DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING RECOMMENDATION REPORT Central Los Angeles Area Planning Case No.: DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1 A Commission CEQANo.: ENV-2015-4594-MND Council No.: 4-Ryu Plan Area: Hollywood Date: July 11, 2017 Time: 4:30 p.m.* Specific Plan: Hollywood land Place: City Hall Certified NC: Hollywood United 200 N. Spring Street, 10th Floor GPLU: Low 11 Residential Los Angeles, CA 90012 Zone: R1-1 Public Hearing: Required Appeal Status: Not further appealable per LAMC Owner/Applicant: Aykui Berberian Expiration Date: July 11, 2017 Representative: Gary Akopian Multiple Approval: Yes PROJECT LOCATION: 3101 N. Belden Dr. PROPOSED Construction, use and maintenance of a new 31-foot, 7-inch tall single-family residence PROJECT: containing 2,359 square feet of residential floor area with a 369-square-foot detached garage on a vacant, upslope, 6,703-square-foot lot. APPELLANT: Peter Kane REQUESTED Appeal of the Director of Planning's conditional approval of Project Permit Compliance ACTION: Review and Design Review pursuant to Sections 11.5. 7 C and 16.50 E of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) and Section 9.B.1 of the Hollywoodland Specific Plan, Ordinance No. 168,121. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Deny the Appeal of the Director of Planning's conditional approval of a Project Permit Compliance Review and Design Review. 2. Sustain the Determination of the Director of Planning in approving a Project Permit Compliance Review and Design Review for the construction, use and maintenance of a new 31-foot, 7-inch tall single-family residence containing 2,359 square feet of residential floor area with a 369-square-foot detached garage on a vacant, upslope, 6, 703-square-foot lot within the Hollywood land Specific Plan. 3. Adopt the Staff Findings. 4. Find, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 (b ), after consideration of the whole of the administrative record, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration, No. ENV-2015-4595-MND ("Mitigated Negative Declaration"), and all comments received, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; Find the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City; Find the mitigation measures have been made enforceable conditions on the project; and Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1 A Page 2 VINCENT P. BERTONI, AICP Director of Planning By: Reviewed by: f(K} Mindy Nguyen, City Planner Prepared by: _,..:f V\ ~ 1,:> Nuri Cho, Cityanning Associate ADVICE TO PUBLIC: * The exact time this report will be considered during the meeting is uncertain since there may be several other items on the agenda. Written communications may be mailed to the Commission Secretariat, Room 532, City Hall, 200 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 (Phone No. 213-978-1300). While all written communications are given to the Commission for consideration, the initial packets are sent to the Commission's Office a week prior to the Commission's meeting date. If you challenge these agenda items in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing agendized herein, or in written correspondence on these matters delivered to the agency at or prior to the public hearing. As a covered entity under Title II of the American Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability, and upon request, will provide reasonable accommodation to ensure equal access to its programs, services and activities. Sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or other services may be provided upon request. To ensure availability of services, please make your request no later than three working days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by calling the Commission Secretariat at (213) 978- 1300. TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Analysis .................................................................................................................... A-1 Appellate Decision Background Project Summary Appeal Points and Responses Conclusion Exhibits: Exhibit A: Appeal of DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP Exhibit B: Director's Determination DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP Exhibit C: DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP Exhibit "A" Exhibit D: DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-P Preliminary Design Review Plans Exhibit E: Preliminary Design Review Agendas and ORB Response Exhibit F: LADBS Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1A A-1 PROJECT ANALYSIS Appellate Decision Pursuant to Sections 11.5. 7 C and 16.50 C of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), appeals of Project Permit Compliance Review and Design Review are made to the Area Planning Commission. The appellate decision of the Area Planning Commission is final and effective as provided in Charter Section 245. Background The project site consists of a vacant, upslope, irregular-shaped, 6, 703-square-foot lot with approximately 78 square feet of frontage on the north side of Belden Drive, a Substandard Hillside Limited Street, and varying depths of approximately 7 4 feet and 108 feet. The project site is zoned R1-1 and designated for Low II Residential land uses with corresponding zones of RS and R1 within the Hollywood Community Plan. The site is also located within the Hollywoodland Specific Plan, established in 1992 per Ordinance No. 168,121, and is subject to the Baseline Hillside Ordinance, established in 2011 per Ordinance 181,624. The subject property is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, Bureau of Engineering Special Grading Area, Hollywood Fault Zone, and Landslide Area. The adjacent properties to the east and west are zoned R1-1, designated for Low II Residential land uses and developed with single-family homes. All other surrounding properties in the vicinity are also zoned R1-1, designated for Low II Residential land uses and are either developed with single-family homes or vacant. Project Summary Case No. DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-P The applicant filed a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) case to consult with the Design Review Board (Board) and obtain feedback on the overall design of the project. Per the Department of City Planning's policy, applicants may have up to three (3) PDR sessions with the Board. The Board does not make an official recommendation on a PDR case to the Director of Planning. The Board simply advises the applicant informally and provide feedback on the preferred design direction. The three (3) PDRs were held on May 28, 2015, July 9, 2015, and August 13, 2015. Case No. DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP The applicant filed the final application for a Project Permit Compliance Review and Design Review on December 18, 2015. Pursuant to LAMC Section 16.50 E.3(b)(2), the Board held three (3) public hearings to consider the Design Review application for the proposed project on June 23, 2016, July 28, 2016, and September 22, 2016. On September 22, 2016, the Board ultimately recommended denial of the project after a lengthy and iterative process. On April 11, 2017, the Director of Planning approved a Project Permit Compliance Review and Design Review to permit the construction, use and maintenance of a new 31-foot, 7-inch tall single-family residence containing 2,359 square feet of residential floor area with a 369-square-foot detached garage on a vacant, upslope, 6,703-square-foot lot within the Hollywoodland Specific Plan (see Exhibit B). As part of the Hollywood land Specific Plan, a project is required to obtain a minimum number of points per the Hollywoodland Design Guidelines in order to be approved. A project located on an upslope lot must receive a minimum of 35 points from any combination of 20 design criteria that award or subtract amounts of points per each criteria. The Director found the subject project received a total of 39 points (see Exhibit C). An appeal of the Director of Planning's decision was filed on April 18, 2017. D1R-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1A A-2 Appeal Points and Staff Responses The appeal of the Director of Planning's approval of DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP contends the following: Appeal Point No. 1: According to the Director's Determination, the Specific Plan is nothing more than a few regulations to be used in conjunction with a worksheet of 20 simple design considerations. This interpretation of the Specific Plan is wholly incorrect, and the Board should be given proper consideration, as it is the Board's role to determine if the aesthetics of a project are in harmony with the purposes of the Specific Plan. If only considering the regulations in Sections 7 and 8 of the Specific Plan in conjunction with the design worksheet, it would be impossible to protect the uniformity and European Village character of Hollywood/and, rendering the entire document moot. Staff Response: Pursuant to LAMC Section 11.5. 7 C, which sets forth the Project Permit Compliance Review procedure, the Director has the initial decision-making authority to decide whether an application for a project within a specific plan area is in conformance with applicable regulations of the specific plan (emphasis added). In granting a Project Permit Compliance, the Director must make written findings that the project substantially complies with the applicable regulations, findings, standards and provisions of the specific plan; and the project incorporates mitigation measures, monitoring measures when necessary, or alternatives identified in the environmental review which would mitigate the negative environmental effects of the project, to the extent physically feasible. Sections 7 and 8 of the Hollywoodland Specific Plan set forth the residential development and building regulations with which the Director must review for compliance in order to make a decision in grating the Project Permit Compliance and Design Review. The original Letter of Determination per Case No. DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP contains written findings that the proposed project complies with all of the applicable regulations, including fences and walls, parking, landscaping, setbacks, height, and lot coverage. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the proposed project, with the applicable mitigation measures were included in the Letter of Determination as Conditions of Approval. As mentioned above, pursuant to Section 9.B.2 of the Specific Plan, a project is required to obtain a minimum number of points from the Design Guidelines in order to be approved. The draft Specific Plan Ordinance initially contained a regulation requiring projects to be designed in one of the eight European Village styles: Tudor Revival, Chateauesque, Spanish Colonial Revival, Monterey Revival, Spanish Eclectic, French Eclectic, Italian Renaissance, Cape Code or similar traditional cottage. However, this concept was replaced in the final approved Ordinance with a point system and Design Guidelines by the City Planning Commission to encourage better architecture beyond the requirements of the Specific Plan by providing the designer with a list of reasonable options and the flexibility to apply the requirements that best suited each particular project, rather than limiting the design to the eight European Village styles. Furthermore, the Municipal Code and the Specific Plan require that a project be approved based upon compliance with the regulations set forth in the Specific Plan, and utilize the point system contained in the Design Guidelines in making the initial determination on a project approval. While the purpose of the Specific Plan is to protect the unique character of the plan area and encourage a series of architectural styles consisting of Mediterranean, English, French and other traditional cottages and villas, the Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines do not stipulate selective stylistic regulations pertaining to the architectural design. The criteria listed in the Design Guidelines pertain to very detailed and specific design considerations, including the height and material of retaining walls, landscaping, window width DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1 A A-3 and material, building material, fence type, underground utility, stairs, garage and carport design, and roof form. These criteria generally do not represent certain architectural styles or correspond to the purposes of the Specific Plan to preserve the European Village character of the neighborhood, and they do not "favor" any particular architectural style for the reasons previously mentioned. In making a determination, projects must be reviewed for compliance with the regulations in the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. If the project is in substantial conformance with these regulations and design criteria, there is no authority under which the Director of Planning can deny the proposed project. The project as approved complies with all of the Baseline Hillside Ordinance and Specific Plan regulations and exceeds the number of points needed for approval per the Design Guidelines Worksheet. Additionally, the applicant visited the Board a total of six (6) times, including the three (3) Preliminary Design Review sessions and three (3) public hearings, and modified the project in order to incorporate the Board's comments into the design. As such, it is the Director's opinion that the home is substantially in compliance with the Specific Plan and Design Guidelines. Appeal Point No. 2: The applicants have bypassed the Design Review Board (Board) and are now able to construct a house that is out of character that would otherwise not be allowed had the Department of City Planning not circumvented the Board. The Board was concerned about the site plan, retaining walls, the style of the building, roof type, glass railings, 20-foot irregular height of the garage structure, and various finishes, and recommended denial. Staff Response: Pursuant to LAMC Section 16.50 E.3(a), applicants may, but are not required to, file a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) case to consult with the Design Review Board (Board) for advice on the design of a proposed project. Applicants may have up to three (3) PDR sessions with the Board to obtain feedback. Although not required, the project applicant filed a PDR case on April 20, 2015 and utilized all three (3) sessions to present the project to the Board and obtain their feedback. The PDR agendas and Board's comments are included in Exhibit E. As is evident from the comments from the second PDR, the Board agreed with the siting of the building and the project size of approximately 2,380 square feet. The applicant changed the parking layout from a two-car garage and two surface parking spaces to a four-car garage with "stacked" parking spaces to provide all four parking spaces in the garage. The garage was also redesigned to be buried into the hill rather than sitting on the hill, and now observes a five-foot front yard setback. Some of the roofs are redesigned to incorporate pitched roofs, and the amount of glass was reduced on the first floor of the main building to minimize the floating effect. Once the applicant utilized all three PDR sessions, the applicant filed for the final case to obtain a Project Permit Compliance and Design Review. The applicant went through three (3) public hearings with the Board on June 23, 2016, July 28, 2016, and September 22, 2016. The applicant received various comments from the Board during the first hearing, which are outlined in the Director of Planning's Determination in Case No. DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP (see Exhibit B). The applicant incorporated a majority of their comments into project design, including retaining wall materials, front gate design, articulation on the elevator shaft, roof design, and other architectural details. After the architect presented the design changes to the Board during the second public hearing, the Board commented that the proposed project was not compatible with the architectural and hillside character of Hollywoodland and requested that the applicant completely redesign the project, develop several new site plan options and come back to the Board for a third hearing to present a newly designed building. Given that the applicant had already incorporated comments DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1A A-4 from the three (3) PDR sessions in addition to the two (2) public hearings held, the applicant decided to keep the project design as proposed. After review and discussion during the third public hearing, the Board voted 4-0 to recommend the Director of Planning to deny the proposed project. The Department of City Planning referred the project to the Board for both PDR and final Project Permit and Design Review applications for the Board's review and recommendation. The Board agreed with the site planning and project site during the PDR sessions but did have several comments regarding the project design and architectural elements. The applicant continued to work with the Board to update their project design through a total of six (6) PDR and public hearing meetings, and made appropriate changes to the project to incorporate the Board's feedback into the design. As such, the applicant fulfilled their obligation, pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Municipal Code, of obtaining the Board's recommendation for their project prior to the Director issuing a determination. Pursuant to LAMC Sections 16.50 E.3(b)(2) and 16.50 E.3(d), the Board shall make its recommendation based upon design criteria in the Specific Plan, and the Director shall approve a project as presented to the Board if it is in compliance with the specific regulations of the applicable Specific Plan. The Municipal Code further stipulates that the Director must approve a project for Design Review as presented to the Board if it is in compliance with the specific plan regulations of the applicable specific plan ( emphasis added). Under the procedures in the LAMC for Design Review, the Board is a recommending body to the Director. The Director considers the Board's recommendations, but is not required to follow DRB's recommendations. As the written findings in Exhibit B show, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the regulations set forth in the Specific Plan and passed the threshold of 35 points required for an upsloped lot to receive a project design approval per the design criteria established in the Hollywoodland Design Guidelines. Therefore, the Director's Determination granted the Project Permit Compliance and Design Review for the proposed project within the Hollywoodland Specific Plan. Appeal Point No. 3: The proposed project does not conform to the following sections of the Specific Plan: Section 2.E To protect against development of overly massive buildings which are out-of scale with the existing buildings. Although the home is not massive in square footage, the proposed home has a tall garage with a commercial style car lift at the street level with an elevator tower on top of it, and tall retaining walls that soar high above the garage. A 20-foot tall garage with a double deck, commercial style garage is not compatible with the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed project would appear to be a very large and tall, out-of-scale home towering over the adjacent properties, from the street level. Staff Response: The Specific Plan has two regulations that are intended to prevent oversized developments: height and lot coverage. The main building proposes a height of 31 feet, 7 inches, which is within the maximum 45-foot height limit; the proposed lot coverage of buildings is 29 percent, which is less than the maximum 30 percent allowed; and the combined lot coverage of buildings and hardscape is approximately 48 percent, which is below the maximum allowed lot coverage of 50 percent set forth in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan, however, does not regulate the maximum allowable floor area (RFA), which determines the size of the house, and therefore, projects in Hollywoodland are subject to the RFA limitation per the Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO). The proposed project is permitted to have a maximum RFA of 2,838 square feet per BHO. The applicant proposes a 2,359-square-foot house, which is below the maximum allowable floor area permitted on this property. D1R-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1A A-5 The applicant initially proposed a two-car garage and two (2) uncovered parking spaces on the lot during the PDR process. However, per the Board's recommendation, the applicant redesigned the garage to include a four-car garage with a lift system, which is permitted per LAMC Section 12.21 A.S(m). Additionally, the proposed parking garage with the elevator shaft have a total height of approximately 33 feet, 6 inches, which is within the maximum allowable building height of 45 feet per the Specific Plan. The appellant also contends that the house and multiple retaining walls soar 40 feet above the garage. Per Ordinance No. 176,445, the applicant is permitted to have up to two (2) retaining walls with a maximum height of 12 feet, depending on the number of retaining walls proposed. Per LADBS, the height of retaining walls is measured from the top of the wall to the lower side of the adjacent ground elevation. The proposed retaining walls on the site do not exceed 10 feet in height, as shown on Sheet E-4 of Exhibit C. The applicant will be required to comply with the Ordinance to the satisfaction of LADBS. Based on these facts, it cannot be found that the project is overly massive or out-of-scale with existing buildings. Appeal Point No. 4: The proposed project does not conform to the following sections of the Specific Plan: Section 2.A To protect Hollywood/and, a unique and historical residential community in Hollywood, planned in the early 1920's as a custom home, single-family subdivision with a "European Village" character. Section 2. G To protect Hollywood/and as it was in the early decades of the Hollywood/and Tract, when the initial deed restrictions and design review process produced a series of architectural styles consisting of Mediterranean, English, French and other traditional cottages and villas having uniformly high quality design and construction. The proposed project is a modern, boxy style, mini-mansion home that is inconsistent with the European Village character of the Specific Plan. The proposed home is not of the Mediterranean, English, French or other traditional Cottage or Villa styles as outlined in the Specific Plan. This project contradicts the purpose of the Specific Plan and appears to be the complete opposite of what the authors of the Specific Plan had in mind. Staff Response: The draft Hollywoodland Specific Plan Ordinance initially contained a regulation that would limit the architectural style of homes in the area to European Village styles. Supporters of this regulation stated that the inclusion of these styles was imperative to retain the original stylistic unity of Hollywoodland as conceived in the early 1920's. The supporters wanted to limit the architecture to the eight architectural styles, as the area was developed in 1923 as the first planned hillside community in the City, and the initial deed restrictions and design review process for this subdivision produced a compatible mix of Mediterranean, English, French and other traditional cottages. However, at the time, opponents requested that no prescriptive standards for architectural styles be imposed, as the area was composed of an accumulation of many styles, including modern architecture. The City Planning Commission indicated that there was no apparent basis for specifying architectural styles and instead suggested that an Urban Design Element be identified in lieu of limiting architectural styles to the eight styles to define the character of the community. As a result, the architectural style regulation of the draft Specific Plan Ordinance was replaced with a set of Design Guidelines, which was approved by the City Planning Commission. As previously mentioned, the proposed project is in substantial conformance with the regulations set forth in the Specific Plan and meets the 35-point threshold of the Design Guidelines. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the Specific Plan. DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1A A-6 Finally, the sections cited by the appellant are in the Purpose section of the Specific Plan. Purpose language in ordinances are not regulations but intended to explain the purpose of the regulations contained in the Specific Plan. Purpose statements may not be used to add requirements that do not otherwise exist in the Specific Plan or alter the regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the language of the regulations. Purpose statements may only be used to aid interpretation of regulations to the extent the language in a regulation is ambiguous. Appeal Point No. 5: The proposed project does not conform to the following section of the Specific Plan: Section 2.K To ensure that new development in the Hollywood/and Specific Plan area is not detrimental to the surrounding community. Removing approximately 1,000 cubic yards of soil may compromise the integrity of the hillside as well as the lateral support to the adjacent homes. The stated volume of earth to be removed appears to be understated and as such the project is not subject to a Haul Route hearing. Staff Response: As discussed above, the Purpose section of the Specific Plan cited by the appellant does not contain regulations but are intended to explain the purpose of the Specific Plan regulations. Regardless, the Project does meet the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan and is not detrimental to the surrounding community. While the site is located in a designated seismically induced landslide hazard zone, Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) concluded that the proposed construction is exempt from seismic slope stability analysis. A copy of the Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter, issued by LADBS Grading Division and dated January 15, 2016 was provided by the applicant (see Exhibit F). LADBS reviewed geotechnical and soils reports for the proposed project and deemed the reports acceptable, provided the conditions listed in the Approval Letter are complied with during site development. The applicant will need to obtain a grading permit, and engineers at LADBS will confirm the amount of grading for the proposed project. Given that the project site is located in the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Special Grading Area, the applicant will need to obtain a haul route approval from the Board of Building and Safety in the event the amount of grading involving import or export exceeds more than 1,000 cubic yards of earth materials. Therefore, based on DBS's approval of the Geology and Soils Report, and the regulatory settings in place, the proposed project is not expected to be detrimental to the surrounding community in regards to grading in the Hillside Area. Appeal Point No. 6: The proposed project does not conform to the following sections of the Specific Plan: Section 7.A Residential Development Regulations All Projects shall conform to the following restrictions: A. Structural Elements and Appurtenances. Notwithstanding the provisions in LAMC Section 12.21.1 8.3: 1. No heating, ventilation or air conditioning equipment installed in a new building or added to an existing building shall be located on the roof of a house or garage, except solar heating panels, receiving antennas and exhaust vents. 2. Any other appurtenances installed on a new building or added to an existing building, except for solar heating panels, receiving antennas and DIR-2015-1455-DRB-SPP-1A A-7 exhaust vents shall be screened from view from any public right-of-way in Hollywood/and. The proposed project includes an appurtenance on the roof of the garage. There is an elevator tower that protrudes from the top of the garage in plain view that seems to fit the definition of an appurtenant structure. Staff Response: The project proposes a roof structure housing an elevator that is located at the rear of the four car garage, which protrudes approximately 12 feet in height above the garage. The elevator shaft is not considered as heating, ventilation or air conditioning equipment and therefore Section 7.A.1 of the Specific Plan does not apply. Section 7.A.2 of the Specific Plan applies to any other appurtenances installed on a new building, except for solar panels, antennas and exhaust vents, to be screened from any public right-of-way. The proposed elevator will be enclosed in a roof structure which screens view from Belden Drive. The roof structure is designed with the same stucco material with smooth steel troweled finish and Crystal White color as the garage and the main residence. Additionally, the DRB asked the architect to incorporate more detail such as vent, louver and/or light fixtures to the elevator shaft during the first public hearing held on June 23, 2016. The architect incorporated a louver on the elevator shaft to further articulate the shaft as suggested by the DRB. As such, the proposed project complies with Section 7.A of the Specific Plan. Conclusion The appeal points generally address the Project Permit and Design Review approval process and concerns about lack of compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood character. Upon in-depth review and analysis of the issues raised by the appellant, no errors or abuse of discretion by the Director of Planning or his/her designees were found. While the Department of City Planning generally aims to support the recommendations of the Board and defers to the judgment of the Board on subjective measures, staff cannot support a denial when the project is in compliance with the Specific Plan and the Design Guidelines. As such, the appeal of the conditional approval of a Project Permit Compliance and Design Review for the construction, use and maintenance of a new 31-foot, 7-inch tall single-family residence containing 2,359 square feet of residential floor area with a 369-square-foot detached garage on a vacant, upslope, 6, 703-square-foot lot within the Hollywood land Specific Plan cannot be substantiated and therefore should be denied.