots, a
prevailing front yard setback only exists where 40 or more of the lots on one side
of
a block have front yards that vary in depth by not more than 10 feet.
The proposed second dwelling unit fronts the east side of Krim Drive which is
on
a
hillside street stamped with a purple color in ZIMAS (Exhibit D and is therefore
subject to ZAI 2001-0331. As explained below, no prevailing front yard setback
exists for that side
of
the relevant block
of
Krim Drive because there
is
no
combination of lots comprising 40 or more of the lots on that side of the street with
front yards that vary in depth by not more than 1 0 feet.
Additionally, Appellant's contention that
in
the absence of a prevailing setback ,
LAMC section 12.08C1 requires a front yard setback of 20 of the depth of the lot,
and that such a setback must apply here, is incorrect. ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) does not
make LAMC's 12.08C 1's 20 -of-the-depth-of-the-lot provision applicable to
properties
on
Hillside streets identified with a purple color in ZIMAS. Therefore, the
required setback is a minimum of 5 feet.
Since at least 1950 the City's zoning code has authorized the Zoning Administrator
to adopt interpretations determining the proper application of yard regulations ,
including front yard setback regulations, to properties
in
hillside districts. ZA 2001 -
0331 (ZAI) is one in a line
of
several Zoning Administrator Interpretations concerning
the measurement
of
front yard setbacks in hillside districts. In 1950 the Zoning
Administrator issued ZAI 1270, which allowed a zero foot front yard setback in
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
10/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE
hillside areas for the properties fronting a Purple Street'
.
ZAI 1270
is
attached as
(Exhibit H).
After
1950 the Zoning Administrator issued two subsequent ZAI's concerning the
calculation
of
a front yard setback
in
hillside areas for the properties fronting a
Purple Street: one
in
1991, as clarified
in
1994, and the second
in
2001. ZA 90-
1439 (ZAI) rescinded the zero (0) foot setback authorized by ZAI 1270 and adopted
5 feet as the minimum front yard setback for lots
in
hillside districts fronting
on
a
Purple Street (Exhibit
G)
.
The most recent, ZA 2001-0331(ZAI) , amends ZA 90-1439(ZAI) slightly and
requires application of the prevailing setback
in
areas fronting on a Purple Street
where the prevailing setback is greater than 5 feet,
in
the interests of uniformity of
setback
on
given block. It also requires .a minimum five foot front yard setback
in
areas fronting on a Purple Street where the prevailing front yard setback is less than
5 feet. In all other respects, lA 2001 -0331 (ZAI) maintains the minimum 5-foot front
yard setback adopted in ZA 90-1439(ZAI).
Prevailing setback is a phrase used to define the front yard regulations for RA, RE,
RS, R1 and R2 zoned lots. LAMC Sections 12.07-C,1, 12.07.01-C ,1, 12.07.1-C, 1,
12.08-C ,1 and 12.09-C,1 all define calculation of prevailing setback
in
the same
manner, as follows, ..where all the developed lots which have front yards that vary
in depth
by
not more than 10 comprise 40% or more of the frontage, the minimum
front
yard
shall be the average depth
of
the front yard ofsuch lots. Where there are
two or
more possible combinations ofdeveloped lots comprising 40% ormore
of
he
frontage, each
of
which has front yards that vary in depth
by
notmore than 10 , the
minimum front yard depth shall be the average depth of the frorrt yards of that
combination which has the shallowest average depth.''
The calculation of the prevailing setback for the subject site, prepared by LADBS, is
shown in (Exhibit F) . The calculation of prevailing setback includes Lots 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, and
17 of Tract 19015 and lot B
of
Tract PM 6337. The front yard
setback for Lot 12 is 56 feet; for Lot 13 is 38 feet; for Lot 14 is 75 feet; for Lot 15 is
89 feet; for Lot 17 is 63 feet and for Lot B is 2 feet. Lots
11
and 16 of Tract 19015
do not have a front yard setback , therefore, Lots
11
and 16 were included only for
the purpose
of
calculating the total frontage, but were excluded for purpose of
averaging the setbacks.
ZA Note: This paragraph was revised in an amended
report dated April22, 2015
ncl
submitted at the April23, 2015 public hearing.
The revised language
is
itemized after the Conclusion)
When applying the requirements of 12.08-C,1, prevailing setback could not be
established (Exhibit F) since there are no lots whose front yards vary by not more
than 10' which comprise 40% of the total frontage .
Information bulletin P/ZC 2002-015 (Exhibit
E)
further clarifies via an example of
how the calculati
on
is to be done. Additionally,
an
automated prevailing setback
calculator is available on LADBS website
at
www.ladbs.org. This calculator is
programmed to run multiple iterations to yield the shallowest average depth.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
11/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE10
In conclusion, a 5 foot minimum front yard setback was required for lot 16 under
Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552. The plot plan shows that a front yard of 5
feet was provided, which meets the minimum required.
Conclusion
LADBS did not err or abuse its discretion
in
issuing Building Permit No. 13010-
20000-01552.
APRIL 22, 2015 REVISION OF ONE PARAGRAPH OF
BUILDING AND
SAFETY
REPORT'S
ORIGINAL REPORT
The following paragraph from the original Building and Safety action has been
revised in the April 22, 2015 report as shown in bold and cross-out.
The calculation of the prevailing setback for the subject site, prepared by LADBS,
is
shown in (Exhibit
F .
The calculation of prevailing setback includes lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, and 17 of Tract 19015 and lot B of Tract PM 6337. The front yard setback for Lot 12
is
56 feet; for Lot 13 is 38 feet; for Lot 14 is 7 5 feet; for Lot 15 is 89 feet; for Lot 17 is 63 feet
and
for
Lot B is 2 feet. Lot
11 of
Tract 19015
is
a key lot
and
pursuant
to
LAMC
12.08C1 is
not
required to be
considered in
the prevailing set back analysis. Lot 16
of
Tract
19015
has
been included and the prevailing
set
back
is
5 feet minimum.
ets
11 and 16 do not have a front yard setback, therefore, Lots
11
and 16 were included only
for the purpose of calculating the total frontage, but were excluded for purpose
of
averaging the setbacks:''
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
12/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE 11
.
PPE L
TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
An appeal of the Department and Building
and
Safety's action was filed
on
behalf of The
Los Angeles Neighbors
in
Action and Carlyle Hall Joanne Jackson on January
16
2015
to the Director of Planning. The appeal requested , pursuant
to
LAMC Section
12
.26-K, a
Director
of
Planning's determination
as
to whether LADBS erred or abused
its
discretion
issuing Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the construction of a second single
family dwelling under
Z
Memorandum 120, as well
as
determining that a 5-foot yard
setback was applicable.
APPELANTS POINTS:
Second Dwelling Unit
The project fails to comply with LAMC Section 12 .24 W 43 (Conditional Use for Second
Dwelling Units) by exceeding the maximum floor area
of
640 square feet
and
being visible
from the street as not permitted by Section
12
.24 W 43.Appellant claims that LADBS erred
by relying
on
ZA Memorandum 120 which establishes different standards from the
conditional use category. Appellant references original State legislation passed
in 1981
which allows by local ordinance any local agency to provide for the creation of second
dwelling units
in
single-family zones. Appellant notes that without the adoption of an
ordinance governing second
un
its, a local agency would default to the State standards
which allowed a maximum floor area
of
1 200 square feet and which did not include a
standard regarding visibility from the street.
Appellant identifies ordinance passed by City
in
1985 establishing the conditional use
category for second dwelling units (LAMC Section
12
.24 W 43) which established a floor
area cap (640 square feet) and the visibility standard for the creation
of
a second dwelling
unit as well as a number of other standards subject to discretionary review. Appellant cites
Assembly Bill 1866, passed
in
2002, which required that applications for second units be
considered ministerially, without any discretionary review, but concludes that local second
unit ordinances did not need to
be
amended
in
order to comply with ministerial
requirements . Appellant again notes that Assembly 1866 'defaults to the application of
State standards for those localities without a second unit ordinance. Appellant claims that
the City of Los Angeles has a second unit ordinance.
Appellant identifies a June, 2003 Inter-Departmental Correspondence issued by the Chief
Zoning Administrator
in
order to comply with Assembly Bill 1866 making the standards
identified
in
the conditional use category for second units ministerial and thus
as
a result
not subject to a conditional use permit.
Appellant challenges May, 2010 ZA Memorandum No. 120, issued by the Director
of
Planning which supersedes the June 2003 correspondence
and
which requires that second
units must comply ( default ) to the State standards
to be
considered ministerially.
Appellant claims that Director had no authority to issue such a change
and
that the
Memorandum
is
contrary
to
the City's Zoning Code
and
cannot form the basis for
approving the subject second dwelling unit.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
13/22
CASE
NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE12
Prevailing
Setback
Appellant claims that the setback for the second dwelling needs to comply with LAMC
Section 12.
08
-C 1 which requires a setback of 20 of the depth of the lot not to exceed 20
feet or observance
of
prevailing setback calculations. Appellant challenges LADBS
reliance on ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) issued by the Chief Zoning Administrator in 2001 which
states that properties within hillside areas, whether on streets stamped hillside or not, are
subject to applicable prevailing setback calculations but in no event may result in a front
yard setback of less than 5 feet when a prevailing setback cannot be established.
Appel lant claims that the
Chief
Zoning Administrator has no authority to change standards
adopted by the City Council in LAMC Section 12.08-C. Appellant also claims that
prevailing setback was miscalculated because corner Lot 9 was not included.
PUBLIC HEARING
A public hearing was conducted on April 23, 2015 in West Los Angeles.
In
attendance
were the appellant, the property owner of the affected project, neighbors and a
representative of the Department of BUilding and Safety .
Testimony
Carlyle
Hall Appellant
Live two lots north
of
project site.
There are legal issues underlying appeal
Speaker submits binder with testimony, exhibits, declarations, and copies
of
identified correspondence, ZA Memo and ZAI documents.
Speaker notes he is co-appellant with Los Angeles Neighbors
in
Action (LANA).
Speaker submits letter from the Cheviot Hills Home Owners' Association which
requests that ZA Memorandum 120 be set aside.
Subject property
is
a through lot with 11, 000 square feet.
Permits violate building ordinance.
Standards for permitted second dwelling unit allow a maximum size of 640 square
feet. The proposed second unit is 895 square feet.
Zoning ordinance states that second unit cannot be visible from street frontage .
Speaker shows Illustrations
of
what view would be.
Regarding
prevailing setback, ordinance requires 20-foot setback.
There are peculiarities of the Building and Safety appeal process.
Appeal
is
considered first by LADBS, then appealed to the Director and then to
APC.
City's official position
is
that timelines are not binding.
It is problematic that the appeal is to the Director whose issuance of2010 ZA Memo
is being challenged.
ZA Memo asks LADBS to disregard ordinance and set out new standards .
Now appealing to Director's action which should be rescinded .
Director should have no role in this appeal or the process is an exercise in futility.
Builder
is
allowed to continue with construction .
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
14/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE 3
Submit photos of construction activities and impacts
on
street. Developer putting
equipment on street. Have complained about such storage on the street. Developer
is using more of street than what was permitted.
Tried to attack lawfulness of the second unit process before the building permit was
issued.
Referring to binder submitted at hearing , Exhibit 1 is a copy of ZA Memo 120. There
is no legal reason or planning process provided for change .
LADBS is expected to ignore process and follow memo s direction .
City Attorney has argued that Chief Zoning Administrator s standards were
preempted by State law in Assembly Bill 1866 and must default to standards when it
does not have its own standards.
Have had standards since 1985
State s default standards were written in a lenient manner to allow second dwelling
units.
Exhibit 9 of binder is June 23, 2003 correspondence which recognizes that second
dwelling units must be allowed ministerially.
City for
7
years did ministerially follow these second dwelling unit standards.
State s default standards were to encourage cities to adopt standards but Los
Angeles is diverse, so City normally customizes by neighborhood.
Director is applying a one-size fits all standard and not customizing .
Director has discretion to impose conditions and lower standards.
Other cities took different approach and adopted tighter standards after adoption of
AB 1866.
Los Angeles is only city that went
in
different direction.
LADBS feels it must follow memo rather than ordinance.
Memo was big change
in
process, should have been hearings, debates and
amendment of zoning ordinance.
Director commanded LADBS to follow standards.
With regards to prevailing setback,
in
prior action Chief Zoning Administrator Huber
Smutz considered hillside properties as ones that were difficult to build upon and
which represented an inequitable application of zoning regulations.
Have no issue with Lot 9 claim
in
appeal.
Ken Gill Assistant Bureau Chief, Department of Building and Safety .
State says a locality has to adopt its own ordinance or follow State standards .
City Attorney had said follow State standards.
Even before ZA Memo 120, the City was following State s guidelines.
There was a prior Building and Safety appeal regarding the use of the 2003 Inter
Departmental correspondence with regards to a permit for a second dwelling unit.
Matter went to the Citywide Planning Commission (CPC) . (ZA Note: Subsequent
review shows that matter went to Har
bor
Area Planning Commission not the
CPC.
Commission granted the appeal to allow second dwelling un it based on State s
standards .
Since then , we have to approve same as State standards .
Zoning Code allows the authority to provide interpretation of zoning regulations.
With regards
to
prevailing setback, there have been various Zoning Administrators
Interpretations (ZAis)
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
15/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE 14
For Hillside streets which are purple, ZAI is always applied.
ZAI1270 (1950) established a zero-front yard for hillside properties abutting a street
stamped Hillside.
ZA 90-1439 ZAI) (February 15, 1991) established that a zero front yard was not
enough. It required a minimum 5-foot front yard setback on all Hillside stamped
streets unless there was an ICO or specific requirement by ordinance establishing a
different minimum setback. This ZAI repealed ZAI 1270.
ZA 2001-0331 ZAI) (February
7
2001) established that prevailing setback
requirements applicable to certain single-family zones would apply to Hillside areas
and Hillside streets but that in no event would a prevailing setback result in a front
yard
of
less than five feet.
The Municipal Code (Section
12
.22-C, 19) also allows a second dwelling unit
on
a
through lot with a depth of 150 feet or more.
Since 2004, LADBS has processed approximately 100 second dwelling units
ministerially.
LADBS does not make a decision on the validity of a Zoning Administrator's
Interpretation (ZAI) . It is a published document which can be appealed .
LADBS treats ZAis and ZA Memos equally.
A plan checker has no discretion to disagree with the application of a ZAI or ZA
Memo.
LADBS does not stop construction unless
we
made
an
error. Cannot withhold a
permit because property owner has a right to build.
Lot B (owned by appellant Carlyle Hall) if built before 1990 it was allowed to have a
zero front yard setback.
Lot 9 is a reverse corner lot which is excluded
in
prevailing setback calculations.
Lot
11
is a key lot which is excluded but added for frontage calculation .
Mark
Judaken
Owner
of
property ( 2327 Anchor/2716 Krim) which is subject of appeal.
Views submitted by appellant are distorted and taken from above the property.
His house is
10
feet above street with gabled roof and cannot be seen from Anchor
Avenue .
If
appellant prevails on setback, then appellant's permit
on
his own property would
be nullified.
Len Judaken Son of Owner of subject property under appeal.
Senior citizen who supports a grandpa unit .
Plan to move in to the second unit and be close to assistance to help as needed
and to be close to grandchildren .
This permit has gone through more scrutiny and
it
took two years to be issued due
to appellant objecting to LADBS throughout process.
As a result, LADBS scrutinized more from plan checker to higher ups.
Ken Gill has answered many of the relevant points.
Assembly Bill 1866 overrides City's zoning codes.
Ordinance 159,599 (1985) adopted with regard to second dwelling units relied
on
the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow a second dwelling unit.
Assembly Bill 1866 negated that ordinance as was applicable only with the
conditions of the second units.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
16/22
CASE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE15
The 2003 inter-departmental correspondence enforced the 1985 terms and was
followed at the time.
The City had more experience in its review of Assembly Bill 1866 between June
2003 and May, 2010 .
Department concluded that City s prior ordinance did not comply with State 65852.
Other cities passed their own ordinances with more restrictive standards.
The City of Los Angeles did not pass its own ordinance and in May, 2010 it had to
adopt the State s·parameters.
The City Council
is
in
favor
of
second dwelling units.
Property is over 10,000 square feet.
Originally thought about subdividing it as
an
option . Could have built a 2,500
square-foot home.
Was not aware of LAMC Section
12
.22 allowing a second dwelling unit
on
through
lot.
On August 6 2003, the State s Department
of
Housing and Community
Development issued a Memorandum related to the second unit legislation.
Los Angeles does not have a second dwelling unit ordinance.
Chapter 1062 provided the governing regulations .
LADBS did not err. The permit is valid . The property could also be subdivided and
developed with two dwellings.
K Kim - Neighbor on Krim Drive
Do not have knowledge
of
the legality of structure.
Have complaints regarding construction on Krim Drive and workers who park on
street.
There are four seniors living on this street and have concerns for their safety.
Sue Behrstock Neighbor on Anchor Avenue
Live two houses south of subject property.
Cannot speak to ·legality.
There is no vehicle to express concerns.
Concerned with ramifications to integrity of community.
This can be financial incentive and create a domino effect on street.
I.Kim Neighbor on Krim Drive
Speaking on behalf
of
parents.
Bought house 20 years ago, selling point
is
that there
is
no other property
in
front
of
them.
Unit is apartment.
Fire hydrant is blocked by construction .
Joanne Jackson Appellant
Request that building permit be rescinded.
The City has adopted regulations via LAMC Section 12 .24-W.
Not
in
power of appeal to disregard officially adopted zoning statutes .
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
17/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE 16
Not a matter of interpretation of law like other cases.
Adopted standards are clear as to size (640 square feet) and visibility from street.
LADBS can clearly see conflict and should not have issued permit.
Lot is through lot, should be flagged to Planning and not given a second dwelling
unit. Different from a conventional lot which has front and rear yard .
This action entitles others to build a second dwelling unit , seven new homes could
be built. Merits thorough review and public hearing .
Krim Drive
is
a purple street and what
is
not clear
is
that City s front yard
is
ambiguous in Hillside Area.
Our house was built prior to Hillside ordinance when zero front yard allowed .
Ambiguity of through lot.
Shocked that project has been allowed to proceed.
Did meet with LADBS when plan check notice was provided .
Seeing s t r u c t ~ r e go forward .
Carlyle Hall - Rebuttal
Have not seen LADBS referral to a similar appeal.
Not familiar with LAMC Section 12.22 allowing a second dwelling unit.
1991 ZAI reduction to 5-foot front yard was temporary.
Can see structure from Anchor Avenue.
All Assembly Bill 1866 did was pull a process out of a discretionary conditional use
process.
It allowed standards to be pulled out of the conditional use process.
Len Judaken - Rebuttal
A ruling against appellant retains everyone s right to build a second dwelling unit.
Appellant did a subdivision on his own property. Appellant did what applicant can
still
o
.
Correspondence received after the Public Hearing
The record on the matter was maintained opened until April 27, 2015. The following
correspondence was received within the established deadline .
April 23
2 15 E-mail from Ken Gill
of
LADBS referencing citation in Municipal Code
regarding second dwelling unit on a through lot which he noted at hearing .
April 27 2015
-
Correspondence from Carlyle Hall on behalf of himself and of Los
Angeles Neighbors in Action . Submittal also includes a copy of the August 6, 2003
Memorandum issued by the State of California s Department
of
Housing and Community
Development (HCD) regarding implementation of Second-Unit Legislation effective
January
1
2003 and July 1, 2003. Following points are made:
AB 1866 empowers localities
to
include additional local standards to protect
historical resources and does not diminish or preempt local second unit substantive
standards.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
18/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE 17
AB 1866 enacts procedural change
and
deletes requirement for a conditional use
process with standards and instead requires second unit applications to be
considered ministerially without discretionary review or hearing.
B 1866 allows procedural changes to be effectuated
by
operation of law without a
need to amend or adopt local ordinances for the creation
of
second units. Asserts
that local authorities could disregard their conditional use procedures.
Asserts that HCD does not preempt or nullify local governments prior second unit
ordinances which continue to be
in
effect and that a local government defaults to
State's standards only if a local city has not adopted its own standards
in
a local
ordinance.
Notes that local government still has flexibility in establishing substantive second
unit standards.
Asserts that the 2003 inter-departmental correspondence issued by Planning and
LADBS met intent of legislation by allowing the City to continu'e to use standards in
the conditional use process but not through a conditional use process but though a
ministerial process which was conducted for seven years .
Concludes that the 2010
Z
memo defaulting to State's standards cannot be
justified and that the CUP standards cannot be nullified due to said requiring a
discretionary process because HCD states that a locality does not need to take any
specific action to amend its local ordinances.
Notes that he is unaware of reference by LADBS representative at public hearing
on this matter to a prior administrative appeal which determined that the second
unit ordinance cannot be enforced and that the State's default'' standards must
instead be enforced.
Notes that applicant did not apply for a second dwelling unit via the through lot
criteria in LAMC Section 12.22-C, 19 but that complying with that provision would
require redesigning structure and might encounter other problems.
Summarizes the evolution
of
the
Z is
related to front yard setback
in
hillside area or
hillside street and concludes that these were to apply to by right projects and that
no evidence that such would apply to this type of project which he characterizes as
a by right waiver of a zoning requirement.
DIS USSION
In the instant case, the action is restricted to considering whether the Department
of
Building and Safety acted within the scope of its authority in issuing a building permit to 1)
allow the construction of a second dwelling unit by right
in
accordance with Z
Memorandum No. 120 which was issued to assist
in
the ministerial implementation of
Assembly Bi111866; and, 2 determine that a 5-foot front yard setback was required.
Second Unit
In taking its action, the Department of Building and Safety considered the appellant's claim
that LAMC Section
12
.24-W,43 should have been applied which would have limited the
size of the second unit to 640 square feet and which would not allow a second unit to be
visible from the street. LADBS follows standards identified in Z Memorandum No. 120
with respect to the implementation of Assembly Bill 1866 as this pertains to second units.
The standards establish a maximum floor area
of
1,200 square feet which the project does
not exceed. There
is no standard addressing or limiting any visibility from the street of a
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
19/22
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE
18
second unit
so
noncompliance was not
an
issue. The standards
in Z
Memorandum No.
120 represent the State s standards which are applicable to the creation
of
a second unit.
As such, Building
and
Safety determined that it complied with all the requirements for the
issuance
of
a building permit as the proposed second unit met
all
nine standards identified
in
Z
Memorandum
No
. 120.
In acting ministerially
on
the matter, Building
and
Safety staff, including plan checkers,
were required to determine that all standards
in
the Memorandum were met before
proceeding to review the project for building code
and
other life
and
safety requirements .
The issue in this case is whether the Department s staff applied and complied with the Z
Memo correctly. It would not be expected that a plan checker or other staff member would
refuse independently
to
issue a permit based on his/her own interpretation of
an
Assembly
Bill s implementation
or
based on a challenge
to
an
officially issued Z Memorandum ,
which is one of more. than 130 such Z documents, dating back to the 1950s, that have
been issued to implement regulations and guide land use processes .
It
is
not
the intent
or
purpose
of
the review
of
this appeal
to
render a decision
on
the
standing
of
Z Memorandum No. 120. However some general observations are
noteworthy regarding such matter.
t
the public hearing
on
this matter, a representative of
the Department of Building and Safety referenced a prior Building
and
Safety appeal which
had dealt with the implementation of the State s standards and with the June 23, 2003
Inter-Departmental Correspondence based on the conditional use standards which the
appellant seeks to have
as
the guiding document.
Z
Memorandum
No.
120 superseded
the 2003 correspondence.
The prior Building
and
Safety appeal case noted (DIR 2007-0648
BSA)
involved an appeal
of
the revocation of a building permit to convert the accessory living quarters
on
a lot into a
second dwelling unit
in
the community
of
San Pedro.
In
this case LADBS issued the permit
for the second dwelling unit
in
2005 and subsequently revoked the permit based
on
the
application
of
the standards identified
in
the June 23,2003 Correspondence, which
in
said
appeal report
is
referenced as a policy document. Under said action , LADBS determined
that the request was located in a Hillside Area and thus could not meet one of the
standards
of
the 2003 document so as to
be
eligible for a ministerial approval. The
applicant appealed to the Director of Planning and the matter was considered by a Zoning
Administrator
on
behalf of the Director.
The appeal contended that the 2003 document is
in
conflict with State law which has
no
prohibition on development
in
Hillside Areas. It further stated that the City of Los Angeles
has not adopted
an
ordinance providing for ministerial approval of second dwelling units
and thus the applicable standards defaulted to those identified
in
Government Code
(65852.2(b)(A) -
I)
. The appeal further contended that the City adopted a policy
memorandum instead of adopting
an
ordinance through its legislati
ve
process and
therefore the City is subject to the State s standards. It also set forth that even if the
standards
in
the policy memo were the result of a properly adopted ordinance , findings
would have been required to preclude certain development and none have been adopted .
The Zoning Administrator
on
behalf
of
the Director of Planning , deni
ed
the appeal.
He
stated that LADBS exercised enforcement
and
administration of the Zon ing Code
consistent wi
th the
policy directives of the 2003 policy memo and that the matter was
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
20/22
CASE NO _DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 19
specific to the use
of
one property. The Director s action was appealed to the Harbor Area
Planning Commission.
At
the Harbor Area Planning Commission (APC) appeal hearing, the Zoning Administrator
explained that
his
action was not based
on
whether the 2003 policy memo complied with
the State but only
on
whether LADBS s action complied with the 2003 policy memo and
that it was not within his purview
to
determine if the policy memo was correct or not. The
APC asked the City Attorney present at the hearing his opinion regarding the 2003 policy
memo. The City Attorney stated that the 2003 policy memo did not comply with the State s
provisions of the Government Code. He added that the Government Code requires an
ordinance to be enacted and that this policy memo was not enacted through a legislative
process of the City. The APC considered whether the 2003 policy memo was used
incorrectly and determined that it should not have been used and that instead AB 1866
should have been applied ministerially. The·APC.granted the appeal and determined that
LADBS erred in using
the
2003 policy memo
as
the deciding factor in revoking the permit
and found that the 2003 policy memo was inconsistent with the provisions of State
Assembly Bill1866 and Government Code Section 65852.2
Although the action of the Harbor APC ultimately did consider the validity of a policy memo,
there remains a consistency between the APC s action and the subject action. If as
determined by the APC, the 2003 policy memo was found to be inconsistent with Assembly
Bill1866 any claims that the standards
in
said 2003 document should be upheld lacks for
merit. While not privy to the history
of
why ZA Memorandum No 120 was issued, it would
not
be out
of the ordinary to assume that it may have been in part an effort to correct the
lack
of
standing of the 2003 policy memo. While one could also challenge that ZA
Memorandum
No
120 has not been enacted through a legislative process and thus has no
standing, this seems irrelevant inasmuch as if
in
fact the City cannot point to a specific
ordinance passed which establishes a ministerial process for second units, then the State
standards apply regardless by default. LAMC Section 12.24 W 43 which remains part
of
the Code does not provide for a ministerial process but rather for a discretionary process
subject to a hearing.
Therefore, there is
no
error or abuse of discretion in the Department of Building and
Safety s action
to
issue a building permit for a second dwelling unit.
Prevailing Setback
In determining a front yard setback, LADBS followed the provisions of ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI)
which requires that for properties within hillside areas, whether on streets stamped hillside
or
not, the prevailing setback calculation can
be
used
if
required under the corresponding
zoning
but
that
in no
event shall a front yard of less than 5 feet be required . The subject
property fronts onto Krim Drive, a purple street stamped Hillside and thus this ZAI is
applicable. Nothing
in
this 2001 ZAI refers to these being interim regulations pending the
adoption of hillside provisions. In fact, this ZAI acknowledges that the hillside provisions
have been already in effect for 10 years. The 2001 ZAI specifically identifies properties
fronting onto a stamped hillside street as being subject to this ZAI. It does not default
solely to the provisions of LAMC Section 12.08-C, 1 regarding prevailing setback for such
properties.
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
21/22
C SE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA)
PAGE
2
The Municipal Code (LAMC Section 12.21 A 2) authorizes the Zoning Administrator to
adopt general interpretations determining the proper application of yard regulations as well
as the ability
to
interpret other zoning regulations . LADBS notes that since the 1950s,
there
have been ZAis issued regarding front yard setbacks
in
hillside areas , including for
those
properties fronting onto a purple street. These have been amended
as
necessary
throughout the years.
LADBS applied the prevailing setback calculator and has included
the specific calculations in its revised report which did not affect the original report. The
calculations could not establish a prevailing setback based on the required criteria and
therefore a 5-foot front yard setback was required.
There
is no evidence in the record that such calculations and applications of the front yard
setback requirements for a property fronting onto a stamped hillside street were applied
erroneously
by
the Department
of
Building and Safety.
There is no error or abuse of discretion in the Department of Building and Safety s action to
determine that a 5-foot front yard setback was required for the second unit.
In reviewing the information attached to the file, including information submitted by the
appellant, property owner and the Department of Building and Safety, as well as testimony
at the public hearing and subsequent correspondence, it is determined that the Department
of Building and Safety did not err or abuse its discretion in the issuance
of
a building permit
for a second dwelling and in its determination that a 5-foot front yard setback was required.
The Department carried out its duties based on statutory purposes and application of the
Municipal Code s provisions.
Citywide Impact
Pursuant to the requirements
of
Section 12.26-K
of
the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the
determination herein has no Citywide impact as the matter concerns only the use of the
specific property.
PPE L PERIOD EFFECTIVE DATE
The Zoning Administrator s determination
in
this matter will become effective after
UGUST
6. 2015, 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 http://citvplanning.lacitv.org. Public offices
are located at:
Figueroa Plaza
2 1 North Figueroa Street,
4th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 482-7077
Marvin Braude San Fernando
Valley Constituent Service Center
6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Room
251
Van Nuys, CA 91401
(818) 37 4-5050
8/18/2019 Granny flats order
22/22
C SE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE
2
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.
Inquiries regarding this matter shall be directed to Kellen Hoime, Project Planner for the
Office
of
Zoning Administration at (213) 473-9769.
MICHAEL LOGRANDE
Director of Planning
LOURDES GREEN
Associate Zoning Administrator
LG:KH:Imc
cc: Councilmember Paul Koretz
Fifth District
Adjoining Property Owners