Untitled - Los Angeles Department of City Planning - City of Los Angeles

87 Pages·2016·31.31 MB·English

EXHIBIT A
APPEAL
DIR-2015-2817-DRB-SPP-lA
APPEAL APPLICATION
This application is to be used for any appeals authorized by the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) for discretionary
actions administered by the Department of City Planning.
1. APPELLANT BODY/CASE INFORMATION
Appellant Body:
0 D D 0
Area Planning Commission City Planning Commission City Council Director of Planning
Regarding Case Number: DIR-2015-2817-DRB-SPP; ENV-2015-2818-CE
Project Address: 1000 S. Gayley Avenue, Los Angeles. CA 90024
Final Date to Appeal: _1_213_0/_2_0_1_5 ___________
D
Type of Appeal: Appeal by Applicant
lZI Appeal by a person, other than the applicant, claiming to be aggrieved
D Appeal from a determination made by the Department of Building and Safety
2. APPELLANT INFORMATION
Appellant's name (print): Gayley Properties, LLC; Maurice Meyers
Company: ~---------------------------------
Mailing Address: 10401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 502
City: Los Angeles State: ...;;C'-A"------ Zip: 90024
Telephone: [phone]
E-mail: ------------------
• Is the appeal being filed on your behalf or on behalf of another party, organization or company?
IZI Self Ill Other: Gayley Properties, LLC
0 fZl
o Is the appeal being filed to support the original applicant's position? Yes No
3. REPRESENTATIVE/AGENT INFORMATION
Representative/Agent name (if applicable): _R_o_b_e_rt_L_. _G_lu_s_ho_n_ ________________
Company: Luna & Glushon
Mailing Address: 16255 Ventura Blvd., Suite 950
City: Encino State: _C_A_ ____ Zip: 91436
Telephone: [phone] E-mail: [email protected]
CP-7769 appeal [revised 6/18/2015] Page 1 of2
4. JUSTIFICATION/REASON FOR APPEAL
D IZI
Is the entire decision, or only parts of it being appealed? Entire Part
0 D
Are specific conditions of approval being appealed? Yes No
If Yes, list the condition number(s) here: _4~,_1_0 ____________
Attach a separate sheet providing your reasons for the appeal. Your reason must state:
e The reason for the appeal • How you are aggrieved by the decision
• Specifically the points at issue • Why you believe the decision-maker erred or abused their discretion
5. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
I certify that the statements contai
Date:
6. FILING REQUIREMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
• Eight (8) sets of the following documents are required for each appeal filed (1 original and 7 duplicates):
o Appeal Application (form CP-7769)
o Justification/Reason for Appeal
o Copies of Original Determination Letter
e A Filing Fee must be paid at the time of filing the appeal per LAMC Section 19.01 B.
o Original applicants must provide a copy of the original application receipt(s) (required to calculate
their 85% appeal filing fee).
• Original Applicants must pay mailing fees to BTC and submit a copy of receipt.
c Appellants filing an appeal from a determination made by the Department of Building and Safety per LAMC
12.26 Kare considered original applicants and must provide noticing per LAMC 12.26 K.7.
o A Certified Neighborhood Council (CNC) or a person identified as a member of a CNC or as representing the
CNC may not file an appeal on behalf of the Neighborhood Council; persons affiliated with a CNC may only
file as an individual on behalf of self.
• Appeals of Density Bonus cases can only be filed by adjacent owners or tenants (must have documentation).
• Appeals to the City Council from a determination on a Tentative Tract (TI or VTT) by the Area or City
Planning Commission must be filed within 10 days of the date of the written determination of said
Commission.
a A CEQA document can only be appealed. if a non-elected decision-making body (ZA, APC, CPC, etc.) make~
a determination for a project that is not further appealable. (CA Public Resources Code § 21151 (c)). CEQA
Section 21151 (c) appeals must be filed within the next 5 meeting days of the City Council.
This Section for City Planning Staff Use Only
gtj Reviewed & Accepted by (DSC Planner):
Base Fee: :{;' S /).)ff{£ /\/'/}NI
Receipt No: Deemed Complete by (Project Planner):
i
DZrJ/Z Z!3~
D
etermination authority notified Original receipt arid BTC receipt (if original applicant)
CP-7769 appeal [revised 6/18/2015] Page 2 of2
ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL
Appel/ants: Gayley Properties, LLC and Maurice Meyers, co-owner of a
residential apartment building, Gayley Terrace Apartments, a City of Los Angeles
Historic-Cultural Monument (#363), located on the corner of Gayley and
Weyburn, kitty-corner from 1000 S. Gayley Avenue.
The City's Department of City Planning erred and abused its discretion in
approving Design Review and Project Permit Compliance for improvements and
new signage at 1000 S. Gayley Avenue for "Rocco's Tavern,tt a sports bar,
rProposed Project") for the reasons stated below. As the owners of residential
properties kitty-comer from the Proposed Project, AppeHants are most impacted
thereby.
1. Condition 4 does not adequately mitigate noise impacts
On October 21, 2015, the Westwood Community Design Review Board
made a recommendation to approve the Proposed Project with three conditions,
one of which was that all windows and doors facing both Weyburn Avenue and
Gayley Avenue are to remain inoperable except for the main entrance doors. The
condition was a direct response to the Appellants' and neighborhood's concerns
regarding the adverse noise impacts which would result from the massive "open
air" windows originally proposed by the Applicant for its sports bar operation.
Thereafter, a letter was submitted on behalf of the neighborhood which explained
that in order to actually mitigate the noise impacts, a condition requiring double~
paned windows was necessary. Instead of requiring such double-paned
inoperable windows and doors, however, Condition 4 only requires that windows
and doors be multi-paned and inoperable. This is not adequate to resolve the
noise concerns raised by the Appellants and neighborhood for a sports bar
operation, particularly the nearby residential properties, and should be changed
to require double-paned (with actual soundproof capabilities), inoperable
windows.
2. Condition 10 Is inappropriate
Condition 1O eviscerates the rest of the conditions in the City's
determination letter and appears to be an attempt to insulate the City from legal
actions to compel enforcement of conditions In land use cases. The Commission
will note that this condition has not been a condition in other land use approvals
in the past. It provides unfettered discretion to the City's Planning Department to
use "discretion" whether to enforce express conditions of approval. The other
problem with this condition is that the authority to enforce land use conditions of
approval after a Project is completed is expressly by the Los Angeles
Department of Building and Safety. The City's Planning Department does not
1
have any authority or means to enforce conditions of approval after a Project is
completed.
3. A Categorical Exemption is inappropriate
The conditions of approval in the City's determination letter, and most
specifically Condition 4, were and are clearly imposed based upon the need to
mitigate noise impacts which would result from the massive "open air" windows
originally proposed by the Applicant, especially provided the kitty-corner
residential properties. A Categorical Exemption cannot be adopted where
mitigation measures are imposed to alleviate potential environmental impacts.
See Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125
Cal.App.4th 1098, 1102 (mitigation measures may support a negative declaration
but not a categorical exemption); Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San
Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1199-1200 {where a
project may have an effect on the environment, CEQA review must occur and
only then are mitigation measures relevant).
2