ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP. May 16, 2011

Transcription

1 DALE GOLDSMITH DIRECT DIAL: (310) LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS LITIGATION MUNICIPAL ADVOCACY SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 LOS ANGELES, CA Tel: (310) Fax: (310) WEB: May 16, 2011 VIA and U.S. MAIL 200 North Spring Street, Room 350 Los Angeles, California Re: Appeal of CPC ZC-HD-ZAA-SPR, VTTM No CN and ENV-2Q EIR (State Clearinghouse No ) (Item No. 1 on the Council s Agenda) Dear Council President Garcetti and Hon. Council Members: We represent 6104 Hollywood LLC, the applicant in the above cases. Our client is seeking to develop the property located at the southwest corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Gower Street with is an iconic mixed-use development, comprised of 176 residential units and approximately 7,200 square feet of neighborhood-serving, ground-floor, commercial/retail space (the Project ). This letter and the attached memorandum respond to the arguments and assertions made by Appellant Doug Haines, La Mirada Neighborhood Association of Hollywood ( Appellant ) and his paid consultants and representatives (Daniel Wright, Richard Platkin, and Charles Fisher) challenging the City Planning Commission s ( CPC ) approval of the above-referenced cases and the CPC s certification of the Hollywood & Gower Project Environmental Impact Report (the EIR ). The Planning and Land Use Management Committee of the City Council (the PLUM Committee ) carefully considered all of the Appellant s arguments and testimony, and the PLUM Committee found their arguments lacking any substantial evidence. The City Planning staff has prepared comprehensive findings containing substantial evidence in support of every conclusion and action to be taken by the City, which the PLUM Committee recommends be adopted. We ask that you follow the recommendations of the PLUM Committee and deny the appeals. As previously addressed in our May 10, 2011 letter and memorandum to the PLUM Committee, and as discussed more fully in the attached memorandum and the attachments thereto, Appellant s arguments are without merit or supporting evidence and are entirely based

2 Council File No May 16,2011 Page 2 on opinion, speculation, and misstatements of fact and law. Contrary to Appellants unfounded assertions: Dan Wright s 22-page letter and 194-page submittal on May 10, 2011 contains no substantial evidence that the EIR fails to comply with CEQA and no evidence that the City erred or abused its discretion procedurally or substantively. Mr. Wright restates erroneous claims regarding the Hollywood Cap Park, the adequacy of the Alternatives analysis in the EIR, and impacts related to signage studied in the EIR. He adds nothing new these restated arguments and previous responses exist in the administrative record showing that these claims are without merit. Mr. Wright attempts to bolster previously-made claims regarding Project parking, consistency with the Hollywood Community Plan, and Transportation demand Management. He fails to add any substantial evidence to make rescue these previously-made and previously-rejected arguments. Richard Platkin s May 10, 2011 letter provides only policy arguments and incorrect legal arguments (by an author who has no credential in law) regarding his interpretation of the City s General Plan, as well restatements of previouslymade arguments about alternative projects. Mr. Platkin is simply attempting to substitute his interpretation of the General Plan for the City s own interpretation of its own plan. The City adopted comprehensive findings of consistency with the General Plan, and specifically addressed the General Plan Framework in the EIR and elsewhere in the record. Mr. Platkin merely disagrees with the City. His letter contains no new information or substantial evidence that the City Planning Commission or the PLUM Committee failed to proceed in accordance with the law and in manner consistent with the General Plan. Charles Fisher s May 9, 2011 letter contains no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant impact on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the Henry Fonda / Music Box Theater. The Project will not adversely impact the Music Box Theater, the owners of which strongly support the Project. Substantial evidence in the administrative record, compiled by an historic resource expert, demonstrates that the Project will not have a significant impact on these historic resources. This issue has been fully vetted in the EIR and throughout the public process. Furthermore, the credentials attached to Mr. Fisher s letter fail to demonstrate that he is an expert in historic resources or preservation, as he holds no advanced degree of any kind and his Bachelor s degree is in Political Science. Mr. Fisher holds no credential from any recognized association of historic preservation professionals, he has never published in the field of historic resource

3 May 16, 2011 Page 3 evaluation or protection, and most of his professional life was spent performing real estate tax assessments. Mr. Haines reasserts his basic claim that he opposes a tall building on this site. He wraps this claim in opinions and speculation regarding potential parking impacts and erroneous growth and population arguments. He attempts to distinguish projects that received similar approvals to those requested by the Project. Nothing in Mr. Haine s May 10, 2011 letter or the attachments thereto provide substantial evidence that the City would be in error by denying his appeal and approving the Project. In short, Appellant simply does not want a tall building on the Project site. However, Appellant has failed to show any way the City has en*ed or abused its discretion in granting the Project approvals. Appellant has also failed to show any inadequacy in either the EIR or the City s environmental findings. Consequently, the City Council should follow the recommendation of the PLUM Committee and uphold the CPC s determination, deny the appeal, certify the EIR, and approve the Project. cc: Jim Tokunaga, City Planning Department Katherine Hennigan, CD 13 City Attorney Rick Stinson R.J. Comer Ira Handelman Craig Lawson Jessica Pakdaman Enclosures

4 ARMBRUSTER GOLDSMITH & DELVAC LLP DATE: TO: FROM: CC SUBJECT: Dale Goldsmith R.J. Comer Jim Tokunaga, City Planning Department ; Appeal of CPC ZC-HD-ZAA-SPR, VTTM No CN and ENV EIR (State Clearinghouse No ) INTRODUCTION In addition to our May 10, 2011 memorandum to the City Council Planning and Land Use Management Committee (the PLUM Committee ), this memorandum responds to the arguments and assertions made by Appellant, Doug Haines, La Mirada Neighborhood Association of Hollywood ( Appellant ), and his hired attorneys and consultants (Daniel Wright, Richard Platkin, and Charles Fisher) to the PLUM Committee that challenge the City Planning Commission s ( CPC ) approval of the above-referenced cases and the CPC s certification of the Hollywood & Gower Project Environmental Impact Report (the EIR ). The Hanover Hollywood & Gower Project is an iconic mixed-use development comprised of 176 residential units and approximately 7,200 square feet of neighborhoodserving ground-floor commercial/retail space (the Project ). As discussed more fully below, Appellant s arguments are without merit or supporting evidence. Appellant offers opinion, speculation, and arguments that advocate for policies different than the City s established policies. Appellant attempts to substitute his own interpretations of the City s codes and plans. Most importantly, Appellant fails to provide any substantial evidence that the CPC erred or abused its discretion in approving the Project and certifying the EIR, and Appellant fails to provide any substantial evidence San Vicente Blvd. Suite 900 } Los Angeles CA Tel: Pax:

5 Page 2 that the PLUM Committee acted erroneously in recommending that the City Council deny the appeal, certify the EIR, and approve the Project. RESPONSES TO APPEAL The City and the Applicant Followed all Required Procedures Regarding Supplemental Findings. Mr. Wright complains in his May 10,2011 letter that the applicant submitted proposed supplemental findings responsive to the issues raised on appeal to the City Planning Department for its review. Contrary to Mr. Wright s assertion that these should have been submitted to the City Clerk, the Planning Department, not the City Clerk, prepares findings for decision-making bodies like the PLUM Committee. Furthermore, the City has discretion to consider proposed supplemental findings, and choose to adopt them after an independent review. Mr. Wright is in the curious position of asserting various arguments that the EIR and findings are wrong, but then arguing that the Applicant cannot submit responses to the Appeal and that City cannot supplement the findings in response to his appeal before the City decides the appeal. The City Planning Department files were available for public inspection the entire time. Mr. Wright s colleagues simply never asked to review them. Furthermore, all documents submitted for the PLUM Committee s consideration were made publicly available without delay and upon request. In any event, Appellant has suffered no prejudice. As evidenced by the written criticism of these findings in Appellant s submittals, Appellant has sufficient opportunity to review the findings. The Project is Consistent with the General Plan Framework and the Hollywood Community Plan. Richard Platkin s May 10, 2011 letter provides only policy arguments and incorrect legal arguments (by an author who has no credential in law) regarding his interpretation of the City s General Plan. The City adopted comprehensive findings of consistency with the General Plan, and specifically addressed the General Plan Framework in the EIR and elsewhere in the record. Mr. Platkin s letter contains no new information or substantial evidence that the CPC or the PLUM Committee failed to proceed in accordance with the law and in manner consistent with the General Plan. As a preliminary matter, Mr. Platkin misconstrues the purpose and effect of the General Plan Framework. The Framework is not a detailed plan against which all land use approvals must be measured. Rather, it is a conceptual plan that is intended to provide a strategy for long-term growth which sets a city wide context to guide the update of the community plan and citywide elements. The Framework expressly acknowledges:

6 Page 3 Specific land use designations are determined by the community plans. The Framework Element provides guidelines for future updates of the City's community plans. It does not supersede the more detailed community and specific plans. See General Plan Framework, Executive Summary. Mr. Platkin asserts that the Project must be found to be consistent with the intent of the General Plan Framework. There is no such requirement. In any event, the stated intent of the Framework is to protect existing single family neighborhoods and direct growth to "targeted growth areas," which include sites located in proximity to major rail and bus transit corridors and stations and in centers that serve as identifiable business, service, and social places for the neighborhood, community, and region. General Plan Framework, Chapter 3. The Project site, which is located within walking distance to the subway and major bus transit corridors and is in a designated regional center, is clearly within a targeted growth area. The Project is thus consistent with the intent of the Framework. Mr. Platkin erroneously claims that the Project cannot be approved unless the City makes a specific finding that the Project is consistent with the General Plan Framework. In making this claim, he cites to no section of the General Plan, the City Charter, or the City Municipal Code requiring such a finding - because no such requirement exists. The fact that Mr. Platkin thinks it should exist, does not mean that it does exist. Nevertheless, the findings recommended by the PLUM Committee include specific findings of consistency with the General Plan Framework and discussions of the General Plan Framework. (See Supplemental Findings, pages 3 through 6,14,16, 72-73, and 92.) Mr. Platkin provides no evidence that City s professional planning staffs thorough analysis of the General Plan Framework, which was reviewed and adopted by the PLUM Committee, is in any way incorrect. Furthermore, Mr. Platkin s specific claim that the Project s density is inconsistent with the General Plan Framework is contradicted by the fact that the Project s density is allowed by-right in the subject property s C4 Zone. Mr. Platkin erroneously asserts: Clearly the burden of proof is on the applicant in this and other applications for discretionary actions allowing increases in density. Failing to do so is a prima facie case for upholding appeals... But the Project seeks no discretionary action to increase density. Density means the number of residential units permitted in a given project, in proportion to the land area upon which the project is to be constructed. In accordance with LAMC Section A.18, the Project s residential density is governed by the R5 zone

7 Page 4 standards. Pursuant to LAMC Section C.4(c), the R5 zone requires a minimum of 200 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. The total area of the Project site is 43, square feet ( acres) - after dedications and the requested 5-foot merger along Gower. Applying the density calculation of 200 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit results in a maximum of 219 residential units thatcould be constructed on the Project site under the existing zoning. The Project proposes only 176 residential units - well below the maximum by-right density on this site. Mr. Platkin s claim that the Project density requires a finding of consistency with the General Plan Framework is clearly wrong, because the Project density is allowed by-right in the applicable zone. Mr. Platkin then mischaracterizes the Project as major deviation in General Plan designations and corresponding implementing zoning and extends his incorrect assertion about density into an argument about growth. The Project is fully consistent with the Hollywood Community Plan Designation, and no General Plan Amendment is required or requested to accommodate Project density, or the Project s height, or the floor-arearatio ( FAR ) applicable to the Project. Thus there is not major deviation in General Plan land use. As for the corresponding implementing zoning, the existing zone allows greater density than the Project s proposed density, i.e., the number of dwelling units permitted by the zoning on the Project site is significantly greater than the proposed number of dwelling units. The only deviations from the existing zoning requested by the Project regard the physical characteristics of the building (specifically, building western side yard and rear yard) - not any factor that would relate to population, traffic, jobs, or housing. Thus, the growth associated with the Project is not a deviation (much less a major deviation ) from the General Plan land use designation or from the implementing zoning. After three times incorrectly characterizing the Project as involving (1) discretionary actions allowing increases in density, (2) a major deviation in General Plan land use designations, and (3) major deviations in... implementing zoning, Mr. Platkin then attempts to argue as follows: the City must show that there are changes in local conditions from the time of the adoption of the Framework Element. With respect to the discretionary actions sought by Hollywood and Gower, the City would have to show that the growth conditions (i.e. population, jobs, housing, and traffic) that were the basis for the General Plan Framework Element have dramatically increased since the Framework s adoption in 1996, rendering the General Plan Framework Element and the Hollywood Community Plan policies and implementation provisions inadequate and obsolete.

8 Page 5 No such showing is required. Even if Mr. Platkin were correct (and he is not) that major deviations in General Plan land use designations and corresponding implementing zoning require such a showing, the Project density, i.e., its growth factor, is not a major deviation from either the General Plan land use designation or the zoning. Therefore, his argument fails by its own terms when applied to this Project. Mr. Platkin cites census data purportedly showing that housing and population growth in Hollywood has not met the General Plan s projections. Assuming that this information is accurate (he cites no specific sources), it actually refutes Mr. Platkin s arguments. As noted above, the General Plan Framework seeks to protect single family areas by directing future growth to targeted growth areas such a Hollywood. To the extent that such growth has not occurred in these targeted areas in accordance with projections, the City should taking action to promote growth to make up the short fall. The Council s approval of the Project will do just that. Mr. Wright also restates the previous policy arguments that the Project is not consistent with the Hollywood Community Plan. This time Mr. Wright attempts to cite census data and the unsupported opinion a real estate agent. Essentially, Mr. Wright makes an economic argument that does not demonstrate that the Project is inconsistent with the Community Plan. Mr. Wright, an attorney, merely disagrees that the Hollywood area still needs housing. The Project Will Not have a Significant Impact on the Henry Fonda Music Box Theater or the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Despite the EIR and the City s findings repeatedly citing expert analysis concluding that the Project will not have a significant impact on the historic resource value of the Music Box Theater or the Hollywood Walk of Fame, Appellant again attempts to assert that it will. Most recently, Appellant submitted a letter dated May 9, 2011 from a consultant, Charles Fisher, who holds no degree or professional credential in historic resource evaluation or protection and has never published in the field. Consequently, Mr. Fisher is not an expert in the field. His letter is mere opinion, unsupported by any facts, and contradicted by expert evidence in the EIR and in the administrative record. Furthermore, the owners of the Music Box Theater support the Project because they know it will benefit rather than adversely affect the theater. The Project Parking Meets LAMC Requirements and Provides Adequate Parking to Meet Demand. In their May 10,2011 letters, both Mr. Haines and Mr. Wright once again present unsubstantiated challenges to the adequacy of Project parking. As set forth in our May 10,2011 letter and attached memorandum to the Plum Committee, the Project meets or

9 Page 6 exceeds every applicable Zoning Code requirement for parking. For the residential use, the Project is providing 1.5 on-site parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.25 on-site guest spaces1 per dwelling unit. This requirement is consistent with other high-rise residential buildings in dense areas, and meets and exceeds the applicable multi-family housing and commercial/retail requirements of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. An uncodified Advisory Agency policy typically seeks 2.0 parking spaces per unit for condominium uses and up to 0.5 parking guest parking spaces in certain areas of the City with parking congestion, but this policy does not apply to every condominium project developed in the City. Mr. Wright incorrectly claims that reference to the LAMC parking requirements is irrelevant because the LAMC apartment parking. Mr. Wright appears to be unfamiliar with the LAMC. LAMC Section A4(a) regulates parking and establishes minimum parking standards for Dwelling Units a term which is defined in the LAMC to include both apartments and condominiums. In any event, the Applicant is a nationally recognized apartment developer, owner and manager and intends to operate the Project as an apartment. The Applicant applied for the tract map to meet the requirements of a financial partner. Mr. Haines claims that a March 28, 2011 report from Hirsch/Green Transportation Consulting, Inc. compiling parking utilization data was not included in the administrative record. He is incorrect. That report was submitted to the record as Attachment B to our May 10 letter and memorandum. Mr. Wright admits this report is substantial evidence, but claims that submitting this report violated CEQA because he was not given a chance to review it. CEQA does not require that the public be given unending and limitless public review. The Applicant s traffic engineer prepared a response to claims that the Project was under-parked which shows that the parking provided is adequate to meet the utilization expected. This report is in the public record and Mr. Wright has the same amount of time to read and respond to this 55-page report (including attachments) as the City and the Applicant has to read and respond to his 194-page submission on the same day. Mr. Haines then attempts to distinguish the examples of projects that were granted similar parking reductions - this he does after his initial arguments were proven erroneous. The distinctions he makes in his May 10,2011 letter, contrasting the parking provided in the proposed Project and the parking provided in the ten other Hollywood projects cited in the Supplemental Findings (Sunset & Gordon, The Jefferson, Camden/Whole Foods, etc.), regard dissimilar characteristics that do not relate to potential adequacy of parking. Rather, the distinguishing characteristics cited by Mr. Haines relate project size (not parking ratio to density), involvement of CRA funding, and inclusion of affordable 1 The Zoning Code does not require guest parking for residential uses.

10 Page 7 housing. These are distinctions without differences relevant to the fact that each of the ten other Hollywood projects received some sort of parking reduction, which is consistent with the Hollywood & Gower s proposal to deviate from the non-codified Advisory Agency Parking Policy. Furthermore, unlike the ten Hollywood project parking reductions that have been granted, this request is supported by parking utilization data that corroborates the parking reduction requested in connection with this Project. The following is a brief summary of Haines arguments and our responses:: Sunset & Gordon Haines Claim: Sunset & Gordon received a variance under LAMC P for its parking reduction. In contrast, Hollywood & Gower has not requested a variance under LAMC P for its significant reduction in residential parking. Response: The Project does not need a variance because the Project Parking meets all code requirements. The Jefferson at Hollywood Haines Claim: The provision of 10% very low, low, and moderate-income affordable housing units would qualify the project for reduced parking under SB1818 and parking includes spaces available for public use. In contrast, Hollywood & Gower provides no affordable housing and would eliminate a 100-space surface parking lot. Response: Looking into the Jefferson at Hollywood s approvals in more detail, Jefferson at Hollywood has a residential parking ratio of 1.6 spaces per unit, which is in line with the parking ratio proposed for Hollywood and Gower. Again, Hollywood & Gower is not deviating from the Code parking requirement. Whether affordable housing is or not included in either project is irrelevant to the question of whether the amount of parking is adequate to meet demand. Camden/Whole Food Haines Claim: Total parking in the Camden Project consists of 800 spaces. The project s approval letter notes that the development generously exceeds LAMC parking requirements, and almost doubles the required number of parking spaces for the retail use, and provides 51 more spaces than required for the apartments. Response: Haines ignores the fact that a Vesting Tentative Tract Map was also involved in the Camden Project (VTT-67101) which essentially approved 1.8 parking spaces per unit in lieu of 2.5 spaces per the AA s parking policy McCadden Haines Claim: 218 units with residential parking totaling 417 parking spaces. A request for a reduction in parking for the project s market rate units was denied by the CPC. Response: There is no evidence apparent in the record that the request was denied. It remains true that 417 parking spaces were approved for the residential condominiums, and the project is conditioned to include 354 covered off-street parking spaces for the 196

11 Page 8 market rate dwelling units, 22 covered off-street parking spaces for the 22 Moderate Income dwelling units, and 41 guest parking spaces. Not counting the 22 affordable units and their parking spaces, the residential parking ratio for the market rate units was approved at 2.02 spaces per unit. The project s Tentative Tract Map (TT-61838) approved the same parking ratio, and thus the project received approval for a deviation from the AA s Parking Policy. Hollywood & Vine Haines Claim: The project qualified for a reduction in parking under SB Response: Our firm helped obtain the entitlements for this project. We did not seek an SB 1818 parking reduction. The fact that the proj ect may have qualified for one is not relevant to the question of whether reduced parking could meet demand. The City found that it could and allowed a parking ratio of approximately 1.6 spaces per condominium unit. Broadway Building Haines Claim: An historic adaptive reuse project which previously had no parking and was restricted by the Adaptive Reuse Incentive Ordinance to keep zero parking spaces. The Determination Letter for the project states that parking spaces are recognized as necessary in a region with high dependence on individually owned automobiles. Response: Regardless of its historic status, the project also involved a Tract Map (VTT ) subject to the Advisory Agency s Parking Policy. It was granted a reduction from the policy to 1.06 residential spaces per unit. Sunset & Vine Tower Haines Claim: An adaptive reuse project with 63 apartment units and parking that is code-compliant under both the apartment standards and the Adaptive Reuse Incentive Ordinance. Response: The project also was approved for a Tract Map (TT-67718), but provided 1.5 parking spaces per unit which is less than the Advisory Agency s Parking Policy. Hollywood & Gower similarly provides parking that is code compliant. Just today, the Appellant submitted an additional letter from Art Kassan, another hired consultant. There is no evidence that Mr. Kassan has any expertise in parking. Moreover, he cites no evidence as that the Project s parking will not meet demand. Rather, he nitpicks the analysis by Hirsch Green and criticizes Hirsch Green s use of empirical evidence while providing none of his own. Rather, Mr. Kassan relies solely on an opinion survey of Hollywood residents. Clearly, these opinions do not constitute substantial evidence. Mr. Kassan also condemns the use of ITE s Parking Generation and ULI s Shared Parking. According to Ron Hirsch, these publications are widely recognized as the best data available on parking.

12 May 17,2011 Page 9 No Substantial Evidence Shows that Elimination of Existing Parking will Result in a Significant Environmental Impact. Both Mr. Wright and Mr. Haines assert without any evidence whatsoever that eliminating the 100-space surface parking lot will result in a significant environmental impact. To support this opinion and speculation, they merely express concern that there is not enough public parking in Hollywood or that some parking lots might be developed. At the time the CEQA process commenced on this Project the available surface parking lots then-identified are still surface parking lots despite there being the possibility of development. Furthermore, and as previously-stated in response to this same issue, the subject site has never been used as a public parking lot. Rather, it has been historically used for an automobile repair facility (that the applicant demolished after acquiring the site in 2007) and for storage of oversized movie vehicles and film equipment. As an accommodation the Music Box (whose owners strongly support the Project), the applicant entered into a short term lease to allow Music Box patrons to park on site on a temporary basis during the City approval process. The Music Box has already located alternate parking for its patrons for use when the lease for the site terminates. The Project will not Result in Cumulative Impacts with Respect to Signage. Mr. Wright argues that the EIR did not analyze the potential cumulative impacts from the Project s supergraphic signage. In fact, the EIR did include such analysis; Mr. Wright merely disagrees with it. Mr. Wright incorrectly asserts that the Project is seeking a variance from the provisions of the revised Hollywood Signage SUD in order to maintain supergraphic signage. In fact, the Project requires no variance since it and a handful of other projects were grandfathered under the revised SUD. Thus, if and when the Applicant applies for such signage, it would thus be permitted under the revised SUD. The same is true with the few other grandfathered projects; their supergraphic signage would not, as Mr. Wright asserts, be unlawful. However, the revised SUD would not allow any other supergraphics in Hollywood. This would further reduce the potential for cumulative impacts with respect to signage.

13 Page 10 CONCLUSION Appellant s arguments and the arguments of Appellant s paid representatives lack any evidentiary basis and instead are merely disagreements. In short, Appellant simply does not want a tall building on the Project site. However, Appellant has failed to show any way the City has erred or abused its discretion in granting the Project approvals. Appellant has also failed to show any inadequacy in either the EIR or the City s environmental findings. Consequently, the City Council should adopt the recommendation of the PLUM Committee to deny the appeal, certify the EIR, and approve the Project.