TPANSMITTAL TO CITY COUNCILclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-3505_rpt_plan_10-29-07.pdf · (7) Condo projects only: 2 copies of Commission Determination mailng labels (includes

TPANSMITTAL TO CITY COUNCILCase No.

I Planning Staff Name(s) and Contact N.

C.D. No.

VTT 67012-1A JACK CHIANG - 818-374-5045 2

Related Case No(s). Last Day to AppealOCTOBER 25, 2007

Location of Project (Include project titles, if any.

11933 W. MAGNOLIA BLVD.

Applicant(s) and Representative(s) Name(s) and Contact Information, if available.GARY SCHAFFEL GARY SAFRONOFFSCHAFFEL DEVELOPMENT CO. YALE PARTNERS L TO.15235 BURBANK, CA SUITE C 1150 YALE ST. SUITE 11VAN NUYS, CA 91411 SANTA MONICA, CA 90403818-787-2771 310-828-2000

Appellant(s) and Representative(s) Name(s) and Contact Information, including phone numbers, if available.

MARCELLE DUNCAN13727 OXNARD ST #HVAN NUYS, CA 91401818-908-1034

CHUCK TENNIN12720 BURBANK BLVD. # 124VALLEY VILLAGE, CA 91607818-508-9777

REP: NOEL WEISS13700 MARINA POINTE DRIVE #922MARINA OEL REY, CA 90292310-822-0239

Final Project Description (Description is for consideration by Committee/Council, and for use on agendas and official public notices. If aGeneral Plan Amendment and/or Zone Change case, include the prior land use designation and zone, as well as the proposed land usedesignation and zone change (i.e. "from Very low Density Residential land use designation to Low Density land use designation andconcurrent zone change from RA.1.K to (T)(Q)R1-1-K). In addition, for all cases appealed in the Council, please include in the description on Iv

those items which are appealable to CounciL.)

At its meeting of August 23, 2007, the City Planning Commission took the following action:1. Granted the appeal in part.2. Sustained the Deputy Advisory Agency's approval. pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 17.03 of

Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67012 com posed of one-lot for a new maximum 78-unit residentialcondominium in the R3-1 and R4-1 zones of the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan area.

3. Adopted modified Conditions of Approval (attached).4. Adopted Findings of the Deputy Advisory Agency dated May 15, 2007(attached).5. Adopted ENV-2006-5007-MND.

Items Appealable to CouncilVTT 67012-1A

Fiscal Impact Statement ENV-2006-5007-MND Commission Vote:'Ifdetermination states administrative costs are recovered 6-0through fees, indicate "Yes '

YesIn addition to this transmittal sheet, City Clerk needs:(1) One original & two copies of the Commission, Zoning Administrator or Director of Planning Determination(2) Staff recommendation report(3) Appeal, if applicable; 001(4) Environmental document used to approve the project, if applicable; OCT 3 0 2(5) Public hearing notice; PLANNING & LAND(6) Commission determination mailing labels(7) Condo projects only: 2 copies of Commission Determination mailng labels (includes project's tenan

r f2 ,J

Date October 29, 2007

N:\ADMIN\EXEC\Commission\CPC\2007\Case Processing\Transmittals to City Council\Transmittals to City Council\VTT 67012-1A.dot

page 1 of 3

CITY OF LOS ANGELESPLANNING DEPARTMENT

MASTER APPEAL FORM

APPEAL TO THE:City Council

REGARDING CASE NO.:VTT 6701 2 - 1 A ENV -2006-5007 -MND

This application is to be used for any authorized appeals of discretionary actions administered by thePlanning Department. Appeals must be delivered in person with the following information filed out and bein accordance with the Municipal Code. A copy of the action being appealed must be included. If the

appellant is the original applicant, a copy of the receipt must also be included.

APPELLANT INFORMATION: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY

Marcelle Duncan Charles C. TenninName

MailingAddress 13727 Oxnard St. Apt HVan Nuys, CA. 91401

HOME Phone: (l~) 908-1034

12720 Burbank Blvd #124

Valley Village, CA. 91607

Home Phone: (818) 508-9777

a) Are you or do you represent the original applicant?(Circle One) YES ~ YES eb) Are you filing to support tcr 0Õinal applicant's position?(Circle One) YES NO YES C!

Are you filing for ourself or on behalf of other parties, an organization or company?(Circle One) ELF OTHER ~ OTHERIf "other" please state the name of the person(s), organization or company (print clearly or type)

c)

d)

REPRESENTATIVENoel Weiss

Name

Mailing Address 13700 Marina Pointe Drive #922

Marina Del Rey, CA. 90292

Work Phone: (

Zip

Home Phone: (31 a ) R n n?, q

APPEAL INFORMATIONA complete copy of the decision letter is necessary to determine the final date to appeal, under whatauthorizing legislation, and what, if any, additional materials are needed to file the appeaL.

Appeals to the City Council from a determination on a Tentative Tract (TT or VTT) by the City(Area) Planning Commission must be filed within 10 days of the written determination of theCommission.

Final Date to AppeaL.OCTOBER 25, 2007

ORl

page 2 of 3

REASONS FOR APPEALINt.

Are you appealing the entire decision or parts of it?

o Entire e: Part

Indicate: 1) How you are aggrieved by the decision: and 2) Why do you believe the decision-maker erredor abused their discretion? If you are not appealing the whole determination, please explain and

specifically identify which part of the determination you are appealing.

Attach additional sheets if necessary.

See Exhibi t A to Appeal

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

. Original receipt required to calculate 85% filing fee from original applicants.

. Original applicants must pay mailing fees to BTC and submit copy of receipt.

. Any additional information or materials required for filing an appeal must be provided in

accordance with the LAMC regulations as specified in the original determination letter. A copy ofthe determination/decision letter is required.

. Acceptance of a complete and timely appeal is based upon successful completion andexamination of all the required information.

. Seven copies and the original appeal are required.

i certify that the statements contained in this application are complete and true:arcell Duncan Charles C. Tennin~~Appellant

OFF CIAL USE ONLY

Receipt No. 2."1 On 1- 'L Amount 84 Date

MApplication Received a ~L.'u' ~. ,~ , ()~g-.._ '/ on . r"","C.'"'U~"~U" ";;~--7~ IÍ'(/~

Copies provided W'etermination -- R"~,,ip¡ \origirl¡;l~l- ~~Ii""ni only)

/ó/1-1/01-/

Determination Authority Notified (if necessary) P 0AL... EMA-IL.

CP-7769 (09/19/06)

EXHIBI1 A TO APPEAL-------------------

Need for expanded street widening in front of the MAGNOLIA BLVD PROJECT locatedat 11927-11933 W. Magnolia Blvd, between BEN AVE. and RADFORD, East of LAURELCANYON BLVD.

1. Aggravated by Decision.

2. Decision of City Planning Commission failed to take into account the needto widen MAGNOLIA BLVD in front of the MAGNOLIA BLVD PROJECT because ofthe non consideration of the project's Culumative impact with regard tothe impact of Public Bus Traffic (MTA) would have on the overall trafficcondi tions and impact, which everyone acknowledges, are currently un-safeand hazzardous on this street.

3. A one day Traff ic study taken on a day when the nearby No. Hollywood HighSchool (located on Magnolia Blvd) was not in session, does not qualify asan obj ecti ve, through, or complete Culumati ve Evaluation of the serious,hazzardous, and un-safe Traffic conditions and conj estion, and how theadded Density, impact, and more vehicles on the street would add to thethe existing problems and hazzardous conditions in the immediate area ofthe MAGNOLIA BLVD PROJECT.

TENANT MITIGATIONS (item #1 4B)

1. Under the Housing element of the General Plan and the No. Hollywood/ValleyVillage Community Plan, adequate provision must be made to mitigate againstthe involuntary displacement of Middle Class, Senior, disabled, and otherTenants, due to the fact that the apartments to be Demolished, were RentControlled apartments which are being replaced by Luxury Condominiums, whichare not affordable to the Tenants that were involuntarily displaced.Therefore, reasonable and fair Mitigation Measures are required to mitigateagainst the adverse impact. The Developers Voluntary Agreement to pay$1,000.00 dollars to non-qualified Tenants in possession on April 11 th isnot satisifactory. This amount should be doubled to $2,000.00 dollars(14 units). As to the three (3) qualified Tenants in possession(in residence) on April 11 th, the $2,000.00 dollar amount offered, is notsufficient, due to the financial and personal hardship occasioned by theirinvoluntary displacement. A fair Mitigation amount is $6,000.00 dollars.

2. In addition, paragraph 14B contains no protocol wi th regard to how or whenthese monies are to be paid. Appellant~s) therefore, requèst adding acondition that no Building Permit be granted until (A) Proof of paymentwith a signed Affidavit is presented to the Advisory Agency or (B) Paymentis made to the City, along with a list of Tenants and Addresses for aDistribution by the City to the Tenants who are entitled to these moniesunder condition 1 4B.

3. Payment is to be made to all Tenants within thirty (30) days after Approvalby the City Council of the Land Use Entitlements.

4. As to Appellant Chuck Tennin, the City Planning Commision at the August 23rdAppeal Hearing, did not respond to his issues and they did not properlyaddress his issues because, Deputy Dale Thrush (CD2) and the Developer, GarySchaffel, discussed and negotiated an amount (s) for the Tenants withoutincluding Chuck Tennin (as an Appellant) in those disèussions. And, thePlanning Commission did not address his issues of proper Tenant Mitigationamounts that Jane Usher, President of the Planning Commission, herself

(page 1 of 2)

~~~l~l~-~-~Q-~~~~~~-

brought up at the previous Appeal Hearing on August 23rd.

5. In addition, it is clear that the Developer, Mr. Schaffel was willingand able to pay more to the Tenants, because he offered Chuck Tennin andMarcelle Duncan £orally) an additional $1,000.00 dollars if he did notAppeal this decision or on the condition that no one else appealed it.And, he offered Chuck Tennin a three percent (3%) discount of on aCondominium unit. The same discount as Police, Firemen, and Teacherswere offered by this Developer. See paragraph 14A of the Site SpecificCondition on page 9 (Planning Commission Determination). Assuming thePurchase price of the Condominium (s) to be built are going to be$500,000.00 dollars, three percent (3%) equals $15,000.00 dollars.Therefore, the Developer, Mr. Schaffel can clearly afford the additionalsums that we are requesting be paid to the Tenants as a fair and reasonableMi tigation Measure.

(page 2 of 2)

Office:

Downtown c:

Van Nuys ~

Date /0121/07'/

Department of City PlanningLos Angeles

City Planning Request

270022

NOTICE: The staff of the Planning Department will analyze your request and accord the same full and impartial consideration to your application.regardless of whether or not you obtain the services of anyone to represent you.

This filing fee is required by Chapter 1, Aricle 9. LAM.C.

CHfH'..IÆ3 C. T

ßi.íI

SúbTaskTask

vTT- 1'2- 'LA $

$

$

$

Sub Total Fees Paid $

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

TOTAL FEES PAID $

OSS Surcharge - 2%

Development Surcharge - 6%

Operating Surcharge - 7%

Expediting Fee

Bad Check Fee

M isce i laneous/Photocopy

~ShI I Check #

1.

Processed by

Council District

Plan Area /J¡2T1 /-oLL'rLiYOD'

V AtL ~p V i u.i' ~

~ft31(L(iJu)OÒC:S'Mia:~. l))Pnnt&sign ~( I Money Order #

:r'

White-Applicant Canary-ReturntoPlanning

Form CP7107 IRev 5/051

Pink-Building&Safety Golden Aod-MasterCopy

FILE COpy

- ~rtüiJ(t8f~'.., .......,.....-;,-'è.'...-..,'j..,..T....'"/....,.,,/

81

~

Mailing Date:

Los Ä."GELES CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION200 N. Spring Street, Room 532, Los Angeles, CA 90012-4801 (213) 978-1300

ww.laCÎtv.orQ/PLNJindex.htm

DETERMINATION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

OCT i 5 2007

Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract 67012-1ACEQA: ENV-2006-5007-MND

Council District: 2 ./

Location: 11933 W. Magnolia Blvd.

Plan Area: North Hollywood-Valley Village

Applicant:Representative:

Appellant(s):

Representative:

Gary Schaffel. Schaffel DevelopmentYale Partners. Ltd.

The Valley Village Residents Association; Sandy Hubbard; Chuck Tennin; andMagnolia Tree Villas Homeowers AssociationTom Paterson

At its meeting of August 23, 2007, the City Planning Commission took the following action:

1 Granted the appeal in part2 Sustained the Deputy Advisory Agency's approval. pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section

17.03 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67012 composed of one-lot for a new maximum 78-unitresidential condominium in the R3-1 and R4-1 zones of the North Hollywood-Valley VillageCommunity Plan area.

3 Adopted modified Conditions of Approval (attached).4. Adopted Findings of the Deputy Advisory Agency dated May 15. 2007(altached)

5. Adopted ENV-2006-5007-MND.

Fiscallmpacl Statement: There is no General Fund impact as administrative costs are recovered throughfees.

This action was taken by the following vote:

Moved:Seconded:Ayes:Absent:Vote:

Gabriele WilliaCity Planning C

UsherWooCardoso. Freer, Montanez, RoschenHughes. Kay, Kezios6-0 ~Fof2

sion Executive Assistant II

Effective Date/Appc : This action of the City Planning Commission will be final within 10 days from themailinQ date on this determination unless an appeal is fied within that lime to the City CoundL All appeals shallbe fied on forms provided at the Planning Department's public Counters at 201 North Figueroa Street, ThirdFloor, Los Angeles, or at 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Room 251, Van Nuys. Forms are also available on.line atwww.lacitv.orQ/pln.

OCT 2 5 ZOO?FINAL APPEAL DATE

If you seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, thepetition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on whichthe City's decision became final pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may be other timelimits which also affect your ability to seek judicial revÎew.

Attachments: Modified Conditions of Approval and Deputy Advisory Agency determination dated May 15, 2007.

City Planner: Jack Chiang

VTT-67012-1A 2

LOS ANGELES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION

Modify Tract Condition Nos. 12f and 12q to:

12f. That the subdivider shall apply for and obtain a Project Permit Adjustment for the proposed

building height in excess of the maximum 36 feet allowed by the Valley Village Specific Plan,prior to requesting a grading permit. Application shall be submitted to certified Valley VillageNeighborhood Council for a review and approval.

12g. That the subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Valley Village Specific Plan andobtain an approved Director's Determination for Project Permit Compliance prior torequesting a grading permit.

Amend the followinq Los Anqeles Unified School District Conditions:

1. Los Anqeles Unified School District - Imposed are environmental impact concerns and

mitigation measures necessary to address school traffic, pedestrian routes andtransportation safety issues at North Hollywood High SchooL. Suitable arrangement forschool bus access and pedestrian /traffc access shall be made with the respect to thefollowings:

a. Prior to construction, contact LAUSD Transportation Branch at (323) 342-1400

regarding potential impact to school bus routes.

b. Maintain unrestricted access for school buses during construction.

c. Comply with provisions of the California Vehicle Code by requiring constructionvehicles to stop when encountering school buses using red flashing lights.

d. Not endanger passenger safety or delay student drop-off or pickup due to changes

in traffic patterns, lane adjustments, altered bus stops, or traffic lights.

e. Maintain safety and convenient pedestrian routes to LAUSD schools (LAUSD will

provide school Pedestrian Route Maps upon your request).

f. Install appropriate traffic controls (signs and signals) to ensure pedestrian and

vehicular safety.

g. Not haul past affected school sites, except when school is not in session. If that is

infeasible, not haul during school arrival and dismissal times.

h. Not staging or parking of construction-related vehicles. including worker-transport

vehicles, adjacent to school sites.

i. Provide crossing guards when safety of students may be compromised byconstruction-related activities at impacted school crossings.

l. Install barriers and/or fencing to secure construction equipment and site to preventtrespassing, vandalism, and attractive nuisances.

k. Provide security patrols to minimize trespassing, vandalism, and short-cut

attractions.

VTT-67012-1A 3

Added the followinq Voluntary Mitiqation Conditions, Notes. Covenant & Aqreement, andAttorney Fees Aqreemenl: .2. Additional Mitigation Conditions Volunteered by the Applicant at the August 23, 2007 City of

Los Angeles Ptanning Commission hearing (VTT 67012-1A, Item #9). These voluntaryconditions are to be amended to existing conditions or to be amended as new andindependent conditions:

CONSTRUCTION MITGATION

"CM-29. Because construction on the project previously approved in Case No. VTT65785 (hereinafter referred to as "The Ben Project" and construction on theproject for which approval is sought in this case, VT 67012 (hereinafterreferred to as "The Magnolia Blvd Project" will be occurring simultaneously,in order to mitigate the cumulative impact of the concurrent constructionactivities on both projects, coupled with the fact that these sites are locatedin a restricted traffic flow corridor, a multi-family developed corridor, andwithin 1 ,000 feet of the 3,200 student North Hollywood High School,constraints and conditions on the nature of the concurrent construction

activities are appropriate in the interest of protecting the public health, safety,and welfare. Accordingly, wherever the term "Concurrent ConstructionActivities" is used in these Construction Mitigation Conditions, it shall bedefined as follows: All activities associated with the construction, demolition,excavation, hauling, site preparation, cement pours, and similar construction-relaled activities undertaken concurrently by the developer of The BenProject and the developer of the Magnolia Blvd Project. No concurrent

construction activities are to take place except as expressly authorized bythese Construction Mitigation Conditions and the Construction MitigationConditions set out in Case No. VTT 65785 involving the The Ben Project ."

"CM-29A. Except as set out in Condition No. CM-29B with regard to excavation, grading.or hauling activities concerning The Ben Project and the Magnolia BlvdProject, or Condition No. CM-30 which relate to concrete pours or thedelivery of construction materials to either project, concurrent constructionactivities shall be permitted on both sites so long as the public health, safety,or welfare is not compromised in any way by such concurrent constructionactivities. The protocol to be followed with regard to excavation and haulingactivities is set out in Condition CM-29B, and the protocol to be followed withregard to concrete pours and the delivery of construction materials is set outin Condition CM-30."

"eM-2gB. !t shall be the responsibility of the Magnolia Blvd Project developer,individually and working concurrently with the developer of the Ben Project,to work together in good-faith on an ongoing basis to resolve any conflctwhich might arise regarding the timing and logistics of how the excavation,grading, or hauling activities are to be carried out. The express object andpurpose of such consultation and cooperation is to avoid (1) compromisingthe health, welfare, and safety of the public (including residents immediatelyadjacent to either project, as well as the students, faculty, and employees ofNorth Hollywood High School), (2) causing excessive disruption of traffc onMagnolia Blvd, or (3) creating air quality problems for nearby residents,students, and faculty of North Hollywood High SchooL. This includes, where

VTT.67012.1A

"CM-30.

"CM-31.

"CM-32:

4

approp. .e, working cooperatively with the de~.",iated person at NorthHollywood High School and the Magnolia Tree Villas Homeowners'Association on mitigation compliance; and providing written weekly updates(as defined in CM-36) detailing all construction and construction-relatedactivities which are planned to occur, along with the phone number and emailaddress of a designated contact person. Where the possibility exists thatconcurrent excavation will occur, it is expected that the period of interruptionwhere either project is to cease excavation or grading activity shall notexceed five (5) continuous days.

No concurrent concrete pours of the parking decks are to occur. This activityis to be coordinated between the developer of "The Ben Project" and thedeveloper of "The Magnolia Blvd Project" with the objective of mitigating tothe greatest extent possible any adverse impact on the public health, welfare,and safety which could occur from said concurrent construction activities.

The developer of "The Magnolia Blvd Project" shall erect a coveredpedestrian canopy after the completion of the first floor framing. Ascircumstances warrant, both prior and subsequent to the erection of thepedestrian canopy, the developer of "The Magnolia Blvd Project" shallemploy and maintain one or more flagmen and/or crossing guards whosesole responsibility will be to make sure that students and others walking eastor west along the north side of Magnolia Blvd from Laurel Canyon Blvd orfrom Colfax Avenue can do so safely."

The developer of "The Magnolia Blvd Project" will also take the followingspecific steps to comply with the mitigation conditions requested by LAUSDand recommended by the Planning Department:

SCHOOL BUS ACCESS

1. Prior to construction, contact LAUSD Transportation Branch at (323)

342-1400 regarding potential impact to school bus routes.

RESPONSE: DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY CONTACTED MS.NATALIE BLASCO TO INFORM HER OF THE MINIMAL IMPACTTO SCHOOL BUS ROUTES. A SUPPORT LETTER FROM MS.BLASCO HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

2. Maintain unrestricted access for school buses during construction.

RESPONSE: THERE WILL BE NO PARKING OR MATERIALDELIVERY ON MAGNOLIA BLVD, EXCEPT FOR THE AREAIMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE SITE. THERE WILL BE NOEGRESS FROM THE PROJECT DURING REGULAR SESSIONSTUDENT ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TIMES (EGRESS TOOCCUR 8 A.M. TO 3:30 P.M.); EGRESS IS TO BE PERMITTEDWHEN FLAGMAN IS ON DUTY. FURTHERMORE, EGRESS ISLIMITED TO WEST-BOUND TURNS FROM PROPERTY TOMAGNOLIA BLVD AW A Y FROM THE SCHOOL, NO EAST-BOUNDTURNS TOWARDS THE SCHOOL.

3. Comply with provisions of the California Vehicle Code by requiringconstruction vehicles to stop when encountering school buses usingred flashing lights.

VT-67012-1A 5

i .¿SPONSE: DEVELOPER WILL C~,.;PL Y WITH THESEPROVISIONS.

SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN/TRAFFIC SAFETY ACCESS

1. Not endanger passenger safety or delay student drop-off or pickup

due to changes in traffic patterns, lane adjustments, altered busstops, or traffc lights.

RESPONSE: TRAFFIC ON MAGNOLIA WILL BE MINIMAL.ESPECIALLY DURING DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP. THERE WILLBE NO EGRESS FROM THE PROJECT DURING STUDENTARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TIMES (EGRESS TO OCCUR 8 A.M.TO 3:30 P.M.); EGRESS TO BE PERMITTED WHEN FLAGMAN ISON DUTY. FURTHERMORE, EGRESS IS LIMITED TO WEST-BOUND TURNS FROM BEN TO MAGNOLIA BLVD AWAY FROMTHE SCHOOL, NO EAST-BOUND TURNS TOWARDS THESCHOOL.

2. Maintain safe and convenient pedestrian routes to LAUSD schools

(LAUSD will provide School Pedestrian Route Maps upon yourrequest).

RESPONSE: DEVELOPER SHALL BUILD OR INSTALL ACOVERED PEDESTRIAN CANOPY ON MAGNOLIA BLVD AFTERCOMPLETION OF FIRST FLOOR FRAMING IN ORDER TOPROTECT PEDESTRIANS AND ALSO TO RESTRICT ACCESS TOTHE PROJECT. DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN SAID CANOPYAND REMOVE ANY GRAFFITI WITHIN 24 HOURS. NOBILLBOARD-TYPE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED WHEREPEDESTRIANS HAVE ACCESS TO THE BILLBOARD AND NOCOMMERCIAL POSTER ADVERTISING SHALL BE PERMITTEDUNDER THE CANOPY. POSTERS, SIGNS AND BANNERSADVERTISING THE PROJECT AND INSTALLED WITHDEVELOPERS CONSENT, WILL BE PERMITTED.

3. Maintain ongoing communication with school administration ataffected schools, providing suffcient notice to forewarn studenls andparents/guardians when existing pedestrian and vehicle routes toschool may be impacted.

RESPONSE: AS DEFINED IN CM-36, DEVELOPER SHALLCOMMUNICATE TO APPROPRIATE PARTIES A WRITTEN OREMAIL REPORT DETAILING ALL UPCOMING CONSTRUCTION. ............... "., II ,...r-r-.... "..",..r"AL.IIVIIIt:~ UI'l 1\ VVi:t:"L T 01-;:1"_

4. Install appropriate traffc controls (signs and signals) to ensure

pedestrian and vehicular safety.

RESPONSE: FLAGMEN WILL BE EMPLOYED TO ASSIST LARGEVEHICLES INGRESS TO AND EGRESS FROM SITE. A TRAFFICSIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION OF BEN AVE AND MAGNOLIABLVD WAS FOUND NOT TO BE WARRANTED BY THE CITY'SDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUT DEVELOPER WILLSUPPORT INSTALLATION OF A SIGNAL AT SAID

VTT-67012-1A 6

" . rERSECTION SO LONG AS 11 DOES NOT DELAYDEVELOPER'S PROJECT AND SO LONG AS DEVELOPER ISNOT REQUIRED TO PAY FOR SAID IMPROVEMENTS.

5. Not haul past affected school sites, except when school is not in

session. If that is infeasible, no hauling during school arrival anddismissal times.

RESPONSE: THERE WILL BE NO HAULING PAST THE SCHOOL,ONLY AWAY FROM THE SCHOOL WEST BOUND ON MAGNOLIABLVD. FURTHERMORE THERE WILL BE NO EGRESS FROM THEPROJECT DURING STUDENT ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE TIMES(EGRESS TO OCCUR 8 A.M. TO 3:30 P.M.); EGRESS WILL BEPERMITTED WHEN FLAGMAN IS ON DUTY.

6. Not staging or parking of construction-related vehicles, including

worker-transport vehicles, adjacent to school sites.

RESPONSE: THERE WILL BE NO PARKING OR MATERIALDELIVERY ON MAGNOLIA BLVD ADJACENT TO THE SCHOOLSITE. PARKING AND MATERIAL DELIVERY WILL BE LIMITED TOTHE AREA IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE SITE.

7. Provide crossing guards when safety of students may becompromised by construction-related activities at impacted schoolcrossings.

RESPONSE: DEVELOPER HAS AGREED NOT TO CONDUCTMASS TRUCK HAULING DURING STUDENT ARRIVAL ANDDEPARTURE TIMES. HAULING WILL THEREFORE BE LIMITEDTO THE SCHOOL'S REGULAR SESSION HOURS OF 8 A.M. TO3:30 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, SUCH THAT SAFETY OFSTUDENTS WILL NOT BE COMPROMISED. NOTE: STUDENTSARE ADVISED TO CROSS MAGNOLIA BLVD WHERE THERE IS ATRAFFIC SIGNAL - AT LAUREL CANYON BOULEVARD.

8. Install barriers and/or fencing to secure construction equipment and

site to prevent trespassing, vandalism, and attractive nuisances.

RESPONSE: DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL A CHAIN-LINK FENCEAND PEDESTRIAN CANOPY TO PREVENT TRESPASSING ANDVANDALISM. NO BILLBOARD-TYPE FENCING SHALL BEINSTALLED WHERE PEDESTRIANS HAVE ACCESS TO THEBILLBOARD AND NO COMMERCIAL POSTER ADVERTISINGSHALL BE PERMITTED UNDER THE CANOPY. POSTERS,SiGNS AND BANNERS ADVERTiSiNG THE PROjECT ANDINSTALLED WITH DEVELOPERS CONSENT, WILL BEPERMITTED.

9. Provide security patrols to minimize trespassing, vandalism, and

short-cut attractions.

RESPONSE: AFTER EXCAVATION DEVELOPER SHALL EMPLOYA LIVE, ON-SITE SECURITY GUARD SEVEN DAYS A WEEKFROM THE HOURS OF 4:30 P.M. TO 7 A.M_ THE NEXT DAY,MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, AND 24 HOURS ON SUNDAYS

VTT-67012-1A

"CM-33:

"CM-34.

"CM-35.

"CM-36.

"CM-37.

7

AI'-D LEGAL HOLIDAYS. DEVELOPt:K SHALL HAVE THEOPTION OF SHARING SAID GUARD WITH THE DEVELOPER OFTHE BEN PROJECT DURING THE PERIOD THAT BOTHPROJECTS ARE OPERATING CONCURRENTLY. ANY SECURITYTRAILER SHALL BE PARKED ON I3EN AVENUE, IF THATHAPPENS."

Staging is defined as the lining up and subsequent dispatching of multiplevehicles 10 the construction site for a specific construction activity, such asdemolition, excavation, cement pouring or lumber delivery, requiring thedispatching and/or arrival of one vehicle at a time to the project site. Thedeveloper of "The Magnolia Blvd Project" shall secure off-site staging ofvehicles which are to service the construction activities, including, but notlimited to, demolition, shoring, excavation and cement pours. There is to beno staging of trucks within the boundaries of the Valley Village Specific Planarea (See Exhibit 1). It is anticipated thai the Developer will make use of adispatch system to minimize any staging of trucks which might otherwise beneeded. Weddington Street eastbound to Radford Avenue, thence

southbound to Magnolia Blvd shall not be used as a route by construction-related supply deliveries to "The Magnolia Blvd Project" site."

The Magnolia Blvd Project developer shall procure off-site parking for itsconstruction workers by making suitable arrangements, such as with Jon'sMarket at Laurel Canyon Blvd and Magnolia Blvd or at another appropriateparking facility. Upon completion of the parking garage, defined as theremoval of the shoring of the structural deck, the Developer and itsemployees shall park in the garage. It is expected that the developer wilprocure a street use permit which would limit parking in front of The MagnoliaBlvd Project 10 the developer, its invitees and visitors, and materials'suppliers only during authorized construction hours."

Developer shall hose down the subject property during demolition andexcavation as required in order to minimize airborne dust by keeping the dirtwet."

On no less than a weekly basis, developer is to issue planned constructionactivities via e-mail to all who reside within 1500 feet of "The Magnolia BlvdProject" and requested notice, including but not limited to (1) The MagnoliaTree Villas Homeowners Association or its designee, and (2) the Principal ofNorth Hollywood High School (or designate). These updates wil detail whatconstruction activities are anticipated for the upcoming week, any health andsafety concerns occasioned by the anticipated construction activity, and whatspecific steps will be taken to obviate or mitigate the health and safetyconcerns identified or specified in the update. Each update shall also containthe contact number and name of one or more representatives of thedeveloper who can be contacted in case there are questions or anemergency. These updates will, to the extent possible, also be posted on aninternet web site or available via the internet.

The developer of "The Magnolia Blvd Project" and the developer of "The BenProject" have consented to provide 24-hour, on-site security personnel sevendays a week for both projects. It is anticipated that Ihe security trailer will beparked on Ben Avenue until the completion ofThe Ben Project; after which itwill be moved to "The Magnolia Blvd Project. In the absence of mutual

VTT-67012-1A

"CM-38.

"CM-39.

"CM-39A

8

agreemL, ,I, it shall be the responsibilíty of "The IVlagnolia Blvd Project"developer to provide security consistent wilh the above-stated parameters.

Developer shall instruct its landscape architect to work with and seek inputfrom Dale Neglia Leibowitz of the Ma9nolia Tree Villas Homeowners'

Association or its designee to ensure that the landscaping which is installedis reasonably compatible and desirable to the Association. The purpose andfocus of such discussions will be to avoid the planting of any treespossessed with the characteristics of invasive roots."

1) Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Ihe MagnoliaTree Villas Homeowners' Association (the "Association") frem any attorney'sfees or costs or investigative fees and costs incurred in connection with thepursuit of a claim for damages arising from the developer's development upto and including $10,000.00. As a condition to this indemnity, Associationagrees to obtain a certificate of merit from a third party Iícensed structural orsoils engineer prior to initiating the claim. The costs associated withobtaining the certificate of merit shall be borne by the Association.

2) The developer shall obtain a combined general commercialliabilíty policyand Wrap (subcontractor) Iíability polícy in an aggregate polícy minimumamount of $4.000,000.00 which shall not contain a soil subsidence exclusionand shall include completed operations for a ten (10) year period and besubstantially in the form previously supplied to the Association. Once thepolicy is issued, the developer shall provide a copy of it to the Association.

3) The Associations' consultants may. but are not required to, observe andinspect the excavation and construction of developer's project, but shallprovide developer at least 24 hours prior notice.

4) The Associations' consultants may review and make copies of

developer's plans, at no cost to developer.

5) The developer agrees that the depth of the footings and foundations forits development will not undermine the footings or foundations of theAssociations' project (as determined by the current building code).

The developer has met with Peter Erdelyi, the structural engineer retained bythe Magnolia Tree Villas HOA, and has agreed to comply with the commentsand requests of Mr. Erdelyi as per the attached Exhibit 2 to these Conditions.

11933 Magnolia Ventures, LLC agrees to comply with the followingcomments and requests from Peter Erdelyi in our August 20, 2007 meeting:

a. Geotechnical observalions will be required during excavation.

b. Retaining walls to have approved drainage devices behind them.

c. Gravel backfill for drainage devices is required.

d. Soils engineer stamp is required on foundation plans.

e. OSHA permit is required.

f. Surface drainage system is required to the street in a non-erosive

device.

VTT-67012-1A 9

g. All roof drainage to be connected to the street

h. Pre-excavation meeting with city inspector required.

L Bottom of excavations to be inspected by soil engineer, before fillmaterial can be placed.

J.

k.

Final compaction report to be filed with the grading division.

Engineer of record's certificate of compliance to be filed at the end ofconstruction with the Department of Building and Safety.

i. There will be no block wall required along the east propert linewhere the HOA propert has an existing block wall, and there is nograde differential between the two properties along this propert line.

SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

Condition No.12 is to be amended to provide for the following additional site specificconditions so as to ensure full compliance with the Valley Village Specific Plan:

"12(f). No portion of the project shall exceed 36 feet in height, except for non-habitablearchitectural elements which may extend another 3.5 feet Under no circumstancesis the height of the structure, including non-habitable architectural elements, to

exceed 39.5 feet in height, and under no circumstances can the entire structure becovered with non-habitable architectural elements."

"14(a). Prior to recordation of the final tract map, the developer shall provide to the AdvisoryAgency a written protocol which defines and establishes the foregoing purchaseincentives the developer shall offer to public school teachers, police offcers andfirefighters. Such incentives may include one or more, or a combination of any of thefollowing: (1) A buy-down of mortgage interest rates; (2) Discounted price; (3)Payment of HOA fees; (4) Payment of Propert Taxes. The total monetary value ofsuch incentives shall equal at least 3% of the listed purchase price, but not morethan 5% of the purchase price. There is no limit to the number of units to which thesepurchase incentives are to apply."

"14(b). The developer agrees to pay to those tenants that were still residing in 17 of the units

at the existing apartments as of April 11, 2007 the following additional relocationassistance: a total of $1 ,000.00 per unit to the 14 non-qualified tenants and a total of$2,000.00 per unit to the 3 qualified tenants.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Condition No.6 is to be amended to provide for the following condition so as to facilitate theability of the community to procure an additional traffc light or signal in order to mitigate thesafety concerns attendant to the traffic conditions which exist on Magnolia Blvd:

"6(d). Developer agrees to support the installation of a traffic light or signal at one or moreintersections on Magnolia Blvd which are sought by the community. Such agreementis not to be construed as a commitment or a promise by developer to pay for anyportion of the cost associated with the installation of a traffic signaL."

VTT-67012-1A 106( e) Developer shall install a "No Left Turn" sign at the exit of the parking structure

advising residents not to make a left turn on to Magnolia Blvd when exiting thedevelopment"

NOTES:

Under the heading "Notes" on Page 17 of the Tract Map Decision Letter, the following paragraphshall be inserted:

"Notice of and Binding Effect of Enforcement of Conditions -Under LAMC §11.00, the violation ofany tract map condition is deemed a "public nuisance" and as such, can be abated by way of courtaction initiated either by the City or one or more members of the public adversely impacted by thedeveloper's violation of the condition. Under LAMC §12.27.1, the Department of Planning isauthorized to initiate an administrative hearing to enforce any of the conditions noted in this TractMap Decision Letter, and to impose such remedies or penalties as the City deems appropriateshould the developer fail to abide by them."

COVENANT AND AGREEMENT

These mitigation conditions shall be recorded as a covenant against the property wilhin ten (10)days following the expiration of the time period within which any appeals from the decision of thePlanning Commission are to be fied. If an appeal is filed, then covenant to be recorded within ten(10) days of City Council approval. Should any mitigation condition be determined to be legallyunenforceable, the remaining conditions shall remain in force.

ATTORNEYS FEES

Should any action be brought by Appellants to enforce any covenant or condition herein, theprevailing party, as determined by the court, shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees andcosts.

Agreed to this 23'" day of August, 2007.11933 MAGNOLIA VENTURES, LLC,a California Limited Liability Company

By Gary Schaffel, PresidentSchaffel Development Co., Inc.

EXHIBIT 1

I Valley Vilage Specific Plan r

--~~".,U "~

::i:".U "~

~au

~cç~=

Burbank BI

Chandler HI

RiversideVentura Fwy

Camanllo Si

~~ot;~o..

Specific Plan Area

Specitic Plan Areaà

Not to Scale

August 23, 2007VTT 67012

llff'ARTM(NT OfCITY PLANNING

200 N. SPRINC 'lfREfI. ROOM 5~)to)ANC.(U~.CA 90012-4801

C..Y OF Los ANGELESCALIFORNIA lXfCUTlvr Off ius

CITY P!Al''N1NC COMMISSION

¡,.'lr f! I ¡SON USHER"Ri,im"i

WILLIAM R(l'CHfN\flU P~I,i(JlNI

oileD C.\RDOSOR!:UNA M fRf!.R

ROBIN R. HUCIlE'i'lAßRINA KAY

~R i,PENGR T. KInos(INDY MON L-\Ñf 7,'-1ICH.o\H K. woo

CAflRIElf WILliAM"COMMISSION ¡tiC-Un,,! AS"\lANI

Illl1 'llB-i \00

" CAll r:üLDBfRC, Aiel'01RtLTOR

(It-i9111-1Ul

(VA YUAN.MrUANlflOfPI)f' OlRICÜR

t213J')J8!2/JFAX. (21 Jl 'llB-1J75

ANrONIO R VILLARAICOSAMAYOR

INfORM.,TlC)NILL)) 'J/8.1 );0

wV\fw.L.icityorg/PLN

Decision Date: May 15, 2007

Appeal Period Ends: May 25, 2007

11933 Magnolia Ventures, LLC (O)/(A) RE:C/O Schaffel Development Co.. Inc.15235 Burbank Blvd.. Suite CVan Nuys, CA 91411

Yale Partners, Ltd. (E)/(R)

1150 Yale Street. Suite 11Santa Monica, CA 90403

t:..'

Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 67012Related Case: NoneAddress: 11933 (11927 - 11935) W.

Magnolia Boulevard

Council District: 2Existing Zone: R3-1 and R4-1Community Plan: North Hollywood - Valley

VillageSpecific Plan: Valley Village

CEOA No.: ENV-2007-5007-MND-REC1Fish and Game Not Exempt

In accordance with provisions of Section 17.03 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, theAdvisory Agency approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67012 composed of one-lot,located at 11933 (11927-11935) W. Magnolia Boulevard for a new maximum 78-unitresidential condominium as shown on revised map stamp-dated May 1, 2007, in theNorth Hollywood - Valley Village Community Plan Area. This unit density is based on theR3-1 and R4-1 Zones. The subdivider is hereby advised that the Municipal Code may notQermit this maximum approved density. Therefore, verification should be obtained from theDepartment of Buildinq and Safety, which willleqally interpret the Zoninq code as it appliesto this particular property.

In addition, pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 16.05, the Advisory Agencyapproves Site Plan Review for the referenced project.

For an appointment with the Advisory Agency or a City Planner call (213) 978-1414. (Foran appointment with the Subdivision Counter call (213) 978-1362). The Advisory Agency'sapproval is subject to the following conditions:

NOTE on clearing conditions: When two or more agencies must clear a condition, subdivider should followlhe sequence indica led in the condition For the benefit of the applicant, subdivider shall maintain record of allconditions cleared, including all material suppoi1ing clearances and be prepared to present copies of tiieclearances to each reviewing agericy as may be required by its staff at the tiTTe of its review

I\N EQUAL EMPLOYl'ENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIPMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER a,:~.irnlr""rech1w.,Sl"- V-i/0

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 67012 PAGE 2

BUREAU OF ENGINEERING - SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

1. That a 5-foot wide strip of land be dedicated along Magnolia Boulevard adjoining the

subdivision to complete a 45-foot wide half right-of-way dedication in accordancewith Secondary Highway Standards all satisFactory to the City Engineer.

2. That two copies of a parking area and driveway plan be submitted to the Valley

Distnct Offce of the Bureau of Engineering for review and approval or that aCovenant and Agreement be recorded agreeing to do the same prior to theissuance of a building permit

2.5. That a request be made to the Valley Engineering District Office to verify theexisting sewer capacity and comply with possible improvements satisfactory to theCity Engineer.

3. That Board of Public Works approval be obtained, prior to the recordation of the

final map, the removal of any tree in the existing or proposed right-of-way areaassociated with improvement requirements outlined herein. The Bureau of StreetServices, Urban Forestry division, is the lead agency for obtaining Board of PublicWorks approval for removal of such trees.

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY, GRADING DIVISION

4. That prior to issuance of a qradin.. or buildinq permit, QUrior to recordation. of the

final map, the subdivider shall make suitable arrangements to assure compliance,satisfactory to the Department of Building and Safety, Grading Division, with all therequirements and conditions contained in Inter-Departmental Letter dated July 18,2006, Log No. 54013 and attached to the case file for Vesting Tentative Tract No.67012.

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY, ZONING DIVISION

5. That prior to recordation of the final map, the Department of Building and Safety,

Zoning Division shall certify that no Building or Zoning Code violations exist on thesubject site. In addition, the following items shall be satisfied:

3. Obtain permits for the demolition or removal of all existing structures on the

site. Accessory structures and uses are not permitted to remain on lots

without a main structure or use. Provide copies of the demoltion permitsand signed inspection cards to show completion of the demolition work.

b. Obtain a grading permit (òr the removal of the swimming pool and backfill of

pool area. Provide a copy of the grading permit and signed inspection cardto show completion of the work.


c. Provide a copy of affdavit AFF-18662. Show compliance with all the

conditionslrequirements of the above affdavit( s) as applicable. Terminationof above affdavit(s) may be required after map has been recorded. Obtainapproval from the Department, on the termination form. prior to recording.

d. Show all street dedication(s) as required by Bureau of Engineering andprovide net lot area after all dedication. "Area" requirements shall be re-checked as per net lot area after street dedication.

e. Show on plan. 15 It front yard setback to be measured from new frontproperty line after highway dedication.

The existing or proposed building plans have not been checked for and shall complywith Building and Zoning Code requirements. Any vested approvals for parkinglayouts, open space, required yards or building height, shall be "to the satisfaction ofthe Department of Building and Safety at the time of Plan Check."

If the proposed development does not comply with the current Zoning Code. allzoning violations shall be indicated on the map.

An appointment is required for the issuance of a clearance letter. from theDepartment of Building and Safety. The applicant is asked to contact Del Reyes at(213) 482-6882 to schedule an appointment.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

6. That prior to recordation of the final map, satisfactory arrangements shall be made

with the Department of Transportation to comply with the following:

a. A minimum of 40-foot reservoir space be provided between any securitygate(s) and the property line.

b. This project is subject to the Valley Village Specific Plan requirements. A

parking area and driveway plan shall be submitted to the Department ofTransportation for approval prior to submittal of building permit plans for plancheck by the Department of Building and Safety. Final DOT approval shouldbe accomplished by submittng detailed site/driveway plans at a scale of1"=40' to DOT's Valley Development Review Section located at 6262 VanNuys Boulevard, Room 320, Van Nuys, CA 91401.

c. Implementing measures detailed in the Department of Transportation's

communication to the Planhing Department, dated March 6, 2007, DOTCase No. SFV-2006-173, SUBJECT: CUMULATIVE TRAFFICASSESSMENT FOR THREE CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS NEAR


INTERSECTION OF MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD AND BEN AVENUE - VTT-65785, VTT-67012, TT-66949, shall be required. (MM)

FIRE DEPARTMENT

7. That prior to the recordation of the final map, a suitable arrangement shall be made

satisfactory to the Fire Department, binding the subdivider and all successors to thefollowing:

a. Submit plot plans for Fire Department approval and review prior torecordation of Tract Map Action.

b. Access for Fire Department apparatus and personnel to and into allstructures shall be required.

c. No proposed development utilizing cluster, group, or condominium design ofone or two family dwellngs shall be more than 150 feet from the edge of theroadway of an improved street, access road, or designated fire lane.

d. Fire lane width shall not be less than 20 feet. When a fire lane must

accommodate the operation of Fire Department aerial ladder apparatus orwhere fire hydrants are installed. those portions shall not be less than 28 feetin width.

e. Fire lanes. where required and dead ending streets shall terminate În a cul-

de-sac or other approved turning area No dead ending street or fire laneshall be greater than 700 feet in lèngth or secondary access shall berequired.

f. Adequate off-site public and on-site private fire hydrants may be required.

Their number and location to be determined after the Fire Department'sreview of the plot plan.

g. No building or portion of a building shall be constructed more than 300 feet

from an approved fire hydrant Distance shall be computed along path oftravel. Exception: Dwelling unit travel distance shall be computed to frontdoor of unit

BUREAU OF STREET LIGHTING

8. Street light improvements shall be made to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Street

Lighting and the following streeflighting improvements shall be required:


a. New light required - One (1) on Magnolia Boulevard. Prior to finalrecordation for this project or issuance of the certificate of occupancy, theDeveloper shall cause Owner to give written consent to the Bureau of StreetLighting for the formation or annexation of the property within the boundaryof the development into a Street Lighting Maintenance Assessment District.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGENCY

g. That satisfactory arrangements be made in accordance with the requirements of the

Information Technology Agency to assure that cable television facilities will beinstalled in the same manner as other required improvements. Refer to the LosAngeles Municipal Code Section 17.05N. Written evidence of such arrangementsmust be submitted to the Information Technology Agency, 200 N. Main Street, 12'"Floor, Los Angeles. CA 90012, (213) 9228363.

DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS

10. That the Ouimby fee be based on the R3 and R4 Zones. (MM)

URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING

11. Replacement by a minimum of 24~inch box trees in the parkway and on the site. ona 1: 1 basis, shall be required for the unavoidable loss of 10 desirable trees, and tothe satisfaction of the Advisory Agency. (MM)

Note: Removal of all trees in the public right~()f-way shall require approval of theBoard of Public Works. All trees in the public right~of-way shall be provided per thecurrent Urban Forestry Division standards. Contact: Urban Forestry Division at: 213~485-5675. Failure to comply with this condition as written shall require the filing of amodification to this tract map in order to clear the condition.

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING-SITE SPECIFIC CONDITONS

12. Prior to the issuance of a qradinq permit or the recordation of the final m'!, the

subdivider shall prepare and execute a Covenant and Agreement (PlanningDepartment General Form CP-6770) in a manner satisfactory to the PlanningDepartment, binding the subdivider and all successors to the following

a. Limit the proposed development to a maximum of 78 condominium units.

b. Provide a minimum of 2 covered off~street parking spaces per dwelling unit.plus Yi guest parking spaces per dwelling. All guest spaces shall be readilyaccessible, conveniently located, specifically reserved for guest parking,posted and maintained satisfactory to the Department of Building and Safety.

-y--~--1'77 ;: )(;1'

'-¡


If guest parking spaces are gated. a voice response system shall be installedat the gate. Directions to guest parking spaces shall be clearly posted.

Tandem parking spaces shall not be used for guest parking.

In addition, prior to issuance of a building permit. a parking plan showing off-street parking spaces, as required by the Advisory Agency, be submitted forreview and approval by the Department of City Planning (200 No. SpringStreet, Room 750).

c. That prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a minimum 6-foot-high

slumpstone or decorative masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent toneighboring residences, if no such wall already exists, except in requiredfront yard.

d. That a solar access reports shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the

Advisory Agency prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy.

e. That the subdivider considers the use of natural gas and/or solar energy and

consults with the Department of Water and Power and Southern CaliforniaGas Company regarding feasible energy conservation measures.

L That the subdivider shall apply for and obtain a Project Permit Adjustment, ora Specific Plan Exception, whichever is applicable, for the proposed buildingheight in excess of the maximum 36 feet allowed by the Valley VillageSpecific Plan, prior to requesting a grading permit.

g. That the subdivider shall comply with all other requirements of the Valley

Village Specific Plan and obtain an approved Director's Determination forProject Permit Compliance prior to requesting a grading permit.

13. That prior to the issuance of the qradinq permit or the recordation of the final map, acopy of the determination letter(s) showing the Project Permit Adjustment/SpecificPlan Exception for height and Project Permit Compliance, as required underCondition Nos. 12J and 12.g above, shall be submitted for verification to thesatisfaction of the Advisory Agency. In the event any of these conditions are notfulfilled, the subdivider shall submit a tract modification.

14. prior to the issuance of the buildinq permit or the recordation of the final map, the

subdivider shall submit the evidence of the tenant relocation (in accordance withOrdinance No. 178632) assistance being paid to the satisfaction of ¡he AdvisoryAgency.

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 67012 PAGE 7DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING-ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES

15. That prior to recordation of the final mQQ the subdivider shall prepare and execute a

Covenant and Agreement (Planning Department General Form CP-6770) in amanner satisfactory to the Planning Department requiring the subdivider to identifymitigation monitors who shall provide periodic status reports on the implementationof mitigation items required by Mitigation Condition Nos. 6.c, 10, 11, 16 and 17 ofthe Tract's approval satisfactory to Uie Advisory Agency. The mitigation monitorsshall be identified as to their areas of responsibility, and phase of intervention (pre-construction, construction, postconstruction/maintenance) to ensure continuedimplementation of the above mentioned mitigation items.

16 Prior to the recordation of the final map, the subdivider will prepare and execute aCovenant and Agreement (Planning Department General Form CP-6770) in amanner satisfactory to the Planning Department, binding the subdivider and allsuccessors to the following:

MM-1.

MM-2.

MM-3.

MM-4.

MM-5.

MM-6.

MM-7.

All open areas not used for buildings, driveways, parking areas,recreational facilities or walks shall be attractively landscaped andmaintained in accordance with a landscape plan, including anautomatic irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architectto the satisfaction of the Planning DepartmentEvery building, structure, or portion thereof, shall be maintained in asafe and sanitary condition and good repair, and free from graffiti,debris. rubbish, garbage, trash, overgrown vegetation or other similarmaterial, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 91.8104

Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed with shielding, so thatthe light source cannot be seen from adjacent residential properties.

The applicant shall install an air filters system to reduce the effects ofdiminished air quality on the occupants of the project

The design and construction of the project shall conform to theUniform Building Code seismic standards as approved by theDepartment of Building and Safety.

Building design considerations shall include, but are not limited to:ground stabilization, selection of appropriate foundation type anddepths, selection of appropriate structural systems to accommodateanticipated displacements or ,my combination of these measures.

Prior to the issuance of any demolition permit, the applicant shallprovide a letter to the Department of Building and safety from a

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 67012

MM-8.

MM-9.

MM-10.

MM-11.

MM12.

MM-13

MM-14.

MM-15

MM-16

PAGE 8

qualified asbestos abatement consultant that no ACM are present inthe building. If ACM are found to be present, it will need to be abaledin compliance with the South Coast Air quality Management District'srule 1403 as well as all other Federal rules and regulations.

Project applicants are required to implement stormwater BMPs toretain or treat the runoff from a storm event producing :y inch ofrainfall in a 24-hour period. The design of structural BMPs shall be inaccordance with the Development Best Management PracticesHandbook Part B Planning Activities. A signed certificate from aCalifornia licensed civil engineer or licensed architect that theproposed BMPs meet this numcrical threshold standard is rcquired.

Maximize trees and other vegetation at each site by plantingadditional vegetation, clustering tree areas, and promoting the use ofnative and/or drought tolerant plants.

Any connection to the sanitary sewer must have authorization fromthe Bureau of Sanitation.

Reduce impervious surface area by using permeable pavementmaterials where appropriate, including: pervious concreter/asphalt;unit pavers. ie., tun block; and granular materials, i.c., crushed

aggregates. cobbles.

Install Roof runoff systems where site is suitable for installation.Runoff from rooftops is relatively clean, can providc groundwaterrecharge and rcduce excess runoff into storm drains.

Paint messages that prohibit the dumping of improper materials intothe storm drain system adjacent to storm drain inlets. Prefabricatedstencils can be obtained from the Department of Public Works,

Stormwater Management Division.

All storm drain inlets and catch basins within the project area must bestenciled with prohibitive language (such as "NO DUMPING -DRAINS TO í\rr:I\f\I\ '-inr.l/nr n....nhir-..I õ..rinr- tr. r~;....r.II,...rt'" ille~~1..'-'-£.1 'f J 01 IU/\JI ~I Uplll..C.H I..VIIJ iV UI.:..VUI a~c: 111 ~c..l

dumping.

Legibility of stencils and signs must be maintained.

Design an efficient Îrrigation system to minimize runoff includes: dripirrigation for shrubs to limit excessive spray; shutoff devices to preventirrigation after significant precipitation; and flow reducers.


MM-17.

MM-18.

MM-19.

MM-20.

MM-21.

MM-22.

PAGE 9

The owner(s) of the property will prepare and execute a covenant andagreement (Planning Department General Form CP-6770)satisfactory to the Planning Department binding the owner(s) to postconstruction maintenance on the structural BMPs in accordance withthe Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan and or per

manufacturer's instructions.

Concrete, not metal, shall be used for construction of parking ramps.

The interior ramps shall be textured to prevent tire squeal at turningareas.

The applicant shall pay school fees to the Los Angeles Unified Schooldistrict to offset the impact of additional student enrollment at schoolsserving the project area.

The project shall comply with the Bureau of Engineering'srequirements for street dedication and improvements that will reducetraffic impacts in direct proportion to those caused by the proposedproject's implementation.

Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promoterecycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable materiaL.

1/ Construction Mitigation Conditions - prior to the issuance of a qradiliiLr buildinq¡Jermjt, or the recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall prepare and executea Covenant and Agreement (Planning Department General Form CP-6770) in amanner satisfactory to the Planning Department, binding the subdivider and allsuccessors to the following:

CM-1. ThaI a sign be required on site clearly stating a contact/complainttelephone number that provides contact to a live voice, not arecording or voice mail, during all hours of construction, the

construction site address, and the tract map number. YOU AREREQUIRED TO POST THE SIGN 7 DAYS BEFORECONSTRUCTION IS TO BEGIN.

a. Locate the sign in a conspicuous place on the subject site or

structure (if developed) so that it can be easily read by thepublic. The sign must be sturdily attached to a wooden post if itwill be freestanding.

b. Regardless of who posts the site, it is always the responsibilityof the applicant to assure that the notice is firmly attached,


CM-2.

CM-3.

CM-4.

CM-5.

CM-5.

CM-7.

CM-8.

CM-9.

CM-10.

PAGE 10

legible, and remains in that condition throughout the entireconstruction period.

c. If the case involves more than one street frontage, post a sign

on each street frontage involved. If a site exceeds five (5)acres in size, a separate notice of posting will be required foreach five (5) acres, or portion thereof. Each sign must beposted in a prominent location.

All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be welted at leasttwice daily during excavation and construction. and temporary dustcovers shall be used to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMDDistrict Rule 403. Wettng could reduce fugitive dust by as much as 50percent.

The owner or contractor shall keep the construction area sufficientlydampened to control dust caused by construction and hauling, and atall times provide reasonable control of dust caused by wind.

All loads shall be secured by trimming, watering or other appropriatemeans to prevent spillage and dust.

All materials transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered orsecurely covered to prevent excessive amount of dust.

All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall bediscontinued during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 15 mph),so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.

General contractors shall maintain and operate construction

equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions.

The project shall comply with the City of Los Angeles NoiseOrdinance No. 144,331 and 161,574, and any subsequentordinances, which prohibit the emission or creation of noise beyondcertain levels at adjacent uses unless technically infeasible.

Construction and demolition shall be restricted to the hours of 7:00am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm onSaturday.

Construction and demolition activities shall be scheduled so as toavoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously.


CM-11.

CM-12.

CM-13.

CM-14.

CM-15

CM-16.

CM-17.

CM-18.

CM-19.

CM-20.

PAGE 11

The project contractor shall use power construction equipment withstate-of-the-art noise shielding and muffing devices.

The project shall comply with the Noise Insulation Standards of Title24 of the California Code Regulations, which insure an acceptableinterior noise environment.

Excavation and grading activities shall be scheduled during dryweather periods. If grading occurs during the rainy season (October15 through ApriI1), diversion dikes shall be constructed to channelrunoff around the site. Channels shall be lined with grass orroughened pavement to reduce runoff velocity.

Appropriate erosion control and drainage devices shall be provided tothe satisfaction of the Building and Safety Department Thesemeasures include interceptor terraces, berms, vee-c1iannels, and inletand outlet structures, as specified by Section 91.7013 of the BuildingCode, including planting fast-growing annual and perennial grasses inareas where construction is not immediately planned.

Stockpiles and excavated soil shall be covered with secured tarps orplastic sheeting.

All waste shall be disposed of properly. Use appropriately labeledrecycling bins to recycle construction materials includinq: solvents,

water-based paints, vehicle fluids, broken asphalt and concrete,wood, and vegetation. Non-recyclable materials/wastes must be

taken to an appropriate landfilL. Toxic wastes must be discarded at alicensed regulated disposal site.

Leaks. drips and spills shall be cleaned up immediately to preventcontaminated soil on paved surfaces that can be washed away intothe storm drains.

Pavement shall not be hosed down pavement at material spills. Drycleanup methods shall be used whenever possible.

Dumpster shall be covered and maintained. Place uncovered

dumpsters under a roof or cover with tarps or plastic sheeting.

Gravel approaches shall be used where truck traffic is frequent toreduce soil compaction and the tracking of sediment into streets shallbe limited.


CM-21.

CM-22.

CM-23.

CM-24.

CM-25.

CM-26.

CM-27.

CM-28.

All vehicle/equipment maintenance, repair, and washing shall beconducted away from storm drains. All major repairs shall beconducted off-site. Drip pans or drop clothes shall be used to catchdrips and spills.

Project involving the importexport of 1 ,000 cubic yards or more of dirtshall obtain haul route approval by the Department of Building andSafety.

The developer and contractor must maintain ongoing contact with theoffce of the principal of North Hollywood High SchooL. Theadministrative offces shall be contacted when demolition. grading andconstruction activity begin on the project site so that students andtheir parents will know when such activities are to occur. Thedeveloper shall obtain school walk and bus routes to the school fromeither the administrative offices or from the LAUSD's TransportationBranch (323-342-1400) and guarantee that safe and convenientpedestrian and bus routes to the school be maintained.

The developer shall install appropriate traffic signs around the site toensure pedestrian and vehicle safety.

Haul route scheduling shall be sequenced to minimize conflicts withpedestrians, school buses and cars at the arrival and dismissal timesof the school day. Haul route trucks shall not be routed past theschool during periods when school is in session especially whenstudents are arriving or departing from the campus.

There shall be no staging or parking of construction vehicles,

including vehicles to transport workers on any of the streets adjacentto the schooL.

Due to noise impacts on the school, no construction vehicles or haultrucks shall be staged or idled on these streets during school hours.

Fences shall be constructed around the site to minimize trespassing,vandalism, short-cut attractions and attractive nuisances_

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING-STANDARD CONDOMINIUM CONDITIONS

C-1. That approval of this tract constitutes approval of model home uses, including asales office and off-street parking. Where the existing zoning is (T) or (0) formultiple residential uses, no construction or use shall be permitted until the finalmap has recorded or the proper zone has been effectuated. If models are


constructed under this tract approval, the following conditions shall apply:

1. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit a plot plan

for approval by the Division of Land Section of the Department of CityPlanning showing the location of the model dwellings, sales offce and off-street parking. The sales office must be within one of the model buildings.

2. All other conditions applying to Model Dwellings under Section 12.22A, 10

and 11 and Section 17.05 0 of the Code shall be fully complied withsatisfactory to the Department of Building and Safety.

C-2. That prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall record an "Agreementfor Development of Units for Lease or Sale ("15% Ordinance") covenant, to benefitthe Housing Authority, for certification of the development in accordance withSection 12.39A. Arrangements shall be made with the Department of Building andSafety, Zoning Section - Subdivisions (213.482.0000) to approve the covenantformat, prior to recording the covenant.

C-3. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall payor guarantee thepayment of a park and recreation fee based on the tatest fee rate scheduleapplicable. The amount of said fee 10 be established by the Advisory Agency inaccordance with Section 17.12 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code and to be paidand deposited in the trust accounts of the Park and Recreation Fund.

C-4. That a landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, be submitted toand approved by the Advisory Agency in accordance with CP-6730 Qrior_toobtaininq the certificate of occupancy or before the recordation of the final map.

In the event the subdivider decides not to request a permit before the recordation ofthe final map, a covenant and agreement satisfactory to the Advisory Agencyguaranteeing the submission of such plan before obtaining any permit shall berecorded.

C-5. In order to expedite the development, the applicant may apply for a building pennit

for an apartment building. However, prior to issuance of a buildinq permit forapartments, the registered civil engineer, architect or licensed land surveyor shallcertify in a letter to the Advisory Agency that all applicable tract conditions affectingthe physical design of the building and/or site have been included into the buildingplans. Such letter is sufficient to clear this condition. In addition, all of the applicabletract conditions shall be stated in full on the buildinq plans and a copy'of the.Qnsshall be reviewed and aRProved by the Advisory Aqency prior to submittal to theDepartment of Buildinq and Safety for a buildinq permit.

OR


If a building permit for apartments will not be requested, the project civil engineer,architect or licensed land surveyor must certify in a letter to the Advisory Agencythat the applicant wil not request a permit for apartments and intends to acquire abuilding permit for a condominium building(s). Such letter is sufficient to clear thiscondition.

BUREAU OF ENGINEERING - STANDARD CONDITIONS

S-1. (a) That the sewerage facilities charge be deposited prior to recordation of thefinal map over the entire tract in conformance with Section 64.11.2 of theMunicipal Code.

(b) That survey boundary monuments be established in the field in a mannersatisfactory to the City Engineer and located within the CaliforniaCoordinate System pnor to recordation of the final map. Any alternativemeasure approved by the City Engineer would require prior submission ofcomplete field notes in support of the boundary survey.

(c) That satisfactory arrangements be made with both the Water System andthe Power System of the Department of Water and Power with respect towater mains, fire hydrants, service connections and public utilityeasements.

(d) That any necessary sewer, street, drainage and street lighting easementsbe dedicated. In the event it is necessary to obtain off-site easements byseparate instruments, records of the Bureau of Right-of-Way and Landshall verify that such easements have been obtained. The aboverequirements do not apply to easements of off-site sewers to be providedby the City.

(e) That drainage matters be taken care of satisfactory to the City Engineer.

(f) That satisfactory street, sewer and drainage plans and profiles as required,together with a lot grading plan of the tract and any necessary topographyof adjoining areas be submitted to the City Engineer.

f..\ Th..l ....,. ..ro"..i,...rl rot..,... ro~sor...lE"nlC" hci rlnrli..atri~ h.. lhn fin~1 man\VJ iiiai ClllY t'GYUllvU .::HUtJv cu S.11'..IIlJ ....... ....Ul.. vU uy u..... IIIIUI III p-

(h) That each lot in the tract complies with the width and area requirements ofthe Zoning Ordinance.

(i) That 1-foot future stré'êís and/or alleys be shOwn along the outside ofincomplete public dedications and across the termini of all dedicationsabutting unsubdivided property. The 1-foot dedications on the map shall

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 67012PAGE 15

include a restriction against their use of access purposes until such time asthey are accepted for public use.

(j) That any 1-foot future street and/or alley adjoining the tract be dedicated

for public use by the tract, or that a suitable resolution of acceptance betransmitted to the City Council with the final map.

(k) That no public street grade exceeds 15%.

(i) That any necessary additional street dedications be provided to complywith the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

S-2. That the following provisions be accomplished in conformity with the improvementsconstructed herein:

(a) Survey monuments shall be placed and permanently referenced to thesatisfaction of the City Engineer. A set of approved field notes shall befurnished, or such work shall be suitably guaranteed, except where thesetting of boundary monuments requires that other procedures be followed.

(b) Make satisfactory arrangements with the Department of Traffc with respectto street name, warning, regulatory and guide signs.

(c) All grading done on private property outside the tract boundaries inconnection with public improvements shall be performed within dedicatedslope easements or by grants of satisfactory rights of entry by the affectedproperty owners.

(d) All improvements within public streets, private street, alleys and easements

shall be constructed under permit in conformity with plans and

specifications approved by the Bureau of Engineering.

(e) Any required bonded sewer fees shall be paid prior to recordation of thefinal map.

S-3. That the following improvements be either constructed prior to recordation of thefinal m.. or that the construction be suitably guaranteed:

(a) Construct on-site sewers to serve the tract as deterrnined_by the CityEngineer. -(b) Construct any necessal' drainage facilities.

(c) Install street lighting facilities to serve the tract as required by the Bureau of


Street Lighting.

(d) Plant street trees and remove any existing trees within dedicated streets orproposed dedicated streets as required by the Street Tree Division of theBureau of Street Maintenance. All street tree plantings shall be brought upto current standards. When the City has previously been paid for treeplanting, the subdivider or contractor shall notify the Street Tree Division((213) 485-5675) upon completion of construction to expedite tree planting.

(e) Repair or replace any off-grade or broken curb, gutter and sidewalksatisfactory to the City Engineer

(f) Construct access ramps for the handicapped as required by the CityEngineer

(g) Close any unused driveways satisfactory to the City Engineer

(h) Construct any necessary additional street improvements to comply with theAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990.

(i) That the following improvements be either constructed prior to recordationof the final map or that the construction be suitably guaranteed:

a. After submittal of hydrology and hydraulic calculations and drainage

plans for review by the City Engineer prior recordation of the finalmap, drainage facilities may be required satisfactory to the CityEngineer

b. Improve Magnolia Boulevard being dedicated and adjoining the

subdivision by the construction of the following:

(1) A concrete curb, a concrete gutter, and a 10-foot full-widthconcrete sidewalk with tree wells.

(2) Suitable surfacing to join the existing pavement and tocomplete a 35-foot half roadway.

(3) Any necessary removal and reconstruction of existingimprovements.

(4) The necessary transitions to join the existing improvementssatisfactorytó the City Engineer.


NOTES:

The Advisory Agency approval is the maximum number of units permitted under the tractaction. However the existing or proposed zoning may not permit this number of units.Approvat from Board of Public Works may be necessary before removat of any street treesin conjunction with the improvements in this tract map through Bureau of Street ServicesUrban Forestry Division.

Satisfactory arrangements shall be made with the Los Angeles Department of Water andPower, Power System, to pay for removal, relocation, replacement or adjustment of powerfacilities due to this development. The subdivider must make arrangements for Iheunderground installation of all new utility lines in conformance with Section 17 .05N of theLos Angeles Municipal Code.

The final map must record within 36 months of this approval, unless a time extension isgranted before the end of such period.

The Advisory Agency hereby finds that this tract conforms to the California Water Code, asrequired by the Subdivision Map Act

No building permit will be issued until the subdivider has secured 3 certification from theHousing Authority that the development complies with the requirements for low-andmoderate-income housing, per Section 12.39-A of the LAMC.

The subdivider should consult the Department of Water and Power to obtain energy savingdesign features, which can be incorpor3ted into the final building plans for the subjectdevelopment. As part of the Total Energy Management Program of the Department ofWater and Power, this no-cost consultation service will be provided to the subdivider uponhis request.

Indemnification. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, itsagents, offcers, or employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or itsagents, offcers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this approval which actionis brought within the applicable limitation period. The City shall promptly notify theapplicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in thedefense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim action or proceeding,or jf the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicani shaii not thereafter beresponsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.

FINDINGS OF FACT (CEQA)

The Department of City Planning publiShed the revised proposed Mitigated NegativeDeclaration ENV-2006-5007 -MND-REC1 on March 29, 2007. The Department found thatpotential negative impact could occur from the project's implementation due to:


Aesthetics (visual character, light, graffiti);Air Quality (construction);Biological Resources (tree removal);Geology and Soils (construction, seismic, liquefaction);Hazards and Hazardous Materials (asbestos);Hydrology and Water Quality (stormwater);Land Use and Planning (specific plan, site plan);Noise (construction, parking);Public Services (fire, schools, street improvements);Recreation (parks);Transportation/Circulation (vehicle trips, LOS); and Utilities (solid waste).

The Advisory Agency certifies that the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV-2006-5007-MND-RECl reflects the independent judgement of the lead agency anddetermined that this project would not have a significant effect upon the environmentprovided the potential impacts identified above are mitigated to a less than significant levelthrough implementation of Condition Nos. 6.c, 10, 11, 16 and 17 of the Tract's approval.Other identified potential impacts not mitigated by these conditions are mandatorily subjectto existing City ordinances, (Sewer Ordinance. Grading Ordinance, Flood PlainManagement Specific Plan, Xeriscape Ordinance, Stormwater Ordinance, etc.) which arespecifically intended to mitigate such potential impacts on all projects.

The Initial Study prepared for the project identifies potential adverse impacts on fish orwildlife resources as far as earth. air, water, plant life, risk of upset are concerned.However, measures are required as part of this approval, which will mitigate the above-mentioned impacts to a less than significant leveL.

In accordance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (AB 3180). the DeputyAdvisory Agency has assured that the above identified mitigation measures will beimplemented by requiring reporting and monitoring as specified in Condition No. 15.

Furthermore, the Advisory Agency hereby finds that modifications to and corrections ofspecific mitigation measures have been required to assure appropriate and adequatemitigation of potential environmental impacts of the proposed use of this subdivision.

FINDINGS OF FACT (SUBDIVISION MAP ACT)

In connection with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67012, the AdvisoryAgency of the City of Los Angeles, pursuant to Sections 66473.1,66474.60, .91 and .63 ofthe State of California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act), makes the prescribedfindings as follows:

(a) THE PROPOSED MAP WILL BE/IS CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE GENERALAND SPECIFIC PLANS.


The adopted North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan designates thesubject property for Medium Residential and High Medium Residential land useswith the corresponding zones of R3 and R4. The property contains approximately1 A 1 net acres after the required dedication and is presently zoned R3-1 and R4-1.The proposed development of 78 condominiums is allowable under the existingzones. The project will provide much needed new home ownership opportunities forthe Community Plan area. The existing tenants will be provided with relocationassistance pursuant to the City of Los Angeles' applicable ordinance(s).

The site is not subject to a Specific Plan for the Management of Flood Hazards(f1oodways, floodplains, mud prone areas, coastal high-hazard and flood-relatederosion hazard areas).

The property is located within the Valley Village Specific Plan. The project proposesbuilding height in excess of the maximum allowable height of 36 feet under theSpecific Plan. Consequently. the project will be required to apply for a ProjectPermit Adjustment, or a Specific Plan Exception, whichever is applicable, forincreased height Also, the project wil go through the Project Permit Complianceprocedure to satisfy all other requirements of the Valley Village Specific Plan.

Therefore, as conditioned, the proposed tract map is consistent with the intent andpurpose of the applicable General and Specific Plans.

(ll) THE DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ARECONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS.

Magnolia Boulevard is a designated Secondary Highway at the project's streetfrontage. The Bureau of Engineering is requiring a 5-foot dedication to complete a45-foot wide half right-of-way dedication in accordance with Secondary HighwayStandards. The proposed project will provide 195 subterranean parking spaces inconformance with the Los Angeles Municipal Code and the Advisory Agency'sparking policy for condominium projects.

This project is subject to the Valley Village Specific Plan requirements. It will applyfor a Project Permit Adjustment, or a Valley Village Specific Plan Exception forheight, whichever is applicable, as well as a Project Permit Compliance.

Therefore, as conditioned, the design and improvements of the proposed projectare consistent with the applicable General and Specific Plans.

(c) THE SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED TYPE OFDEVELOPMENT.


The site is currently developed with 51 apartments in a primarily multi-familyresidential area. The site is level and is not located in a,slope stability study area,high erosion hazard area, or a fault-rupture study zone.

The Department of Building and Safety, Grading Division, has conditionallyapproved the tract map. The soils and geology reports for the proposed subdivisionwere found to be adequate.

(d) THE SITE iS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OFDEVELOPMENT.

Adjacent land uses are condominiums to the east in the R4 zone, apartments to thesouth across Magnolia in the R3 zone, apartments to the west in the R4 zone, andapartments to the north in the R3 zone. The site currently contains a total of 51apartments, which will be demolished for the construction of the proposed 78residential condominium units. A Cumulative Traffc Study was prepared for thisproject. The Department of Transportation has recommended a set of measures tomitigate the potential impacts of additional vehicle trips and level of service onMagnolia Boulevard and Ben Avenue. The proposed project will comply with allL.A.M.C and the Advisory Agency requirements for parking, yards, and open space.

Therefore. as conditioned, the tract map is physically suitable for the proposeddensity of the development.

(e) THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSARE NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ORSUBSTANTIALLY AND AVOIDABLY INJURE FISH OR WILDLIFE OR THEIRHABITAT.

The I nitial Study prepared for the project identified potential adverse impact on fishor wildlife resources as far as earth, air, water, plant life, risk of upset areconcerned. However, measures are required as part of this approval, which willmitigate any potential impacts to a less than significant leveL.

(f) THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSARE NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE SERIOUS PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMS.

There appear to be no potential public health problems caused by the design orimprovement of the proposed subdivision.

The development is required to be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system,where the sewage will be direcled to the LA Hyperion Treatment Plant, which hasbeen upgraded to meet Statewide ocean discharge standards. The Bureau ofEngineering has reported that the proposed subdivision does not violate the existing

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO_ 67012PAGE 21

California Water Code because the subdivision will be connected to the publicsewer system and will have only a minor incremental impact on the quality of theefluent from the Hyperion Treatment Plant.

(g) THE DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSWILL NOT CONFLICT WITH EASEMENTS ACQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC ATLARGE FOR ACCESS THROUGH OR USE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THEPROPOSED SUBDIVISION_

No such easements are known to exist Needed public access for roads and utilitieswill be acquired by the City prior to recordation of the proposed tract

(h) THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WILL PROVIDE, TO THEEXTENT FEASIBLE, FOR FUTURE PASSIVE OR NATURAL HEATING ORCOOLING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SUBDIVISION_ (REF SECTION 664731)

In assessing the feasibility of passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities inthe proposed subdivision design, the applicant has prepared and submittedmaterials which consider the local climate, contours, configuration of the parcel(s) tobe subdivided and other design and improvement requirements_

Providing for passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities will not result inreducing allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which may be occupied by abuilding or structure under applicable planning and zoning in effect at the time thetentative map was filed_

The lot layout of the subdivision has taken into consideration the maximizing of thenorth/south orientation_

The topography of the site has been considered in the maximization of passive ornatural heating and cooling opportunities_

In addition, prior to obtaining a building permit, the subdivider shall consider buildingconstruction techniques, such as overhanging eaves, location of windows,insulation, exhaust fans, planting of trees for shade purposes and the height of thebuildings on the site in relation to adjacent development

FINDINGS OF FACT (SITE PLAN REVIEW)

The Advisory Agency reviewed the proposed 78-unit condominium development and,pursuant to Section 16.05 F of the Municipal Code, makes the following findings based onthe information contained in the application, site plan, supplemental written documents anddrawings submitted, reports received from other departments, and review of environmentalimpacts associated with the project:


(a) THE SUBJECT PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OFTHE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE AND WITH ANY SPECIFIC PLAN.

The property contains approximately 61 ,575 net square-foot (1.41 net acres) afterthe required dedication, of which approximately 36,575 square-foot is zoned R3-1and 25,000 square-foot is zoned R4-1. The property would potentially be allowedapproximately 45 units in the R3-1 zone and 62 units in the R4-1 zone, for a total of107 units by right. Therefore, the requested project density of 78 condominium unitsfor the total project area, pursuant to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67012, isallowed under the existing zones. The project will comply with all LAMC and theAdvisory Agency requirements, including parking, yards, and open space, prior toobtaining any building permits and/or the recordation of the final map.

The proposed site is located within the Valley Village Specific Plan. The project willbe required to obtain a Project Permit Compliance. Also, a Project Permit

Adjustment, or a Specific Plan Exception, whichever is applicable, will be requiredfor the proposed building height in excess of the maximum 36 feet allowed by theValley Village Specific Plan.

As conditioned. the project is consistent with the Municipal Code and the ValleyVillage Specific Plan.

(b) THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN.

The North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Plan, Updated May 14, 1996,designates the subject property for Medium Residential and High MediumResidential with the corresponding R3 and R4 zones. The requested project densityof 78 condominium units is permitted under the existing plan designations andzonings on the property. These units will provide new home ownership opportunityfor the area. In consistent with the Community Plan Objectives No.3, the project willmake housing available to satisfy the needs and desires of various age, income andethnic groups of the community, maximizing the opportunity for individual choice.

The site is currently developed with 51 apartments, which wil be demolished for theconstruction of the proposed 78 condominiums. The existing tenants will beprovided with relocation assistance in accordance with Ordinance No. 178632. Thel'....;rir-l ..,;11 ,...",,,;,... ,. nr'l ;n.,-..ri..,..,. ;.. th"" r;h ,'.. hr.. ,..;..,. ,..,...1..tJ1UJGLol ¥VIII l-IVVIUC: a IIGilili.lc;O.JG III tllC: \.iiy,: IIUU0111!: "'tVL.I'.

Therefore, as conditioned, the project is consistent with the General plan.

(c) THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY APPLICABLE ADOPTEDREDEVELOPMENT PLAN.

The project is not located within any redevelopment plan area.


(d) THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF AN ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDINGS ANDSTRUCTURES (INCLUDING HEIGHT, BULK AND SETBACKS), OFF-STREETFACILITIES, LOADING AREAS, LIGHTING, LACDSCAPING. TRASHCOLLECTION, AND OTHER SUCH PERTINENT IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS ORWILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ONNEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

The project is located in an area planned Medium Residential and High MediumResidential with the corresponding zones of R3 and R4 zones. There arecondominiums in the R4 zone to the east, apartments in the R3 zone to the southacross Magnolia, apartments in the R4 zone to the west, and apartments in the R3zone to the north.

The project is a vesting tentative tract map to construct a new 78-unit residentialcondominium. As required, the project submitted a set of plans consisting of exteriorelevations, floor plans, roof plan, garage plan, etc.. for the proposed 3-story buildingwith subterranean parking. The architectural design of the project takes intoconsideration and is consistent with other existing multi-family buildings in the area

The project is located within the Valley Village Specific Plan. The project will berequired to obtain a Project Permit Compliance as well as a Project PermitAdjustmenUSpecific Plan Exception for height. Nevertheless, the proposed buildingheight, setbacks. landscaping, and all other project details will be reviewed furtherduring these procedures.

Therefore, as conditioned, the proposed project will be compatible with otherexisting and future multi-family developments in the area.

(e) THE PROJECT INCORPORATES FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES,MONITORING MEASURES WHEN NECESSARY, OR ALTERNATIVESIDENTIFIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WHICH WOULDSUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OFTHE PROJECT, AND/OR ANY ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AS MAY BE REQUIREDBY CEQA.

An environmental review of the project was conducted and, on September 13, 2006,the Department of City Planning issued the proposed ~v1itigated NegativeDeclaration ENV-2006-5007-MND. However, comments were received regardingadditional traffic and street parking that could potentially be generated by thisproject as well as two other similar projects in the vicinity, VTT-65785 (97 units) andTT-66949 (22 units). which were proposing a combined total of 197 newcondominium units, within a 500-foot radius. Consequently, the preparation of aCumulative Traffic Study was recommended by the Department of Transportation(DOT).


The traffic study, prepared by Hirsch/Green Transportation Consulting, examinedthe existing and projected volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratios and level of service (LOS)at six intersections: Laurel Canyon and Chandler, Ben and Chandler, Laurel Canyonand Weddington, Laurel Canyon and Magnolia, Ben and Magnolia, and Colfax andMagnolia. The study found that the projects would generate 486 new daily trips, 37new a.m. peak hour trips and 40 new p.m. peak hour trips, and have a significanttraffc impact at the intersection of Ben and Magnolia. The study was submitted toDOT for review on January 24,2007.

After completing the review, on March 6, 2007, DOT recommended a 5-footdedication and a 3-foot widening of Magnolia Boulevard and re-striping to provide awestbound right turn lane approach to Ben Avenue to mitigate the traffc impacts.

Therefore, the earlier ENV-2006-5007-MND was revised as ENV-2006-5007 -MND-REC1, incorporating the traffc mitigations. Also, this revised MND identified, indetail, all other potential environmental impacts of the project. as listed on page 18of this determination. The revised MND was published on March 29, 2007.

All measures necessary to mitigate the potential impacts of the project to less thansignificant levels have been made a part of this determination, as listed underCondition Nos. 6.c, 10, 11, 16 and 17. The identified mitigation measures will beimplemented by requiring reporting and monitoring, as specified in Condition No. 15.

(f) ANY PROJECT CONTAINING RESIDENTIAL USES PROVIDES ITS RESIDENTSWITH APPROPRIATE TYPE AND Pu\CEMENT OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIESAND SERVICE AMENITES IN ORDER TO IMPROVE HABITABILITY FOR THERESIDENTS AND MINIMIZE IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIESWHERE APPROPRIATE.

The project will offer one large interior courtyard and one smaller secondarycourtyard, both of which wil be open and attractively landscaped, and a recreationroom on each floor. There will be other service amenities available to the projectresidents.


These findings shall apply to both the vesting tentative and final maps for Tract Map No.67012.

S. Gail Goldberg, AICPAdvisory Agency ,

Ç/gt1a-JC: AC: Uhfjq)

Note: If you wish to file an appeal, it must be filed within 10 calendar days from thedecision date as noted in this letter. For an appeal to be valid to the City PlanningCommission, it must be accepted as complete by the City Planning Department andappeal fees paid, prior to expiration of the above 10-day time limit. Such appealmust be submitted on Master Appeal Form No. CP-7769 at the Department's PublicOffices, located at:

Figueroa Plaza

201 N Figueroa St., 4"' FloorLos Angeles, CA 90012213482.7077

Marvin Braude San FernandoValley Constituent Service Center6262 Van Nuys Blvd., Room 251Van Nuys, CA 91401818.374.5050

Forms are also available on-line at www.lacity.orqfpln.

The time in which a party may seek judicial review of any decÎsion of the Citypursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, the petition for writ ofmandate pursuant to that section must be filed no later than the 90th day followingthe date on which the City's decision became final pursuant to California Code ofCivil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may be other time limits, which also affectyour ability to seek judicial review.

If you have any questions, please call Subdivision staff at (213) 978-1362.

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING

ApPEAL STAFF REPORT

City Planning Commission Case No.:CEQA No.:Incidental Cases:Related Cases:Council No.:

Plan Area:

Date:Time:Place:

June 28, 20078:30 a.m,

Van Nuys City HallCouncil Chambers, Second Floor, Room 20114410 Sylvan Street,Van Nuys CA 91401

Specific Plan:

Certified NC:GPLU:

Public Hearing:Appeal Status:Expiration Date:

Multiple Approval:

May 1, 2007Appealable to City CouncilJune 25, 2007N/A

Zone:Applicant:

Representative:

PROJECTLOCATION:

11933 West Magnolia Boulevard

PROJECT:

I~~íILÒS ANGEll;S CITY

PLANNINGDEPARTMENT

VTT-67012-1AENV-2006-5007 -MNDNoneNone2North Hollywood - ValleyVillageValley Village

Valley Village

Medium & High MediumResidentialR3-1 and R4-1

Gary Schaffel,Schaffel DevelopmentYale Partners, Ltd.

Vesting Tentative Tract No. 67012 to permit the construction of a 78-unit condominium on a 61,975 netsquare-foot site in the R3-1 and R4-1 zones with 156 resident parking spaces and 39 guest spaces.

REQUESTED: APPEAL FROM the entire Deputy Advisory Agency's approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 67012.

APPELLANTS: The Valley Village Resident's Association with Representative Tom Paterson, and MagnoliaTree Villas Homeowner Association with Sandy Hubbard and Chuck Tennin.

RECOMMENDATION: That the decision of the Advisory Agency be sustained and the appeals be denied. And, grant inpart to amend Los Angeles Unified School District conditions., /

''f~(A t. ~~Maya Zaitzevsky, Acting Senior ity Planner

Table of ContentsSummary of Appeal(s)

ExhibitsVicinity Map, Radius Map, Vesting Tentative Tract Map,Appeal Document with 13 Exhibits, Request for Traffic Study,Department of Transportation Cumulative Traffic Assessment Report,Decision Letter, Environmental Document.

ADVICE TO PUBLIC, 'The exact time this report will be considered during the meeting is uncertain since there may be severalother items on the agenda. Written communications may be mailed to the Commission Secretariat, 200 North Spring Street, LosAngeles, CA 90012 (Phone No. 213.978-1300). While all written communications are given to the Commission for consideration, theinitial packets are sent to the week prior to the Commission's meeting date. !f you challenge these agenda items in court, you may belimited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing agendized herein, or in written correspondence onthese matters delivered to this agency at or prior to the public hearing. As a covered entity under Title Ii of the Americans withDisabilties Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate on the basis of disability, and upon request, will provide reasonableaccommodation to ensure equal access to this 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 yourrequest not later than three working days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by calling the Commission Secretariat at (213) 978.1300.

VESTING TENTATIVE TKACT NO. 67012-1A (APPEAL STAFF REt-ORT)Page 2

BRIEF SUMMARY OF APPEAL(S)

~~~~ ',.."...,..,..,.....,..."..............,............',....,...,....,..."...,...."... 3~~I..,..."....,..,.................,........"........"...,..."..."........".."..."..."..., 6

Staff Response/Comments ...."....,..."....,....,...,...."...,..."...,....". ........ 6

Staff Recommendation..., ,. ......."....,.............,....,........, ,..., ...".........,.. 9

Conditions of Approval........ ............................................... 10

Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map2, Radius Map

3. Revised Vesting Tract Map4. Site Plan

5. Elevation Plan

6. Response to MND Concerns7. Request for a Cumulative Traffc Study8. Department of Transportation cumulative traffic assessment report9. Bureau of Engineer, Storm Drain Project Prioritization for Magnolia

Boulevard Corridor10, Appeal Document with 13 Exhibits11. Advisory Agency's Decision Letter12. Environmental Document

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 67012-1A (APPEAL STAFF REf'ORT)Page 3

STAFF APPEAL REPORT

BACKGROUND

Physical Environment - The proposed project is a new 78-unit condominium

development. The site is located in the North Hollywood-Valley Village Community Planand within the Valley Village Specific Plan area. The land use designations for the siteare Medium and High Medium Residential with corresponding zones of R3 and R4. Theproject site consists 61,975 net square feet. There is currently an apartment buildingwith 51 units on the project site. The site fronts on Magnolia Boulevard, which is

designated as a Secondary Highway.

To the north there are apartments and condominiums in the R3 Zone. The propertyabutting the site on the east is developed with 40 condominiums. Properties acrossRadford Avenue on the east are developed with apartments in the R3 Zone. NorthHollywood High School is within two blocks, and the Magnolia ramps of the HollywoodFreeway are six blocks east of the proposed site. Properties along the north and thesouth frontages of Magnolia Boulevard within the 500-foot radius are developed withmulti-family dwellings in the R4, R3 and RD1.5 Zones. Abutting on the west, there areapartments in the R4 and R3 Zones, where VTT-65785 and TT-66949 are beingproposed,

Case History - The application for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 67012 was submitted onJune 8, 2006 and the public hearing date was originally schedule on September 12,2006. It was brought to Planning Department's attention by the local residents that aneighboring property located on 5226 North Ben Avenue had a tract application (TT-66949) for 22 condominium units which was set for public hearing on September 19,2006. The adjacent property, located on 11945 West Magnolia Boulevard also had atract application (TT-65785) for 97 condominium units which was set for public hearingin October 3, 2006. The three project sites are contiguous and they are beingdeveloped by different developers. Since the submittal of tract applications were withinweeks of each other and the scheduled public hearings were within weeks of eachother, it was suggested that the projects be scheduled for the same day. TentativeTract 67012 was rescheduled for October 3,2006, which was the original public hearingdate for Tentative Tract 65785. Tentative Tract 66949 was not rescheduled andcontinued with its September 19, 2006 hearing date. Tentative Tract 67012 was laterrescheduled for October 17, 2007 and then subsequently postponed until furtlîer notice.

At the October 3, 2006 pubic hearing, local residents made several complaintsregarding to the validity of the Mitigated Negative Declarations of each project and itwas suggested that there would be some cumulative impacts resulting from theaggregate number of units, traffic and parking. They felt that the neighborhood wasbeing bombarded by constant developments and questioned why cumulative impactswere not being considered, in particular the traffic situation on Magnolia Boulevard.Planning staff replied that all three projects are independent from each other, and staffwas not aware that all three projects were being developed at the same time,

¡ ,VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 67012-1A (APPEAL STAFF REPORT)

Page 4

The cumulative traffic issue was also brought to the attention of the Department ofTransportation as welL. The Department of Transportation stated that each project onitself would not need a traffic study. However, if all three projects were being developedat the same time, it would meet the threshold for a traffic study in order to mitigate anycumulative traffic impact. Both Departments found that the cumulative traffic concernwas valid, and on October 13, 2006, the Planning staff submitted a request to theDepartment of Transportation requiring a cumulative traffic study for all three projects.The Planning Department suspended all three tracts until the cumulative traffic studywas completed.

On January 24, 2007, a traffic study prepared by Hirsch/Green Transportation wassubmitted to the Department of Transportation. On March 6, 2007, the Department ofTransportation completed the review of the traffic study and issued a report stating thatthere are new additional vehicular trips being generated by three projects, TheDepartment of Transportation recommended measures such as a signal systemupgrade, highway dedications and improvements, site access, and internal circulation tomitigate traffic related impacts to a less than insignificant level. The Mitigated NegativeDeclarations for all three projects were republished with the new traffic mitigationsrecommend by the Department of Transportation. The comment period for the revisedMitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV-2006-5007-MND for Tract No. 67012completed on April 18, 2007. The comment period for the revised Mitigated NegativeDeclaration ENV-2006-6051-MND for Tract No. 65785 also ended April

18, 2007. OnMay 1, 2007, public hearings for both Tentative Tract No. 67012 and Tentative Tract65785 were held.

Environmental Assessment - The original Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV-2007-5007-MND was issued on June 28, 2006. The Mitigated Negative Declarationincluded a series of mitigation measures for a new condominium project involving thedemolition of existing apartment buildings. Comments were received from theneighbors, existing tenants, and the appellants in regards to the project and thepublished MND. Major issues were the lack of loss of affordable rental housing and thetraffic congestion on Magnolia Boulevard the need for mitigation. The Planning staffissued a "Response to MND Concerns" addressing all comments, including the loss ofaffordable rental housing and traffic. Further comments were received from the publicsubsequent to the release of the revised MND and the Department of Transportation'straffic study recommendation.

Affordable rental housinq issue - This proposed project is identical in nature to VestingTentative Tract Map No. 65984 located at 12005 Albers Street in the Valley Viilagearea. Both projects proposed to demolish existing apartment structures for new

condominiums. On November 9, 2006, the City Panning Commission denied theappeal seeking to halt the project to preserve some rental units that were below marketrate. The Commission, after consulting with the City Attorney, determined thatapartment buildings proposed for demolition are not considered as "affordable" and citythe following reasons:

First, the apartment building does not have an "affordable" status recorded on thetille. Affordable rental buildings must have "affordable status" registered with the

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 67012-1A (APPEAL STAFF REPORT)Page 5

Housing Department and be recorded with Los Angeles County RecordersOffice, This status once recorded shall either run with the land forever, or in a30-year period stated on the title. Second, an affordable rental unit can only berented to a person with "Low" or "Moderate" income level qualification, Theexisting apartment building does not have this restriction. Tenants who live in theapartment units do not need to qualify for a "Low" or "Moderate" income levelstatus. The relative low rent does not make an apartment an affordable rentalunit. Third, the apartment management can increase the rent significantly oncean existing tenant moves out. An "affordable" rental unit shall maintain the rentat a level instructed by the Housing Department and can not be increasedsignificantly.

In addition, City Council has addressed the affordable housing issue as a largenumber of condominium conversions and new condominiums are replacingexisting apartment buildings in the City. City Council approved Ordinance No,178,632 on April 23, 2007, in an effort to increase tenant location assistance andmitigate the impact of loss of affordable rental units, Tract No. 67012 decisionhas included the new tenant relocation assistance condition as Condition No. 14.

Traffc on Maqnolia Boulevard issue - The subject project if developed solely does notrequire a traffic study, however, two other concurrent tract projects are being developed,Planning staff agreed with the neighbors that there should a traffic study to exam thecumulative traffic impact. An official request from the Planning Department wassubmitted to the Department of Transportation on October 13, 2006, for the preparationof a traffic study involving all three projects to exam all affected streets,

Public Comment - Prior to the original public hearing of September 12, 2006, severalcalls and ten letters were received. Additional 21 letters were received prior to thesubsequent public hearing on May 1, 2007. Of which, fourteen letters attached withnews clippings and various Council Motions were from the appellant Mr. Chuck Tenninand two letters were from Mr. Tom Patterson. All letters commonly commentedprimarily on the loss of the rental units, the increasing rent of available apartments, theimpact due to the current construction frenzy, the traffc impact along MagnoliaBoulevard, and the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration, As stated in theprevious section, the Planning staff issued a "Response to MND Concerns" onSeptember 20, 2006, answering issues in regards of density and land use, tenantrelocation assistance, traffic impact, parking, construction, and drainage and sewers.

Public Hearing - At the May 1, 2007 public hearing, nine people attended the hearing.Seven persons from the opposition focused mainly on the issues of traffic impact anddrainage of the area. Questions were raised in regards to the adequacy of the trafficstudy provided by the applicants of proposed tract projects, and why there was not anymeasure to mitigate the intersection at Radford Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard.

The subdivider testified that he agreed to comply with all conditions of the staff report.He stated that he has paid the tenant relocation assistance to the tenants, Most of thetenants have voluntarily relocated. A few tenants elected to stay as the project was stillpending at the time, and they can relocate at a later time.

JVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 67012-1A (APPEAL STAFF REFORT)Page 6

The Council Office No.2 was present. The Council Deputy stated that the Council doesnot support nor oppose the project. Rather, he asked the Subdivision Committee to

clarify a few legal questions on the traffic study and tract findings as well as the processof making a decision not to require an Environmental Impact Report, and the effect ofthe pending Council Motion introduced by the Councilmember Wendy Greuel toundertake a comprehensive assessment along Magnolia Boulevard by the Departmentof Transportation on this project.

The Department of Transportation representative, Sergio Valdez, addressed the traffcaspects of the Project. Bureau of Engineering addressed the street widening of

Magnolia Boulevard, and further added Condition Nos. 2.5 and S3(i)a requiring theverification of the existing sewer capacity, compliance to possible improvements, andsubmittal of hydraulic calculations and a drainage plan. The Advisory Agency statedthat the project's MND was able to mitigate all impacts identified by the environmentassessment. Therefore, no Environmental Impact Report is necessary. In addition, theproject complies with the land use designation and zone of the Community Plan. Inaddition, all of the Departments recommended approval of two tract maps.

Decision - Based on the recommendation from the Departments, the Mitigated

Negative Declaration, and the cumulative traffic study, the Advisory Agency approvedthe project with amended Engineering Conditions per numbers 2.5 and S3(i)a. TheLetter of Decision was issued on May 15, 2007,

THE APPEAL

Appellants: The Valley Village Resident's Association with Representative Tom

Paterson, and Magnolia Tree Villas Homeowner Association with SandyHubbard and Chuck Tennin.

The appellant submitted the following statements:

"In approval of tract and related MND and abuse of administration and not supported byevidence an failure to identify all environmental impacts and required mitigations asstated in 9 pages plus exhibits attached hereto,"

The primary appellant, Mr. Tom Patterson, submitted a nine-page letter with anattached Exhibit "A" which is a supplemental statement from Sandy Hubbard, andadditional thirteen Exhibits showing maps and documents associated with the project.The letters and statements in the appeal document commonly focus on adequacy oftraffic mitigation and drainage on Magnolia Boulevard. Please see the full appealdocument for complete comments.

Staff's response:

Based on the review of the appellants' submittals, neighbors' letters, and publictestimonies in the hearing, Planning staff found that interested parties previously hadconcerns over two issues; traffic and the loss of affordable rental units, The tract mapwas suspended for eight months pending the results of the traffic study, and many of

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 67012-1A (APPEAL STAFF REPORT)Page 7

existing tenants have relocated. A new community concern is over the adequacy ofdrainage issue. The appellant indicated that there is a storm drain capacity deficiencywithin the Magnolia corridor. It floods when it rains, and which could be hazardouscombined with additional vehicular trip in the area,

Drainage Mitigation

The Bureau of Engineering was informed about the neighborhood's complaint offlooding along Magnolia Boulevard, but found no outstanding drainage issue. TheBureau added Condition Nos. 2,5 and S3(i) in the tract decision requiring a sewerimprovement based on the existing capacity review, and the submittal of a hydrauliccalculation with a drainage plan. The Planning staff has spoken to Mr. Lawrence Hsu atStormwater Division of the Bureau of Engineering in regards to the drainage capacityalong Magnolia Boulevard. The Division stated that the Bureau has proposed toupgrade the storm drain facility along Magnolia Boulevard. However, the timeline forthe Magnolia upgrade is unknown since the Bureau assigns all upgrade projects with"prioritization points", and the point prioritization for Magnolia upgrade is 67 points,which means the drain capacity is not significantly deficient. The current publicinfrastructure is able to accommodate the existing apartment development as well asthe proposed condominium development.

Traffic Mitigation

On May 1, 2007, Sergio Valdez, Transportation Engineer from the Department ofTransportation was present at the public hearing. He provided a detailed analysis onthe results of the traffic study. The Department answered the following questions askedby the opposition and the Council Office NO.2:

Why is not Radford Avenue a part of the traffic study?Why is not there a traffic signal proposed at the intersection of Ben Avenue andMagnolia Boulevard?

Why did not the Department of Transportation require an Environmental ImpactReport on traffc?Why Council Office No. 2's Motion on a traffc assessment of Magnolia Boulevardtogether would not affect the project?Why would not North Hollywood High School's increase in enrollment in Fall, 2007,affect the project?Why did the Department of Transportation approve an vehicular access off~.Aagno!ia Boulevâíd?

Radford Avenue - The Department of Transportation stated that the traffic study did notinclude the intersection of Radford Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard because theintersection is not a part of the project. No traffic will be entering or existing from any ofthe three projects onto Radford Avenue. The Department of Transportation only studiesintersections that the project would likely impact. The project traffic does affectMagnolia Boulevard, but the project traffic is unlikely to make a left or right turn intoRadford Avenue, therefore, the project traffic does not impact Radford Avenue.

)" iVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 67012-1A (APPEAL STAFF REPORT)

Page 8

Traffc SiGnal at the Intersection of Ben Avenue and MaGnolia Boulevard _ The result oftraffic analysis did not warrant a traffic signal at the intersection of Ben Avenue andMagnolia Boulevard. The amount of traffic volume at the intersection is not high enoughto qualify for a traffic signaL. This intersection is also too close to the intersection ofLaurel Canyon Boulevard and Magnolia Boulevard, where is two blocks away. Thereare specific guidelines that both the State of California and the City of Los Angeles haveestablished to regulate the traffic signal system. The City has modified its own "Manuelof Uniform Traffic Devises" to make it easier for an intersection to qualify for a trafficsignaL. But even using the criteria which was modified from the State, the intersection ofBen Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard did not qualify for a signaL.

Environmental Impact Report - An Environmental Impact Report is required only when aproject has an impact which cannot be mitigated. In this case, the increased vehiculartrips and associated traffic impacts can be mitigated through recommended measures.Therefore, no Environmental Impact Report is necessary, City Agencies must identifyan impact objectively by using the National and the State of California recognized

standards for traffic impact. By using the National and the State's standards, theintersection of Ben Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard was the only intersectiondetermined to have a traffic impact.

Council District Motion - The Department of Transportation approved a cumulative trafficanalysis for all three projects that looked at the increase in vehicular trips. The threeprojects will provide 197 new condominium units while replacing 87 apartment units andthree (3) single family dwellings. At the time, the Department was aware thatCouncil member Wendy Greuel introduced a Council Motion on March 16, 2007, askingthe Department of Transportation to undertake a comprehensive assessment of currenttraffic conditions along the Magnolia Boulevard corridor between Laurel CanyonBoulevard and Colfax Avenue, and to assess the projected impact of approved andpending projects on traffic conditions ef in the area, However, the motion would notaffect the project because the cumulative analysis would still be reviewed in the samemanner, In addition, the motion is not an Interim Control Ordinance to suspend

developments within the area, but rather a request to review the cumulative trafficimpact in the study area,

North Hollvwood HiGh School - The Department of Transportation was not aware thatNorth Hollywood High School planned to revert back to traditional enrollment from ayear-round system. This would increase the enrollment in the fall semester, 2007. TheDepartment of Transportation has not received any correspondence from the LosAngeles Unified School District in regards to the enro!lment. But LAUSD itself has toprepare an environmental assessment and recommend mitigation measures for anyimpacts it is creating, The Department of Transportation further stated that the trafficimpact identified by the State and City's traffic engineering standards still would notchange due to the increase of the school enrollment. Therefore, the result of the trafficanalysis would remain the same. In addition, the vehicular count for the cumulativetraffic study was conducted on a school day,

Left Turn Entrance and Exit - There are plenty of locations in the City where people aremaking left turns into their driveways or in and out from their properties, Therefore,

iVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 67012-1A (APPEAL STAFF REPORT)Page 9

making a left turn is not inherently a dangerous condition. It is more dangerous thanmaking a right turn, but danger is relevant to the condition existing at the time. If there

is an alley access for the project, the Department would always require that thevehicular access be off of the alley as a consistent policy. However, there is no alleyavailable for this project, so there must be an alternative vehicular access somewhere.

Street Dedication and Improvements - Both the Department of Transportation and theBureau of Engineering have required a five-foot street dedication and a three-foot streetwidening along Magnolia Boulevard to increase the half roadway width to 45 feet at theprojects' property frontages. The Bureau of Engineering has also included theCondition No. S3(i)b(1) for a ten-foot full-width concrete sidewalk with tree wells, Thenew street dedication, widening, and improvement will ensure better vehicular andpedestrian traffic flow and safety along Magnolia Boulevard.

Staff Recommendation:

In consideration of the foregoing, it is submitted that the Advisory Agency actedreasonably in disapproving Vesting Tentative Tract No. 67012. Therefore, staffrecommends that the decision of the Advisory Agency be sustained and the appeal bedenied.

Prepared by:

Jack ChiangCity Planner

¡VESTING TENTATIVE TRAL:T NO. 67012 (APPEAL STAFF REPOk jPage 10

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

The Planning Department has received a list of the construction mitigation conditionsfrom Los Angeles Unified School District on May 15, 2007, after the decision letter wasissued, The Planning staff recommends the City Planning Commission to add the

following conditions to the Commission determination.

1. Los Anqeles Unified School District - Imposed are environmental impact

concerns and mitigation measures necessary to address school traffic,pedestrian routes and transportation safety issues at North Hollywood HighSchool, Suitable arrangement for school bus access and pedestrian /trafficaccess shall be made with the respect to the followings:

a, Prior to construction, contact LAUSD Transportation Branch at (323) 342-

1400 regarding potential impact to school bus routes.

b. Maintain unrestricted access for school buses during construction.

c. Comply with provisions of the California Vehicle Code by requiringconstruction vehicles to stop when encountering school buses using redflashing lights,

d. Not endanger passenger safety or delay student drop-off or pickup due tochanges in traffc patterns, lane adjustments, altered bus stops, or trafficlights.

e. Maintain safety and convenient pedestrian routes to LAUSD schools

(LAUSD will provide school Pedestrian Route Maps upon your request).

f, Install appropriate traffic controls (signs and signals) to ensure pedestrian

and vehicular safety.

g. Not haul past affected school sites, except when school is not in session.

If that is infeasible, not haul during school arrival and dismissal times.

h, Not staging or parking of construction-related vehicles, including worker-

transport vehicles, adjacent to school sites.

i. Pmvide crossing guards when safety of students may be compromised by

construction-related activities at impacted school crossings.

j. Install barriers and/or fencing to secure construction equipment and site to

prevent trespassing, vandalism, and attractive nuisances.

k. Provide security patrols to minimize trespassing, vandalism, and short-cut

attractions,

~)229 ~a7-Tlaa-l-iê-i I 'r- I I ' '"'

,I I i

,i R3-1 I

l-esÎI

..._1 ,.I I 20.

J i I . I..I I C0 I

,:: COMlOl

C0 C0-0 Ie' ie .1 I~..

207 . ,

Ii

~ , 1 H

en..:zto-0

,. 038 1:5 0 !

2 i. 03 13 05-

12_.'-

4 ,

!CHOOL)--~--

L- ~ì 23PF-¡VL L\

i,

§ e "CO""1 "

c".o",

YVH71T'

37 , 4'

4.46-87 !OI

'2 II--- -43 II

I

I

e i

R3~liI

I

I

I

"

..--f. ~C..""'' .~

YO._I

CooOO.

MAGNOUA .

~0"1- 2B11'Z 290 291

o

"'H 51

I:OIO~210JOIO!~6 287_~~J!?Q..m---i.nJ-i

VESTING TENTA TIVE TRACT NO 67012

Ii.. .T!-(MA aRTHfRS

Pu, ~62 Gn' G2CASE NO

\"-0111' "'C~P'"O "..:0 2

.""0 CO"...""",, ~ :T 12:51.001'~9ArcriSI..s",JQIVon N'"",. C''''cr. 9' .O~

F"o", 18' BI 99/. ?¡¡g - F.. ,S' ~I 99 r.ws,WT 4,1 PORTION OF 3,6

TR 10891lrB 191-17

SClf I.'!OOPh 2ß.NORTH HOLLYWOO

USE.S /-IELD D,iO 171B16~

1718169~-'" C/ COTAC.YALE PARTNERS~,31O-B2B-2000

.J IBLVO.:=

DArt, 6'3 ~I 65'- a-':

~.I:i1B~I ;~: I.:' 0.'

j 1 I

SC

ALE

: 1"

= 3

0'.0

"o r-

-__

i'"

, i

,'"

"~ ......

.so'

II L ), I , 'I , I;

;1* REVISED

/V

ES

TIN

G T

EN

TA

TIV

E T

RA

CT

MA

PN

O.

6701

2

FO

R C

ON

OO

MIN

IUM

PU

RP

OS

ES

IN T

HE

U;-

Y C

F L

OS

AN

GE

'_E

S, C

OU

NT

Y O

F L

OS

AN

GE

LE

S, S

TA

TE

OF

CA

I ir

OR

NIA

'''.,

~Id"

sc'~

:

,¡i

;

P"rc

~ll

l_ni

'and

l~eS

ûulh

25fe

alof

LoI6

orT

raG

'NQ

.957

1 ra

=rd

oOi"B

"",iB

fi,P

agas

8and

9Df

Map

s: a

nd Ih

e E

a.1

J te

eT D

flh~

Sou

lh25

feel

"fL

ol3

of Tra

r: N

o. 1

0891

rew

rded

In B

oo!:

191

P~

9. '7

"(M

op,

"'''.

P.rc

el2

LC

'4 u

l-r.

ci N

o, ~

a891

, reC

"rde

a I"

tJO

OK

191

, Pag

e 17

OrM

"ps

".N

oies

'

!L

OT

/1Pr

opo,

.aPr

ojec

l78

.yni

l.3..t

oiyr

e.id

enll.

ICO

Mom

iniu

mpr

ojeo

IWiln

2par

lings

p.ca

.per

un

lland

'I

gues

t'p

ac~

per

unj

l.SI

," .C

Ore

.s: ,

193

~ 11

1S27

-1 1

935)

W. M

~gno

lla 8

oule

vard

, Val

ley

Vill

ag~,

CA

916

01Z

onin

y: E

'''liri

g~R

3_1

/I R

4-1.

Pr

opse

d *

Sam

eA

ll u,

c",in

g.tl\

ctuf

es

are

lO b

e re

mav

ed.

Tf.

.,T

M.,e

are

M "

pral

ec'.e

d" tr

ee.

on s

lle. T

M.,.

ar.1

0"nO

~-P

rate

cied

"lfee

'12"

mgr

eate

rIn

dia

met

er. A

ll 10

tree

...11

1 be

rem

aved

.6 n,.'itehasal%do..n..afd.lap"iOII..aulheast

7 Sa

rilla

f)s.

..era

nd

athe

r pu

tillc

utllU

esa"

, av

alls

tile

B Ba..donayailati.ZIMASreCOrdSlh.srt.I..ha..ntobeinaLiquatactlanAr3

* 9.

Are

a;N

"lít'

aelb

arO

er):

62,5

75sq

.n.(

1.4~

6aq

Nai

lane

rS-n

.iree

tded

icaU

on¡:

6i,5

75'Q

.il.P

.413

ac.)

Dar

i.lly

Cal

~ N

et a

fter

ded

l""t

lo~

6i,5

75 s

Q.~

. (R

~~3f

i.575

sq.

n./B

OO

= 4

5 un

ll.)

(R4~

25.0

00 s

q. n

./400

~ 6

2 un

i'il

Tol

alun

ilspl

l1te

dMl0

7

Cau

rtõr

d':

.e~

"'--~

'L ~

_ _

_

PRO

POSE

D7B

-UN

IT,J

~TO

RY

RE

SID

EN

TIA

LC

ON

DO

MIN

lUM

PRO

JEC

TO

VE

¡t-

'SUeTERRA~EAN PARKINiiCARAGEI ~ .'

I 'W ¡;; z :~

'" I .

~-F"

~2, M

AG

NO

LIA

--r-

-~:

.'"

o De~ntes GQS Meter

-. Trof';cSi'-n

o Woter Yalve

Eie

vlliQ

nFin

i.hed

S"rl

ace

Dia

mel

er

. .'..

Gra

ss (

10 5

1. C

l-: 7

0,57

5 sQ

. ~,(

1.62

0 ac

.)1~

Tho

ma.

Gui

delo

oalia

n: P

age

5fi2

" G

rid G

2D

lsl!

1ol M

ap N

o,: 1

71B

165

Cen

sus

Tra

OIN

o.: i

2S1.

00C

ounO

IIO

r.tn

cIN

a.'C

D2-

Cou

ncll.

.om

anW

endy

Gfe

~el

CO

mm

uniI

yPI"

nA,e

a:N

or.h

HO

lIyw

oDd_

Val

leyv

illag

aSp

ecif

ic P

I"n:

Val

le~

Vill

age

Ass

essc

r'. P

arce

tNum

bors

: 2~4

8--0

9--2

6 1\

031

11 M

ap l~

fDrm

allo

n "n

o..~

her

.o~

Is b

a.ed

on

an A

rchr

eOlu

ral ,

urv.

~ pe

rfor

red

by C

ailla

rnia

L-"n

d S

a""lc

e., I

ncl~

200

512

Ttie

hei

ghl 0

1 :h

. bu'

k!ln

~ w

ill b

e 35

n p

lus

a po

~lon

at 3

9.5

~ 10

pro

vlde

for

sam

e sl

opin

gro

ofli-

e13

The

~"'.

. are

, olth

a bU

lldln

g.ls

app

ra.lm

aiel

y 12

~,5

00 S

Q.~

. exc

lLdl

nlig

,,,9'

*i4. R.'i.edrnaploshow5-l.tr..ldooic.l;on

Soc,

",

. W~ ~

, I ~ ,0 ~

s;; ~; I ~

Q - ~"

"'--

-". .

,-"

..

Eno

inE

er:

YA

LE

PA

RT

NE

RS

LT

Dii5

-Yal

e$lr

eel,S

uite

115a

~ta

Mon

ica,

CA

904

03Ph

'(10)

B28

_200

0F" (~iO)828_2100

Ol'm

e'IS

ulid

OY

lder

1193

3 M

AG

NO

UA

VE

NT

UR

ES,

LL

CG

!aSC

liaff

oIO

.yel

opm

enIC

a..ln

c15

23~

Bur

bank

Blv

d, 5

uile

CV

ari N

cys.

CA

91~

11p~

(S

~ IJ

) 78

7.27

71Fx

;i81S

)7B

7-02

55

2'G

u".,

,¡,

-,,_

_ _

~l.

,B

OU

LE

VA

RD

-T'-

"

SIT

E V

ICIN

ITY

MA

P Sc

ale:

1"-i

ooO

'

I i I I I

I-i r-

=i

- -

-- -

--

- -

- --

, - -

- ~

- -

- --

- -

- -

---

L-

L-

L-

: L-

L.

BUILDING SPRINKLERED THRU-OUT r-==

~~

'~ r

----

----

---i

L:_J ~! L~

R3-

1

PR

OP

OS

ED

3 S

TO

RY

78

UN

ITA

PA

RT

ME

NT

BU

ILD

ING

TYPE V - 1 H.~. CONST OVER

SU8TTERRANEAN PARKING

GA

RA

GE

TY

PE I

CO

NST

.

~-l

L- I

4--

I :1 II i 0 I i 1 I : p i II

i I '

i __ I

¡: - -_L- . -- . :

. ___

____

~~=

--

II_~

_' i

_--

_I L

I , I , I , I ! I

f--

-, ,

I : ,

I :

L .'

,- ,

-I: i r-

-'

oI i I i

1;J --i

SITE: PLAN

.,

0,

0,

OPE

NC

0 u

~ 1

Y A

R 0

,O

PfN

, ,,

,

L-.

~!I

.

ii0

, , , I ,

R4-

1

-+-

, ,

~I , ,

'''"'1

1 , ,

l II

i "

I : IIo 0

'" I

I,.

c: I

: ii~

T-,

- ' .

.I~

'": i' i i'~

, ' i 0

: 1 I

i ( I ii

i : II

J ~

iiW

"-l_

__~

II--

f

L

ZO

NE

R4-

1

CD

" R

T y

~ R

D 1_-:

~ ~, ,

KA

MR

AN

T A

BR

IZI

&~~

S.oç

im~

_HU

...,_

""¡"

')--

~ "lI g.i e'~

uell!

I!ll'

UL

LL

'L'ia

- ""'-i1

l-~ ~- ClJI.lI .-..i

l....

¡JII

Ml:8

l4lJ ~

Ii

,-,

sc

"ozo,"

ro,""

~,~""~

o:;

'III'

:L ~

I,l¡

'"

~!~~ij

I,",'.",

¡

""'"",~,

¡ill!, i,i,ii i~; i"I ~" ,

¡¡¡i- J11¡ ~f2~~,i. 111_0,","liêi ~l ~QÑ~pl!g ~ ~:;""z_1'~ ~ =t;R"o "ui

DEPARTMENT OF

CITY PLANNING200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 525lOSANG¡US, CA 90012A801

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

JANE ELLISON USHERPRESIDENT

ANDRES F. IRlANDOVICE-PRESIDENT

DIEGO CARDOSOREGINA M. FREER

ROBIN R. HUGHESSABRINA KAY

FR. SPENCER T. KEllOSWILLIAM ROSCHENMICHAEL K. WOO

GABRIELE WILLAMSCOMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTAi' 1

(213)978"1300

_~iITY OF Los ANGELL.;-CALIFORNIA

EXECUTIVE OFFICES

S, GAil GOLDBERG, AICPDIRECTOR

(213) 978-1271

GORDON B. HAMil TON

ANTONIO R. VILLARAICOSAMAYOR

DlPUTYDIRECTOR

(213) 978-1272

ROBERT H. SUTTONDfPUTYDIREUOR

(213) 978-1274

FAX: (213) 978-1275

INFORMA TION

(213) 978-1270

www.lacity,orglPLN

Date: September 20, 2006

Deputy Advisory AgencyMarvin Braude Building6262 Van Nuys Blvd" Room 351Van Nuys, CA 91401

Re: CASE NO: Vesting Tentative Tract MapNo. 67012ADDRESS: 11933 (11927-11935) W.Magnolia BoulevardCOMMUNITY PLAN: North Hollywood _Valley Village

SPECIFIC PLAN: Valley VillageENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: ENV-2006-5007-MNDCouncil District: 2

PLANNING STAFF RESPONSE TO MND CONCERNS:

The Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-2006-5007-MND, prepared to addressenvironmental impacts relating to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 67012, andpublished on August 24, 2006, has received several comment letters from concernedparties within the 20-day comment period ending on August 13, 2006, The followingexplanations are in response to the comment letters received, and serve to furtheraddress the issues identified:

1. Land Use and Density: The proposed project site is planned Medium and High

Medium Residential with the corresponding R3 and R4 Zones. The project meetsthe density requirement of the designated R3 and R4 Zones.

The project requests the construction of a l8-unit residential condominium,

having demolished the existing 51 apartments currently existing on the site. Theproject is located in the North Hollywood - Valley Village Community Plan andthe Valley Village Specific Plan. The Community Plan designates the site forMedium and High Medium Residential land use with the corresponding zones OfR3 and R4, The R3 Zone allows for one dwelling unit per 800 square feet of lotarea andR4 Zone allows one dwelling unit per 400 square feet of lot area. Thetotal lot area of the project site being 1.436 net acres, a total of more than 100

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYEROQRoydatiarxridefrmiirecdccwas:e. U_10

CEQA NO, ENV-2006-5007-MNDPAGE 2

units would be allowed by right on the project site under the existing plan andzoning. However, the project request is 78 units. The project will increase thehousing stock in the area and provide home ownership opportunity in consistentwith the North Hollywood - Valley Village Community Plan objectives.

2. ParkinQ: The project proposes a total of 195 subterranean parking spaces.

The project proposes 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents, for a totalof 156 spaces; and a Yi parking space per dwelling unit for guests, for a total of39 spaces for guests. The project, therefore, will provide a combined total of 195subterranean parking spaces. The proposed parking meets the parkingrequirement of the Advisory Agency and the Department of Building and Safety.This will also satisfy the parking requirement of the Valley Village Specific Planfor multi-family developments, Therefore, the project should not generate anystreet parking on Magnolia or any other surrounding streets.

The City is encouraging an increase of public transportation rider-ship as a futuregoal. The project site is in clòse proximity to the Orange Line.

3. Traffic: Review by the Department of Transportation (DOT) concluded that the

net increase of trips generated daily is less than significant.

The project site is currently developed with 51 apartments. The proposeddevelopment of 78-unit condominium will increase the number of units on the siteby 27 units. The Department of Transportation completed an Initial StudyAssessment Form (lSAF) for traffic impacts on July 6, 2006, which identified theincrease in trips generated from the existing 51-units to the proposed 78-unitbuilding, When completing the ISAF, the Department of Transportation looks atthe same seven questions that are listed in the Transportation/Circulation Section(Section XV) of the Initial Checklist of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. In thiscase, the net increase of 114 daily trips, including 8 AM Peak Hour and 9 PMPeak Hour trips, was considered less than significant and, as such, a traffic studywas not required.

However, in light of the other proposed condominium projects in the area, aspointed out by several comment letters, and the existing traffic condit¡ûns as wellas the street patterns in the area with one-lane in each direction with a left turnlane in the middle, the Advisory Agency could consider requiring that theDepartment of Transportation conduct a Traffc Study. This study should considerthe volumes of traffic generated by the existing and the proposed developments,on-street parking, posting of regulatory signs, left turns onto Magnolia traffic,installation of traffic lights, etc, and recommend potential mitigation measures todeal with the traffic related issues in this area.

CEQA NO. ENV-2006-5007-MNDPAGE 3

4. Street Wideninq:

The project is located on Magnolia Boulevard, a designated Secondary Highwayand is currently improved to 80/83-foot width at the project's street frontage. TheBureau of Engineering is requiring a 5-foot dedication along Magnolia adjoiningthe project site to complete a 45-foot wide half-right-of way dedication inaccordance with Secondary Highway Standards. In addition, the project will berequired to improve Magnolia with a concrete curb, a concrete gutter, and a 10-foot full-width concrete sidewalk with tree wells.

The recommended dedication and improvements will require the removal of theexisting street trees in front of the project site. However, they will be replaced, ona 1: 1 basis, with a minimum 24-inch box trees, The removal and the replacementof these trees will require approval from the Urban Forestry Division, Bureau ofPublic Works.

5. Loss of Affordable Rental Units:

Concerns regarding the change of use from rental units to ownership units areaddressed under the Ellis Act Government Code Section 7060 (a), which states,"No public entity, as defined in Section 811.2, shall, by statute, ordinance, orregulation, or by administrative action implementing any statute, ordinance orregulation, compel the owner' of any residential real property to offer, or tocontinue to offer, accommodations in the property for rent or lease." The Ellis Actis a state law that allows landlords to get out of the rental business and createunits for sale.

In addition, Section 15064 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)states that: "Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not betreated as significant effects on the environment." The loss of rent-stabilizedunits due to the construction of the proposed project would not create a directphysical impact to the environment, and should not be considered as suchaccording to CEQA guidelines,

6. Tenant Relocation Assistance:

Relocation Assistance is required to be provided by the applicant to those

affected by the loss of rental units currently located at the site. The PlanningDepartment requires that the applicant submit proof of relocation assistance inaccordance with Section 47,07 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, which

outlines the amount of relocation benefits required and when they are to beallocated,


The above relocation assistance is required to assistant the tenants affected andlessen the impact created by the change of use, the displacement of the currentoccupants, and to help offset the potential increase in rent they may experience.

The City Council has been looking into the issue of providing better protection fortenants who become displaced due to condominium conversion as well as thedemolition of existing rental units leading to the construction of newcondominiums. After conducting three joint HCED-PLUM hearings,Councilmembers Herb Wesson, Jr., Ed Reyes, Wendy Greuel, and BillRosendahl, in a letter, dated August 11, 2006, submitted their Response to JointHCED-PLUM Hearinq Relative to the Loss of Rental and Rent-Controlled Units toCondominium Conversion, Demolition, and New For-Sale Units in Los Anqeles,Amendment 06-1325-A, and recommended various policy matters to be studiedand resolved. One of recommendations in regard to the demolition of rental unitsis to require the applicant to develop a relocation assistance program in amanner consistent with Section 12.95.2G of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Atany rate, all matters are currently being studied.

It should be noted that the previous environmental mitigation measure requiringan applicant to "sell 15% of the new condominium units to moderate-incomehouseholds" was never implemented by the Housing Department due to the lackof funds. In July 2006, the Housing Department requested that the Department ofCity Planning remove this condition from their list of mitigation measures formitigated negative declaration.

7. Seweraqe:

There is an existing sewer available in Magnolia Boulevard adjoining the projectsite. The project will connect to the public sewer system and will not result inviolation of the California Water Code. The project will be required to pay thesewerage facilities charge prior to recordation of the final map over the entiretract in conformance with Section 64,11.2 of the Municipal Code,

8. School:

The North Hollywood High School is approximately 1,000 feet from the projectsite on the east on Magnolia Boulevard. The school is bounded by ChandlerBoulevard on the north, Colfax Avenue on the east, Magnolia Boulevard on thesouth, and multi-family dwellings on the west. The traffic flow on Magnolia

includes students/parents/staff going to the school particularly during the AMPeak Hour, However, the additional AM Peak Hour trip generated by theproposed project is only 8, as mentioned above under Traffic. Therefore, theimpact of the proposed project on area school should be insignificant.


However, in light of the comments received, and the concerns expressed, thePlanning staff recommends that the following mitigation measures be consideredby the Advisory Agency for inclusion to the proposed MND:

· The developer and contractor must maintain ongoing contact with theprincipal of North Hollywood Senior High SchooL. The administrativeoffices shall be contacted when demolition, grading and construction

activity begin on the project site so that students and their parents willknow when such activities are to occur. The developer must obtain schoolwalk and bus routes to the school from either the administrative offices orfrom the LAUSD's Transportation Branch (323-342-1400) and guaranteethat safe and convenient pedestrian and bus routes to the school be

maintained.

. The developer shall install appropriate traffc signs around the site toensure pedestrian and vehicle safety.

. Haul route scheduling shall be sequenced to minimize conflicts withpedestrians, school buses and cars at the arrival and dismissal times ofthe school day, Haul route trucks shall not be routed past the school

during periods when school is in session especially when students arearriving or departing from the campus.

. There shall be no staging or parking of construction vehicles, including

vehicles to transport workers on any of the streets adjacent to the schooL.

. Fences shall be constructed around the site to minimize trespassing,

vandalism, short-cut attractions and attractive nuisances.

The Planning Department staff recommends adoption of ENV-2006-5007-MND, with themodifications discussed above.

Prepared by:

rr1~o~V. - - v lAlam ChoudhuryCity Planning Associa e

FORM GEN. 160 (Rev. 6-80)CITY OF LOS ANGELES

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

October 13, 2006

FROM:

TO: Sergio ValdezDepartment of Transportation6262 Van Nuys Blvd.Van Nuys. CA 91401

Jack Chiang FDepartmentof City Planning6262 Van Nuys Blvd.Van Nuys, CA 91401

RE: REQUEST FOR A CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC STUDYCase Nos. &Project Locations: VTT-67012, ENV-2006-5007-MND

11933 (11927-11935) W. Magnolia Boulevard(78-Unit New Condominium)

VTT-65785, ENV-2006-6051-MND11945 - 11959 W. Magnolia Boulevard(97-Unit New Condominium)

TT-66949, ENV-2006-5910-MND5226 - 5238 N, Ben Avenue(22-Unit New Condominium)

It has been brought to the attention of the Department of City Planning that the above-referenced projects are located in a very close proximity to one another, and theDepartment is processing these projects at the same time. Under the circumstance, theenvironmental impact of these projects should be reviewed individually as well ascumulatively.

Therefore, the Department of City Planning requests the Department of Transportationto prepare a Cumulative Traffic Study for these three projects. The projects should beexamined together and any identified impact(s) need to be proportioned to eachindividual project.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please call (818) 374-5045.

JC: AC

CITY OF LOS ANGELESINTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

11927-11935 Magnolia BI., 11945-11959 Magnolia BI., 5226-5238 Ben Av.

DOT Case No. SFV-2006-173

Date: March 6, 2007

To: Mike Young, Associate Zoning Administ¡.atorDepartment of City Planning ( --

From: Sergio D. Valdez, Tr sportation Engineer

Department of Transportation

Subject: CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR THREE PROPOSED CONDOMINUMPROJECTS NEAR INTERSECTION OF MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD AND BEN AVENUE

VTT-65785, VTT-67012, TT-66949 (EXPEDITED PLANNING CASES)

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has completed the cumulative traffic assessment for the threeproposed condominium projects located at 11927-11935 Magnolia Boulevard, 11945-11959 MagnoliaBoulevard, and 5226-5238 Ben Avenue, at the intersection of Ben Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard inValley Village. This traffic assessment is based on a traffic study prepared by Hirsch/Green TransportationConsulting, Inc. submitted on January 24, 2007. After careful review of the pertinent data, DOT hasdetermined that the traffc study, as revised, adequately describes the project related traffic impacts of theproposed development.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

The three proposed projects consist of a total of 197 new condominiums. These sites are presentlyoccupied by three single family homes and 87 apartment homes. The proposed project will generate 486new daily trips, 37 new a.m. peak hour trips and 40 new p.m. peak hour trips, as shown in Table 1 below.The trip generation estimates are based on formulas published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers

(ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.

The traffic study was revised by recalculating the existing and projected volume-to-capacity (vIe) ratios andlevels of service (LOS) at the study intersections after making the following changes:

. Hourly volumes producing the highest v/c values for cumulative bases were used, which did not

necessarily coincide with the highest peak hour volumes.

. The related projects calcuations were revised to reflect that the NoHo Commons Phase Ii residentialcomponent was completed prior to the time the traffic counts were taken, and some of the relatedprojects' distributions were changed to more accuracUy reflect pmjected usage of Ihe roadway system.

The traffic study reviewed six intersections for traffic impacts.

DOT's policy on significant transportation impact thresholds is summarized in Table 2. DOT hasdetermined that the proposed project will have a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Ben Avenueand Magnolia Boulevard as shown in Table 3, which is a summary of the volume-to-capacity ratios andlevels of service at the study intersections. The Department of Transportation recommends that thefollowing Project Requirements be adopted as conditions of project approval in order to mitigate theproject's traffic impact to less than significant levels.

Mike Young 2 March 6, 2007

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

A. Signal System Upgrades: Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) with AdaptiveTraffic Control Systems (ATCS)

The intersection of Ben Avenue and Magnolia Bouelvard will be mitigated to a less-than-significantlevel by widening Magnolia Boulevard as specified below and restriping to provide a westbound rightturn lane approach to Ben Avenue.

B. Highway Dedications and Improvements

1. Magnolia Boulevard is a designated Secondary Highway in the Streets and Highways Element of

the City's General Plan, and consists of a 40-foot half roadway on a 32-foot half right-of-way.Standard Plan S-470-0, effective November 10, 1999, dictates that the standard cross section fora Secondary Highway is a 35-foot half-roadway on a 45-foot half right-of-way. A five-footdedication and a three foot widening is required to bring the adjacent frontage of Magnolia

Boulevard up to the standard required by the General Plan.

2. Ben Avenue is a designated Local Street in the General Plan, and consists of a 18-foot halfroadway on a 3D-foot half right-of-way. Standard Plan S-470-0 dictates that the standard crosssection of a Local Street is a 18-foot half roadway on a 30-foot half right-of-way. No furtherimprovements to this street are required.

The applicant should contact the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) to determine exact dedication andwidening standards and to ensure compliance of these requirements of the municipal code. Theapplicant should contact BOE to determine any other required street improvements.

All required street improvements shall be guaranteed through the B-permit process of BOE before theissuance of any building permit for this project. These measures shall be completed to the satisfactionof DOT and BOE prior to the issuance of i! certificate of occupancy.

C. Site Access and Internal Circulation

This determination does not include final approval of the project's driveways, internal circulation, andparking scheme. However, the following general comments do apply:

1. No access to the 11945-11959 Magnolia project shall be allowed from Magnolia Bouevard,

unless exception is given by DOT.

2. All driveways shall be designed in accordance with BOE Standard Plan S-440-3, and shall be

designed using case 2, unless exception is given by DOT or BOE.

3. All two-way driveways shall be 30 feet wide, exclusive of side slopes.

4. To minimize conflict between vehicles using adjoining driveways, a minimum of 50-feet of full-height curb shall be provided between all proposed driveways.

5. To avoid vehicles encroaching onto the public right-of-way, a minimum 20-foot reservoir space

(distance between property iine and first parking stall) shall be provided at all ingress drivewaysfor iots containing up to 100 spaces, and a minimum 40-foot reservoir space shall be provided atall ingress driveways for lots containing 101 to 300 spaces.

Final DOT approval shall be obtained prior to issuance of any building permits. This should beaccomplished by submitting a detailed site and/or driveway plan, at a scale of at least 1" = 40', to DOT'sValley Development Review Section at 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 320, Van Nuys, 91401, prior tosubmittal of building plans for plan check to the Department of Building and Safety.

If you have any questions, you may contact me or Ken Aitchison of my staff at (818) 374-4699.

V:\Project Foldcrs\San Fernando Valleylmag11933 SFV-06-173 (Cumulative Condo Study)\SFV-06-173 L TA (Cumuiative Condo Sludy).doc


c: Second Council District

Bill Shao, DOT East Valley DistrictTim Conger, DOT Geometric DesignEdmond Yew, BOE Land Development GroupMike Walters, BOE Valley DistrictRon Hirsch, Hirsch/Green Transportation Consulting, Inc.Gary Schaffel, Schaffel Development Co., Inc.11933 Magnolia Ventures, LLC11 Magnolia, LLC

Table 1: Project Trip Generation Estimates

Daily AM. Peak Hour P.M. Peak HourNotes Use Description Size Unit Trips In Out Total In Out Total

Prooosed develooments:---._----.----._- '--- -------------ITE 230 Condominium/townhouse197 Dwlling Units 1,154 15 72 87 68 34 102

Less 10% transit reduction: 10% (111) 0 (7) (7) (7) (3) (10)Total new proposed trips: 1,043 15 65 80 61 31 92

Existina develooments:

.1--.ITE 210 Single family detached housing 3 Dwlling Units 29 0 2 2 2 1 3ITE 220 Apartments 87 Dwlling Units 585 9 35 44 35 19 54

Less 10% transit reduction 10% (57) 0 (3) (3) (3) (2) (5)Total existing trips: 557 9 34 43 34 18 52

Net cumulative project trips: 486 6 31 37 27 13 40

V:\Project FolderslSan Fernando Valleylmag11933 SFV-06-173 (Cumulative Condo Study)\SFV-06-173 LTA (Cumulõitive Condo Study).doc


Table 2: Significant Transportation Impact Thresholds

Level of

ServiceProjected future Volume to Capacity

Ratio (vIe), including Project Project-Related Impact (A vIe)

C

D

between 0,701 and 0,800

between 0,801 and 0,900

?: 0,901

?: 0,040

?: 0,020

?: 0,010E, F

Table 3: Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios (vie) and Levels of Service (LOS)

Year 2006 Year 200X Year 200X Projec Year 200X withIntersecion Peak Existing without Projec with Projec Impact mitigationHourvIe LOS vIe LOS vIe LOS A vIe vIe A vIe

Laurel Canyon 81 & AM 0,811 D 0,894 D 0,895 0 0,001 --- ---Chandler 81

PM 0.648 B 0.718 C 0,719 C 0,001 -- ---

Ben Av & AM 0.487 A 0,549 A 0,551 A 0.002 -- ---Chandler 81

PM 0,348 A 0.403 A 0.405 A 0,002 --- _h

Laurel Canyon BI & AM 0,612 B 0,658 8 0,658 B 0,000 --- ---Weddington Av

PM 0,521 A 0.564 A 0,567 A 0,003 --- ---

Laurel Canyon BI & AM 1.23 F 1.266 F 1.271 F 0,005 --- ---Magnolia 81

PM 0,987 E 1.40 F 1.41 F 0,001 --- ---

Ben Av & AM 0,748 C 0.881 D 0,895 D 0,014 0,895 0.014Magnolia 81 *

PM 0.727 C 0.882 D 0,903 E 0,021 0,860 -0,022Colfax Av & AM 1.001 F 1.75 F 1.75 F 0.000 --- ---Magnolia 81

PM 1.014 F 1.95 F 1.95 F 0,000 -- ---

Cumulative Condominium Study11927-11935 Magnolia BI., 11945-11959 Magnolia BI., 5226-5238 Ben Av,

*Significantly impacted intersection

V:\Project Folders\San Forrando Valleylmag11933 SFV-06-173 (Cumulative Condo Sludy)\SFV-06-173 LTA (Cumulative Condo StudY).doc

(4/3DI2007)Jack Chiang-:Re- Phone V;~~ge 42l 0'7 Re:Proposed StorrÌwater P - - ~~nWMagnòl1,,slvdiri Valle2~-1----- ---- - - - -- - - ¡-~-~- -~--~ -- -- --~-- -

From:To:Date:Subject:in Valley VillageAttachments:

Lawrence Hsu

Sprague, Lora

4/30/2007 12:21 PM

Re: Phone Message 4 27 07 Re: Proposed Stormwater Project on W Magnolia Blvd

Magnolia - Lemp to Tujunga Wash SD.pdf

cc:Hi Lara,

Chiang, Jack

Per Chuck Tennin's request, attached is the project iisting from the City's Flood Control CIP Project Prioritization System. Astorm drain project is proposed on Magnoiia between Lemp and the Tujunga Wash,

Jack Chiang: Mr. Tennin requested that I copy you on this emaii.

Please let me know if you have questions or require more information.

Thanks,Lariy

Lariy Hsu I City of LA, Engineering-Stormwater I direct:213.485.4S62 I fax:213.485.4838 I email: iawrence.hsui9LACity.org

""" Lora Sprague aiisaq21rovahoo.com" 4/30/20077:27 AM """

Mr. Hsu,

Please see the attached letter from Chuck Tennin.

Thank you.

Do You Yahool?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around1;LmilioQSoni

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS - BUREAU OF ENGINEERING _ STORM DRAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Project Prioritization System - Detailed Information SheetPrepared by: Flood Control Advanced Planning Section Contact Lawrence Hsu (213) 4854562 oiLawrence.Hsui§lacity_org;.- ---__m______ _______Project Title Magnolía Boulevard - Lemp Ave to TUjunga Wash

lead Agency City of LA Current Status Proposed ProjectEstimated Cost $246,500

Work OrderEng. District

Council District

Project Area

--~------~_._--Valley

2 5

Drainage Map

Thomas Guide428

562 H2

Right-ot-Way Unknown

ROW Cost---------- -- -. -- -----._---- ------Total Prioritization Points

Description and JustificationConstruct a storm dr-ain in Magnolia 81 betweeri Lernp Av and Tujunga Wash.

Necessary to remOVG storm runoff from a major City stroel anti to eliminate dan1ägc to highiy developed residentialproperty. Priority Classification "Needed."

Additional Comments: Reference Drainage Complaint: 1 9960130-V-04, 19930729-V-01

- - -- --------- --- -- - -- --- - ---Project Detail Sheet for: Magnolia Boulevard. Lemp Ave to Tujunga WashProject Description Last Updated: 9/6/2002 Prioritization Points Last Updated: 12/14/2000

- - - ---- --- - -- -- ---- -Page 1 of 3

Printed On 4/27/2007

page 1 of3CITY OF LOS ANGELES

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

MASTER APPEAL FORM

APPEAL TO THE: l- 11/I Ç'é.U: CÇ P J. rv N ) NC c. /Y Íl 15 S I () ¡J

REGARDING CASE NO.: Víí" L 7 6/2. 0:N V ~ ¿ÓO? - 5cJO '7 -M NÖ '-I((:C (

This application is to be used for any authorized appeals of discretionary actions administered by thePlanning Department. Appeals must be delivered in person with the following information filled out and bein accordance with the Municipal Code. A copy of the action being appeled must be included. If the

appellant is the original applicant, a copy of the receipt must also be included.

APPELLANT INFORMATION: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY

Name illE l/,ALLLY V¡u./fG6 R6C:1/)!-p)r-5 /lq;OC. (., f¥

Mailing Address 5"3~C¡-¥- VlìWíAGt: i/ALLt \4 V I2-L/)(;~, (-f" AZip: '1/ hó 7Work Phone: ( 8'1'( )761 - i.;¡7 Home Phone: (8Ig) 7 be; -.1),: 5" '7

a) Are you or do you repres~e original applicant?(Circie One) YES ~Are you filng to support t~glnal applicant's position?

(Circle One) YES ~Are you filing for yourse~alf of other parties, an organization or company?

(Circle One) SELF ~If "other" please state the name of the person(s), organization or company (print cleariy or type)

~.a ..i""'''..,:...,

"l".,.,

b)

c)

d)

~ANJ:Y HUßB.A~h, CHUCK iE;/IN!1;/J IIAh!VÓL/11T.f€. é Vi LLA ~ H6m¿ (J/AflcR 4:6c/(ir/() ~

REPRESENTATIVE

Name ~O/r PkféRsDrV H: Vf¿LbY 1J11-l)Gt fY/Urv;;As!0( h flLMailingAddress 530(9- 4- V f!N7'A('1- Avé. if~VIiLL Y" Vi LLAG. ~ ~

. Zip a / /;ó 7workPhone:(m) tbq -1li751 HomePhone:(8'!?) 7I,Q-'Jd51

APPEAL INFORMATIONA complete copy of the decision leller is necessary to determine the final date to appeal, under whatauthorizing legislation, and what, if any, additional malerials are needed to fie the appeaL.

Appeals to the City Council from a determination on a Tentative Tract (IT or VTT) by the City(Area) Planning Commission must be filed within 10 days of the writtn determination of theCommission.

Finai Date to Appeal: fJf) V :15 ¿;Qò7,

REASONS FOR APPEALINGpage 2 of3

Are you appealing the entire decision or part of tt? .

~Entire 0 Part

Indicate: 1) How you are aggneved by the decision; and 2) Why do you believe the decision-maker erredor abused their discretion? If you are not appealing the whole determination, please explain and

specifcally identify which part of the determination you are appealing.

Attach additional sheets if necessary.

/) A'PRDVAL. of TÆ.l\GT hN'ß R,.lL.t'b :;"1 l)

AN AèVC,e oF rf i:J)VN (STRATi DAf ¥ NGo, ~'T6.b:¡' 6.VI Ncb S1 FA/LtJR.6 I:)l)C..AlTIFy flu. ENlJf2oNIJAL /IhPAC(-C 9tf2é. /Jilmn/t:ffrfll)lVC; fl ~TA7r:.À IN 9 pAÇ~ NJJC, É.xfl)¡;IP;;:I7CHC.~ II~ -rZJ

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

. Original receipt required to calculate 85% filing fee from original applicants.

. Original applicants must pay mailing fees to BTC and submit copy of receipt.

. Any additional Information or materials required for filing an appeal must be provided in

accordance wih the LAMC regulations as specified in the original determination leller. A CQI?Y. of J)

the determination/decision letr is required. ftn A c.-l 6b 0lP'f ò F ÆT. L T" ß

. Acceptance of a complete and timely appeal is based upon successful completion andexamination of all the required information.

. Seven copies and the original appel are required. 4 í í rJ c -H ê.l:

I certify that the statements contained in this application are complete and true:

Appellant lCN fl(-:fS;: -rd2 l/Uf-Y Væ'~ '

Rp;-HC; /i'£:;cxI--N é.:- AL_~ (Ja.~ ~OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Receipt No :2C-:4-9R' Amount 772'360 Date ;5b9-¿Y;7

Application Received ~ 'Application Deemed compiete/ ¿)

í ;7,.eterminationCopies provided:

o Receipt (original

applicant only)

Determination Authority Notified (if necessary) 0

CP-7769 (09/19/06)

page 3 of3

June 10, 1996

TO: Public CountersZoning Administrators

FROM: Robert Janovici

SUBJECT: REJECnON OF IMPROPER APPEALS

The Municipal Code provides that an appeal from a Zoning Administrator's action must "..set" forthspecifcally the points at issue, the reasons for the appeal, and wherein the appellant believes there wasan error or abuse of discretion by the Zoning Administrator".

it has historically been the City's policy to be liberal when viewing appeals and determining whether theymet the requisite minimum threshold. However, a review of the requirements seems appropriate at thistime. Recently, i dismissed an appeal which by its terms cleariy was based upon a personal disputebetween two adjoining property owners and having nothing to do with the historic, current or prospectiveuse of the property which was the subjec of the original application.

i am requesting that all appeals be reviewed upon submital in detail to ensure that the prospectiveappellants indicate clearly how they are personally aggrieved (impacted) by the underlying action andwherein the Zoning Administrator errd or abused discretion. Staff should never wrie out language for anindivdual nor give advice as to the possible outcome of an appeal or underlying action. If there is anissue in a particular case as to whether an appeal is properly filled out, contact me directly. If i amunavailable, contact the Administrator who is liaison to the counter.

Persons asking questions about appeals should be advised not to wait unti the last minute to do so _ inthe event they are unexpectedly late due to traffc or other reasons, no exceptions will be made. Ukewise,no leeway wil be given due to themail.private delivery service or other source not delivering the appealon time. As such, prospective appellants should be stronqlv urged to file the appeals personally.

RJ:lmc

."

THE VAi:EY VILLAGE RESIDENT'S ASSO\;IATION

5329-4 Vantage AvenueValley Vilage, CA 91607

tpaters(gaol.com

May 21, 2007

City of Los AngelesCity Planning CommissionLos Angeles City Hall200 North Spring Street

Los Angeles CA 90012

Members of the Planning Commission:

~ Re: Appeals of Advisory Agency tract map case decisions on:

(1) Mid block: 76 condos VTT No. 67012, 11933 (11927-11935) Magnolia Blvd., Valley VilageCA. 91607ENV-2007-5007-MND-RECL. Decision dated May 15, 2007. Appeal period ends May 25,2007

Note: The applicant failed to fie for a ZA determination (an appealable determination) to join thedensity of the two zones on the site into and to waive the required setbacks at the middle of thecombined sites. The Municipal Code required zoning change requirement has not been addressedin the May 15 decision, except as noted on Page 22 therein and therefore we believe the decisionof May 15 is legally defective.

Further, under Section (a) Page 22, the report makes an inaccurate and misleading statement thatthe project could build more units than sought in the application. Both projects are subject to theheight restrctions of the Valley Vilage Specific Plan which limits the number of units thatmaybe permitted under zoning, absence an approved exception to the Specific Plan. Noexception request was fied and there has been no determination as to the exact number of unitsthe Plan wil permit.

There are no "by right" multi family projects permtted in Valley Vilage since all are subject to aSpecific Plan Compliance Determination, yet to be issued (also an appealable process) .

(2) Corner site next doorto (1): 97 condos: VTT or TT No. 65785, 11945-11959 Magnolia Blvd.,

Valley Vilage CA 91607.ENV -2006-6051-MN-RECL. Decision dated May 10, 2007. Appeal period ends May 25.Related Case: ZA-2006-6084 (ZV) (ZAA) See discussion under (1).

i INTRODUCTON:

Separate appeals have been filed for each of the above cited cases on behalf of The Valley VilageResident's Association, representing Chuck Tennan and Sandy Hubbard, aggreved residents, and the

Magnolia Tree Vilas Homeowners Association, Separate commentar from Ms, Hubbard is attachedherewith as EXIT NO. A.

A copy of this document is being fied with each appeal as our supporting justification for each appealsince the legal issues are the same for each case, These projects are adjacent to each other and anAdvisory Agency determnation was made at a September, 2006 hearing to require a cumulative trafcimpact assessment for both projects.

We ask that both cases be docketed for hearing concurrently on the same date. We ask that you denyapproval, for reasons to be subsequently discussed herein, or in the alternative, to delay a determationon both projects pending completion of a full cumulative EIR of the identifed environmental impacts anda determnation of feasible mitigations,

THE SUPERIOR COURT HAS SPOKEN ON THE DODGING OF AN EIR.

The City is apparently driving the engine on the condo building boom express through its handling ofthese expedited cases. The City appears determined to not delay approval of expedited condo cases giventhe higher processing fees required and the need to increase city revenues through construction fees andpropert tax increases. Due process suffers when the City ignores evidence that requires EIRs that would

be able to impose appropriate mitigations, or consider project alternatives, such as preservation andrestoration of existing affordable housing.

The recent Beverly Connection lawsuit is an example of the tactics and the degree to which the City willuse its authority to attempt to avoid an EIR review of projecs, We have reviewed that case record andlegal arguments, and find many similarties to the issues, in paricular, trafc, that we have raised in theproceedigs of these two tract cases. You may not be aware that the Superior Court ordered the City toprepare an EIR for that project.

A litigation record, or the use of other legal options, can open the legal process of discovery, and webelieve wil show there is and has been a City approval pattern by its condo case handling, that hasabused the MN process in recent years on most of condo application cases processed in recent years.One of the consequences is the loss of substantial existing affordable housing by encouraging the filingof these condo applications by speculators in order to remove rent controlled housing.

Aggreved parties have been denied due process rights through a pattern of piece meal tract map caseprocessing, using boiler plate language and approvals, designed to circumvent CEQA EIR requirements,and to in turn ensure that every project presented for approval is approved irespective of environmentalimpact evidence and EIR requirements.

A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports â "fair aïgùfIient'l ihat aproposed project "MAY" have a significant effect on the environment. Pub. Res, Code Section 21 100,21 i 51 and No Oil Inc. v. City of Los Angeles. The fair argument test is a "low threshold" test forrequiring the preparation of an EIR. Various cour decisions have stated that "Where the question is thesuffciency of the evidence to support a fair argument, deference to the agency's determination is notappropriate, "

We ask you to stop the "expedited" express and order a cumulative Em for these two projectsbefore you take action on the Advisory Agency determinations.

2

"

i BACKGROUND:

Originally 3 tract map cases were scheduled for the Advisory Agency hearng in September, 2006. Theabove cited cases, and Case No. TT 66949, 5226.34.38 Ben, a proposed 22 unt condo, immediately northof the 97 unit project proposed under VTT 65785. For some unexplained reason, Case 66949 wassubsequently processed separately afer the Advisory Agency determined that project trafc impactsshould be addressed as par of a this 3 project cumulative trafc impact study.

The hearngs in September, 2006 generated substantial public comment and controversy regarding traffcimpact and trafc safety issues, and identified other environmental issues not adequately identifed oraddressed in the MNs. VV was unable to obtain a tape of the September, 2006 hearing. For someunexplained reason, the hearng was not tape recorded by the City or the City lost the tape.

The staf reports for both cases make minimal reference to public comment, and therefore misleads theCommission reader into believing neither project generated much public controversy.

As the consequence of the controversy generated over the failure of the MNs to acknowledge or addressmany of the trafc issues raised at the September hearing, the Advisory Agency hearing offcer advisedthat the hearings for both cases would be continued to a future date. He took testimony from someresidents that were present, and ordered the applicants to do a cumulative trafc impact study. Obviouslythe hearing examiner believed there was suffcient evidence to order a traffc study so why didn't he ordera full EIR?

That action we believe constituted an abuse of administrative discretion since the evidence on trafc

impacts presented in September justified the requirement for a full ErR not a just a trafc study.

A full EIR would have required a public scoping process that would have allowed residents toidentify, not only specific traffc impacts and other environmental impacts and appropriatemitigations, but identify and require consideration of project alternatives.

I SCOPING THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS:

There was no "scoping" since no EIR was ordered.

I GEOGRAPHY AND TRAFFIC CONSTRAINTS

EXHIIT NO.1 details the traffc flow/trafc pattern constraints/restrictions within the geographicalarea between Magnolia and Chandler and Laurel Canyon and Colfax, Magnolia Blvd. between LaurelCanyon and Coifax is substandard in width and has only one traffc flow lane in each direction in spite ofthat street being the community connector route to the Hollywood Freeway. NOHO High School, a 3,000student site, is located approximately 500 ft east of these projects with a vehicle parking lot entrance atMagnolia and Morella Avenue.

Public testimony was given at both the September, 2006 and the May, 2007 hearings, identirying traffcimpacts and trafc safety as significant environmental impact issues given the site settings for theseproposed projects,

3

The Orange Line, two blocks north of Magnolia Blvd, constrains trafc flow because all of the streetsrunnng north/south for two blocks beteen Magnolia and Chandler Blvds., and east/west between

Laurel Canyon and Colfax for a distance of 6 blocks, are blocked by the Orange Line at Chandler, twoblocks north of Magnolia Blvd, The consequence is that trafc flow within that rectangle isgeographically constrained. Both the major intersections at each end of this geographical rectangle,Colfax and Laurel Canyon at Magnolia have already reached or will reach the worst trafc impactthresholds, "F" classifications.

Magnolia is a feeder street from the Hollywood Freeway to the westbound Ventua Freeway since there isno westbound Hollywood to Ventura freeway connection, Magnolia is used as a Ventura Freeway routeto avoid exiting the Hollywood Freeway at Riverside Drive and getting delayed at Riverside and LaurelCanyon, a left turn arow intersection. The consequence is a constant pea hours flow of traffcwestbound on Magnolia, never identified I the City DOT study for mitigation at Ben with a trafc light.Because the trafc light at Ben presents other issues, an EIR should have been required to identify thoseissues and possible mitigations.

The map also indicates that the interior street Weddington, narrows from 60 ft. to 30 ft. width at the Benintersection, and dead ends into a cui de sac at the NHO High School boundary. Radford, southboundfrom Weddington, within that rectangle, is only improved to 32 ft. width,

Exiting Weddington at Laurel Canyon represents serious traffc safety issues not identified or addressed inthe City March DOT review. There is no painted crosswalk at Weddingtonfaurel Canyon across LaurelCanyon because of unsafe traffc flow conditions. The Country School, a private school, is located at thesouthwest corner of the intersection.

During the AM peak hours, southbound Laurel Canyon resembles a freeway of trafc. Turnng left

southbound from Weddington is dangerous due to the flow of southbound traffc particularly duringmorning peak hours. In the PM peak hours turnng of any kind from Weddington is usually blocked dueto northbound traffc backup on Laurel Canyon as the consequence of the 5 light signaling at the OrangeLine crossing. Should there be a light there? Not studied,

The consequences of multiple pending construction, including the i 50 unit adaptive reuse project atChandler and Ben, two blocks north, within this rectangle, and this substandard interior street networkwithin the rectangle of the sites of the proposed projects, creates significant traffc flow issues notaddressed in the March City DOT study. Public testimony was given at both the September and Mayhearngs regarding the frequency of traffc accidents at the Radford! Magnolia intersection yet it was notacknowledged or included in the City trafc review.

I THE TRAFFIC STUDIES:

The recirculated MN, unnumbered page, EXHIIT NO. lA acknowledges potentially significantimpacts from traffc flow conditions identified during the September public comment period. However,for example, in the recirculated MN for TT 65785, it merely requires frontage dedication and a rightturn lane designation at Ben, and ignores other trafc impact issues identified in public comments,

There is no discussion in the City DOT study about left turns which are the more significant safety issueat both projects, no discussion about area trafc flow issues and mitigations within the above describedgeographical rectangle, no discussion about the narow exit road from that rectangle at Radford, no

4

discussion about need for a light at Radford, and most significantly no explanation how only a dedicationand right turn at Ben mitigates all the trafc safety issues identified at prior hearngs.

In September, 2006, the Advisory Agency issued an order for a trafc study. Eventually a complex

applicant funded trafc assessment multi page document was submitted to the City on Januar, i 7, 2007.EXHIT NO.2 is a copy of the cover page of that trafc study. The last paragraph summarizes theconclusion that no trafc related mitigation is waranted. A self serving and absurd conclusion after allthe testimony regarding traffc issues at the September, 2006 hearing.

On March 6, 2007, a City DOT Trafc Engineer issued a report based on a review of

the Januarapplicant trafc assessment and reached a different conclusion; that there were trafc impacts andmitigation was required. But the City was careful to not find that a full EIR was required in spite of thesubstantial testimony ( evidence) presented at the September, 2006 hearing.

EXHIT NO.3 reproduces Page No. i of City DOT analysis of the January traffc report.

Your attention is called to the confusing language under Discussion and Findings.Reference is made to DOT's policy on significant transportation thresholds shown in Table 2.There is no explanation what those thresholds are, how they were arrived at, and theirenvironmental significance related to these two projects. There is no layman language explanationof the meaning and significance of DOT data detailed in Table No.2, EXHIIT NO.4.

The City erred in failing to require that the intersections of Radford Avenue, a collector streetfor the residential area south of Magnolia, and Morella, the street intersection and entrance toparking facilities ofNOHO High be included in the trafc study. Both intersections are locatedbeteen Laurel Canyon and Colfax. There is no explanation from City DOT why thesesignificant impact intersections were not included in the traffc impact study.

The City DOT March 6 analysis does not meet the legal threshold of significant evidence andcannot be used as a basis to conclude there are no significant trafc issues because the documentlacks clarity and explanation about how conclusions were reached. It grants i 0% trip credits forpublic transportation but without an explanation for the basis for a i 0% trp credit. There is noexplanation about why it was necessary to revise. the data that was in the applicant's traffcstudy. There is no confation in the City DOT study that the applicant's trafc studiescomplied with the LA DOT March, 2002 Traffc Study Policy and Procedures, EXHIIT NO.5.

Traffc flow on Magnolia is constrained by the fact it is one trafc lane in each direction. Turning leftonto Magnolia from either the Schaffel project at i i 933 or the Temple project at the Ben comer presentsserious trafc safety issues because east turnng traffc is required to cross a westbound single lanegenerally clogged with westbound trafc in both the morning and evening rush hours. Magnolia is theonly street access within Valley Vilage and west, to and from the Hollywood Freeway east of

these sites.

Are trafc lights needed, not only at Ben but also Radford? What will added trafc lights do to the flowof traffc on Magnolia? How will additional trafc lights at Ben and Radford at Magnolia impact thesingle family neighborhood south of Magnolia that lacks parkways and sidewalks. Those residents usethe streets as sidewalks. None of these issues are identified or discussed in the trafc studies prepared forthese projects. These are significant environmental safety issues for the neighborhood and need tobe addressed in a EIR,

5

i LAUSD - NORTH HOLLYWOOD HIGH SCHOOL

THEMNS IGNORED STUENT SAFETY ISSUES RESULTING FROM PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION.Most significantly, LAUSD was apparently never contacted by tbe City and asked to identifyenvironmental impact issues and concerns for either of these projects, nor were any environmentalimpacts on the school addressed in either MN. The recirculated MN, dated April 18, 2007, anunnumbered page, SECTION XI PUBLIC SERVICES, EXHIT NO, 6 acknowledges potentiallysignificant impact on the school but they are not identified. The MN then alleges but fails to explain,how mitigation that is required but unidentified, will be satisfied by the payment of "fees," Is LAUSD topay for the construction of "bridge" baricades along the MagnoIía construction sites even though nonewere required in either MN? The proximity of the 3,000 student high school nearby the project sitesisn't even acknowledged.

Both project sites front on the north side of MagnoIía Blvd which is a primary walkway for studentsattending NOHO High, approximately 500 ft. east of these proposed projects and located on the north sideof Magnolia, Many students arve by Laurel Canyon Blvd. buses and use this walkway route. Studentsarve by bus during peak trafc flow hours and wíI pass both sites during construction hours and a

lengthy construction cycle. Neither MN addresses how student safety will be ensured duringconstruction and what construction mitigations are needed to ensure student safety. An EIR is needed toaddress these concerns.

EXHIT NO. 6A, a letter dated July 14, 2006 from the Deputy Advisory Agency advising variousdeparments that because this is a vesting tentative tract, no additional requirements (mitigations) can beplaced upon the project once the Advisory Agency has issued her letter of decision. This letter raisesmany new issues regarding deferred mitigation and required future approvals such as a specific plancompliance or later mitigations to address impacts on the high school students.

For these reason alone. there should be no action to aoorove either oroject until a more comorehensiveElR. includine a scooinE! orocess. is ordered to address these substantial student safetv issue eiven theschooloroximitv to these ootentiti construction sites. The failure bv the Citv to include and involveLAUSD in the environmental review is a major leE!al error and justifies reauirine a cumulative imoactElK

I INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

EXHIT NO.7 is, a statement submitted by Chuck Tennan, an affected resident, at the May i, 2007continued hearing, wherein he details his discussion with the Assistant Principal at NOHO High.

!VIT. rennan also did his owll personal Iraffc flow count, EXHIBIT NO.8, which shows substantiallygreater traffc flow than the developer ordered trafc study. There are now 3 differing data reports on

trafc impacts. Which one factually and accurately reflects current and future conditions?

i STORM DRAIN/FLOODING ISSUES

At the May hearing, Mr. Tennan introduced evidence provided and confirmed by the City, included in theMay public record, indicating that there is a storm drain CAPACITY deficiency within the MagnoIíacorridor, confirming issues raised by resident testimony regarding street flooding and drainage backups.

6

Both MNs fail to assess the adequacy öfthe eitsting storm drain system, and based on informationsubmitted by Mr. Tennan at the May hearing, there is a need through an EIR process to determne thescope of the storm drainage problem and how it afects both projects and the neighborhood in general.

i CONSTRUCTON CONGESTION ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED

These are massive multi projects, more than doubling the density of eitsting adjacent multi familydevelopments. EXHIIT NO.9 details the surrounding multi family density. There wil be longconstruction timeframes, massive amounts of dir removed, many dump truck trips required on aconstrained roadway system, much construction equipment and staging of equipment required, workmanneeding parking and no requirement for a staging of construction and a logistics plan to address all ofthese interrelated construction impact issues. , None of these impacts were properly identified andaddressed with appropriate mitigation in either MN,

i KEPT IN A DESK DRAWER.

Varous environmental issues were raised by VV (Valley Village Resident's Association) in ourSeptember, 2006 MN response and they have not been acknowledged nor addressed in subsequentPlanning staf reports. For example, safety issues with adjacent and concurrent site excavations, firedeparment access to the projects since the plot plans fail to show suffcient above ground side yardclearances to allow fire truck access the rear of both projects. .

EXHfflT NO. 10 is a copy of the VV response in September, 2006 to the MNs issued for bothproject, and that were not acknowledged nor addressed in the subsequent Planning Department staffreports.

What VVR learned in conversation with the Planning staff just prior to the May, 2007 hearing whilereviewing the case fies, was that the VV September, 2006 MN comments were kept in thesupervisor fie and never forwarded to the Planning staff for comment in the subsequent staf reports.Had VV not inspected the case fies at that late date we never would have know our comments werenot in the files, nor were they responded to in the staff reports.

The subsequent staff reports therefore are defective, misleading, and deny us due process becausethey fail to address the environmental impact issues raised by VV in September, 2006. Youcannot certify defective MN docnments. EXHIIT NO. 10 provides you the evidence of the MNissues VVR raised and that are not addressed in the subsequent staff

reports on both projects.

We previously requested City action to require a full EIR cumulative impact study for the 15 projectspending and approved within the 1500 feet radius of the Laurel Canyon Orange Line station.Councilmember Greuel has been unresponsive to this request. Meanwhile projects continue to beapproved in piece meal fashion, a violation of CEQA. Yet another 3 I unit condo project has just beenproposed within the previously described rectangle.

We asked for your assistance last November, EXHIIT NO. 11. In that letter VV called for acomprehensive cumulative environmental impact assessment for all projects within 1500 feet of

theLaurel Canyon Orange Line station last year. Both of the projects before you are located within thatstation radius impact area,

7

I COUNCILMEMBER GREUEL

SHE HAS INEPENDL Y ACKNOWELDGED TH NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVTRFFIC STUY.

EXHIT NO. 12 details a City Council motion approved after release of the City DOT March 6, 2007traffc analysis, She acknowledges concerns over an increase of trafc hazards in "ths already hazardousarea." A request was made by VVR to Planning Director Goldberg, EXHIIT NO. 13 to delay thehearings on both tracts pending completion of the study required by the Greuel motion, There was noresponse from the Planning Deparment and the hearings went forward.

i CONCLUSIONS:

· CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN, PART OFTHE GENERAL PLAN.

You cannot approve projects that are not consistent with the General Plan and the Valley Vilage SpecificPlan. There has been no determination that either project complies with the Valley Vilage SpecificPlan since no Specific Plan Compliance Determination letter has been issued for either project.It has not been determned that the 97 unit project, 4 floors of units, complies with the height limit of theSpecific Plan given that no other project built in Valley Vilage since the Plan was adopted in the 90s hasbeen able to build 4 floors of units and comply with the 36 feet height limit.

Further, the adjacent 78 unt project is seeking a height modification. There is no such thing permittedunder the Valley Village Specific Plan. A previous case involving a project on Laurel Canyon resulted ina Planning Determination that the 36 feet height limit is controllng in determining height and that shouldan exception be sought, the Code provides an "exception" process that should be followed.

Until that Compliance report is issued and it is not appealed, you canot make a "required" finding theseprojects comply with the Valley Village Specifc Plan, and therefore you canot approve the AdvisoryAgency actions. Because you cannot make that required finding at this time, you cannot approveeither project at this time.

Page 22 of the May 15 decision letter on VTT 67012 cites North Hollywoood Community Plan ObjectiveNo.3 as justification for a finding the projects are consistent with the NOHONalley Village CommunityPlan, The Plan calls "maximizing the opportnity for individual choice. Neither project wil provide formaximizing opportnities since they replace rent controlled one bedroom apartments and no singles orone bedroom units are proposed in the 97 unit project and only 3 one bedroom units in the 78 unit project.

There are no low or moderate income set asides in either project in spite of the de facto density bonus foradditional units resulting from the use of 800 sq. ft. per unit in the R3 zone, and 400 sq. ft. per unit in theR 4 zone, to determine the number of 1200 to 1600 sq. ft. units that can be built under the respectivezornng.

We believe the use of the 800 and 400 sq. ft criteria to determne buildable units is a violation of state lawauthorizing density bonuses only when low/moderate income seta sides are incorporated into the project.Not one of the 14 condo projects that wil contain over 500 condos, within 1500 feet of the transit station

8

identified in EXHIT NO. 11 provides afordable replacement housing, and that failure to provide, is inconflct with the Community Plan and State law.

We further believe these standards used to determne the number of buildable units on a lot arediscriminatory and in violation of federal law because the criteria encourages only the construction ofmulti bedroom units with larger square footage as for sale units, not afordable housing. These standardshave created an end run around the justification for "density" and state law that you get to increase densitywhen you also provide for low and moderate income set asides,

· DEFERRD MITIGATIONS

Both decision letters are replete with mitigations deferred to later determinations. See EXHmIT NO. 6A.You should have been briefed on the court findings and legal citations in a recent court decision based onapproval actions the Commission took in the Beverly Connection case. The law is clear that you cannotdefer determination of mitigation to a future date as proposed in these decision letters of May 10 and May15.

· EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A CUMMLATIV EIR

We believe, given the public evidence presented at the September, 2006 and the May, 2007 hearings thatas the lead agency in acting on the Advisory Agency recommendations, you must order of a fullcumulative impact EIR including both projects.

..

We further believe the record on these cases will show that the City contrived their assessment of multipleenvironmental issues including traffc issues, to avoid having to order a full EIR in violation of CEQA.

First we find there was no tape recording of the September, 2006 hearing where public testimonyidentified multiple environmental impact issues. Then in a May, 2007 a review of the case fie for VTT67012 VV notes a failure to include VV wrtten comments to the original MN, Thosecomments were submitted on September 12, 2006, EXHIIT NO. 10.

During discussion with the Planning staf person at that May, 2007 file review of Case No, 67012, theSeptember, 2006 hearing offcer appeared and confirmed he had my written comments in his fie not thecase file. I submitted a copy for the stafer fie but it was never acknowledged at the May, 2007 hearingnor addressed in the decision letter issued later. The VV September, 2006 MN comments werenever submitted to the Staff person who prepared the case report and as a consequence anyone reading thecase fie would never have known what EIR MN issues were first raised, and then never addressed inthe later staff report on these cases. This conduct is a major abuse of due process and administrativediscretion.

RespectfuIIy submitted,

Tom PatersonThe Valley Village Residents Association and forSandy Hubbard, Chuck Tennan, Magnolia Tree Vilas Homeowners AssociationCopies: Superintendent LAUSD,

Marlene Cantor, President LAUSD Board,Tamar Galatzan, Board Member 3rd DistrictCouncilmember Wendy GreuelNoel Weiss, Esq.

/1 ~d? (? d~rr

9

EXHIBIT A

Supplemental statement from SandyHubbard, Magnolia Blvd. resident andhomeowner.

-

May 21, 2007

City of Los AngelesCity Planning CommissionLos Angeles City Hall200 North Spring StreetLos Angeles CA 90012

Members of the Planning Commission:

Re: Appeals of Advisory Agency tract map case decisions on:

(1) Mid block: 76 condos VT No. 67012,11933 (11927-11935) Magnolia Blvd., ValleyVillage, CA. 91607

ENV-2007-5007-MND-REC1. Decision dated May 15, 2007. Appeal period ends May 25,2007(2) Corner site next door to (1): 97 condos: VT or IT No, 65785, 11945-11959 MagnoliaBlvd., Valley Vilage, CA 91607.

ENV -2006-6051-MND-REC1, Decision dated May 10, 2007, Appeal period ends May 25,Related Case: ZA-2006-6084 (ZV) (l) See discussion under (1).

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Sandy Hubbard. I'm a 7-year resident of Valley Vilage, and reside at 11911 MagnoliaBlvd., unit 10, immediately adjacent to the 3 projects under consideration.

I respectfully request that you deny approval for these projects. I believe the projects wil clearlycause a direct or indirect need to construct lower-income housing elsewhere in the city, sincemost tenants being displaced will not be able to find affordable rentals in the adjacent area, Thisshould be given a much more stringent look since no mitigation measure, other than tenantrelocation costs, was specified, I question the value of "space ownership," in lieu of "singie-familyhome" ownership, which is more the Amencan dream. By removing affordable apartments fromthe landscape, we are eliminating both the possibilty of intenm housing and permanent single-family homes, and requinng people to live in much greater density and proximity to each other.

Additionally, I request that no exception to the Valley Vilage master community plan be grantedfor project 67012 (a portion of the building to exceed the 36 foot height, 39,5 at tallest), sincethere is no existing requirement to force the exception, and no need to design it in at this stage.

in the event that you will not deny approval forthese projects, I submit that the studies of thecumuiative impacts to traffc, air quality, noise pollution, soil disruption, and recreation/aestheticsthat wil be experienced by the immediate and surrounding communities, by all of the projects thatare under consideration or have been approved, have not been adequately addressed by themitigated negative declaration or Findings of Fact, I have listed some of my concerns on the nextpage for this project and the 2 adjacent projects, and respectfully request that you address themwith additional mitigation measures:

Traffc/street parking:

(1) The traffc study did not incorporate any findings forthe Radford and Magnolia intersection

(nearest intersection to project). Traffc currently backs up from Laurel Canyon to Colfax duringmost parts of the day, and accidents regularly occur at that intersection. (My personal expenenceis that it takes several minutes to make a left-hand turn dunng the morning, or early evening,hours, and I have assisted many times in cleanng an accident to one side of the street and/orcalling emergency services,)

i

(2) The traffc study also did not add in any impacts to a building under construction on the

south side of Magnolia, one building west from the comer of Ben.(3) The traffc study did not take into account that North HOllywood High School is converting

from a year-round school to a traditional schedule in September. The parking lots at NHHS arenot suffcient now to accommodate student parking, and there's consistently an overfow ofparking along the side streets of Weddington, Magnolia and Radford.(4) According to the traffc study as submitted, the study showed that this project, and the 2adjacent projects under consideration, would generate approximately 486 new daily trips, but only77 of them would occur during either moming or evening rush hour. When would the other 409trips occur? It would appear that the math is wrong here.(5) The traffc study performed on December 28th, 2006 was performed at a peak holiday time,where residents did not incur their normal driving pattems. Additionaiiy, North Hollywood HighSchool was on winter break, with no traffc incurred by the schooL.(6) Therefore it is clear that the traffc study as performed was incomplete, as it did notincorporate studies during normal peak traffc hours, under normal traffc patterns, nor inclusive ofimmediate project-adjacent traffc-impacted intersections.

Now that all residents of the mid-block project have been evicted, a newly performed traffc studywil not be able to properly account for the residents at the mid-block project. i request thatadditional adjustments must be made to the traffc mitigations measures, including adjustments tothe Morella stoplight timing, in conjunction with the Laurel Canyon timing, and/or that a stop signor signal be implemented at Radford and/or Ben.

i additionally request that the guest parking be increased at each of these project sites, as 2parking spaces and .5 guest parking per unit wil not be suffcient parking for all residents of thisproject, especially to compensate for removal of street parking in front of the buildings.

Stormdrains/Sewers: A c; 1\ (0"(1) There are no stormdrains in the immediate area of Laurel Canyon and Magnolia, Al, Benand Radford. Every winter, we consistently experience water runoff over the curbs, andthroughout the major intersections (there's currently 2 pools of standing water on Weddington thatnever dry up). Allowing an additional 500 trips throughout this region will only continue to add tothe hazardous road conditions in this area.

Air Quality:

(1) Due to the massive size of dirt removal for all 3 projects on Magnolia/Ben, I'm unclear thatwetting the project down twice daily wil be suffcient as we move Into a very dry summer.(2) I request that SCAQMD regularly inspect the site to ensure that the air quality is withinsafety standards for the neighborhood, and implement more mitigation measures if necessary,

Sound/Noise Pollution:(1) Traffc on Magnolia has increased steadily for the past several years, The addition of 486new daily trips, from just these 3 projects under consideration, wil cause substantial noisepollution in traversing Magnolia.(2) The parking entrance to the new project is extremely close to the 11911 Magnolia facility,amplifying current noise patterns for parkjng,(3) Therefore, I request that a sound study be performed from the Magnolia frontage of 11911Magnolia for (1) 24-hour weekday for adequate sound-level readings. i especially request thatthis study be performed directly at the corner of Radford and Magnolia, since this is also a busstop.If there are findings of significance, i request that the developer provide installation of double-paned windows for the 11911 Magnolia residences that abut Magnolia Boulevard and those thatadjoin this project's property.(4) In reading the mitigation measures, I note that construction noise is to be kept to a minimumduring the daytime hours, so as to not impact North Hollywood HS,

2

There does not seem to be any allowance for reduction of noise that might impact homeownersretuming from work; I request that some provision be stated that the next-door neighbors can livewith, In addition to posting a phone number where a live person can answer any constructionproblems, is there a city contact that can be given in case the construction site does not respondpromptly to issues?

Soil disruption:(1) I'm gravely concemed about multiple subterranean parking structures being builtsimultaneously, and the impact to stabilty they might have to the remaining buildings along theeast and north of them.(2) Therefore, I request that the projects' construction phases be staged in such a way that oneis completed before the next one is allowed to commence,(3) Noting that the subterranean garage and retaining wall at 11911 Magnolia wil be extremelysusceptible to damage incurred by the scope of the project being considered, i request that thecontractor post a bond that wil cover any and all damages that might occur to the facility due tothe construction, and that the Homeowner's Association be given the proper information forprocessing claims Qf any). While the developer stated he has insurance to cover such problems,I'm concemed that there will be finger-pointing and a delay of properly resolving issues shouldany occur because of any of the new developments,

Recreation/Aesthetics:(1) There are no immediately adjacent parks to the project area, and many of us walk our dogsalong Magnolia, Ben, Weddington and Radford. The removal of the pleasant courtyard andlandscaped frontage from this project reduces the quality of life for us all.(2) i request that in lieu of the developers' funds going to a general Rec and Parks Trust Fund,a small park be developed in the local area-perhaps between projects VT-65785 and TT-66949 for use by the immediately impacted community.

General Question about granting an exception to the WL master Plan: If an exception to themaster plan is granted, who wil monitor any variance that the "less than 10%" project permitadjustment grants? In other words, the proposed height is exactly 10% over the allowable heightlimit. If the project is 11% over the allowable height limit, would the project owners have to re-apply for a different type of permit? Who wil enforce the absolute height limit.

In summary, the project's impact should be analyzed as cumulatively considerable, not onlybecause of the two next door projects, but because of all of the projects recently built or beingbum throughout WL-by my estimate over a thousand people have been added to our generalcommunity in the past 2 years. There should be an expectation of a huge increase in immediateand long-term noise, The massive increase in traffc wil cause substantial adverse effects directlyto the immediate neighborhood and indirectly to the community at large, Perhaps each of theseprojects individually wil not induce substantial population growth by itself, but cerainly the largercumulative impact of all the projects that have been approved or are under current considerationwiii cause a substantial population growth, and shift in the quality of life for Valley Village.

Therefore this project should not continue without additional mitigation measures for asustainable qualiy of life for the adjacent community.

Respectfully,

Sandy Hubbard11911 Magnolia Blvd., Unit 10Valley Vilage, CA 91607(w) 323/965-3785(h) 818/766-4948email: sandLhubbardi1sbcglobal.net

3

EXHIBIT NO.1

TH TOP MA WITH THE DOTS WITH THE SHAED CIRCLE INICATESVAROUS CONDO PROJECTS APPROVED OR PENDING SINCE 2005 WITHTHE 1500 FT. RAIUS OF THE LAURL CANON ORANGE LIN STATION.BOTH PROJECTS BEFORE YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AR LOCATED WITHTHT RAIUS ARA THIS ARA IS DISCUSSED IN MORE DETAI IN EXHITNO. 10.

-

TH MA BELOW IS A MA OUTLING TH VALLEY VILAGE COMMTYWITHI LOS ANGELES. TH CIRCLE ARA INICATES TH ARA WITHIWHCH BOTH PROJECTS AR LOCATED. TIS MA ALSO DETAIS THSTRET STRUTU AN THE LOCATION OF THE 3,000 STUENT NORTHHOLLYWOOD HIGH SCHOOL, IMDATEL Y EAST OF THESE PROPOSEDPROJECTS, WITH THT RECTANGLE AN WHCH WIL BE DISCUSSEDIN COMMNTARY AN EXHITS TO FOLLOW.

L i ..J-=).- ......;. ~l i J ;;~ ~,,\ ' ~~~,;~

j ~ !/ ~ ~ ~¿ ,¡I I ~~~ '" . ( .,,~ '" ,"21' , '

~~~' :","!¡:~;l 0- ~\( ~1y.,p)/,tiTóJ \ ~~.k:;í' 'L ',",.' '~n' ~ \~,~

\ r:~,. 'l' 'U)'U'P~ "i~ N? .. 't:.., ~ / ""' 1 A \l .Ofb b -~_~ ~~ 1P ~~~_.~ .7 i 'l~,~~ ,~~~_ ~ ,.¿,I ~'1.- .s l- 'ti;r.i ~ q; (\ If hi _ \\ ,"JlII.'/o1 ç¡ i III _ ~

\¡ì Vo l1A1r1 . ~ ~i ~ 1-: .~'_:i I . ~ I I! I.!"" ¡ ai i l i!'i~~~ -. ~i.J., I~\ l~.d".,~ itl~ 11 . ~i ~.~ ~ ~. .~ ~ ¡1 ~ \~ ,ll37UP/V' ~ CI7Y ~,I :-l i i

~ô ~l 1\jl cJ/1~t?~~~

ft ~Np ~7 ¡y

\ /. ,/

~

--~7NJ/ai-/, /d

-

1?,5

CMrJU-

\

i

i~\~~-i

l~~\'~I ~\\'C '.

.

. ;~

7::: r:~ -,!' . ¡:tS~i¡~. ",~

.~' ~

. .HW..u...... .....,..~. .... -~.J-ltJE

~'ll.~iJl:;¡

¡~!. flhl" I!Pli¡

.'~~N ~¡i~.tr~tm~ ~~i

1-- ¡'~i:J r1fr

'It ~I,',

i .~

l

1-II--

,~ :.'m~' 4.1~~~'. ~,:;l.i~.roJ ~;il,'~._.~,~ ~"""" ~

~;¡

.'

Ii!ï:~i;¡ ~1% "~~M:~:. tl ~~i$ .l:~*t:~ ~~H~ ~ '~.. ~'":"W;,¡¡J,;J!1i

~i' !I ~*;¡m;~~~~ ~r~¡i¡m11 r.:;¡, flRf.P,

.. m !~l., ~~f.!' lrI.1M II

",r, II¡¡ii¡ i

RIVERSIDE D:r:

~~ ~jLir.¡ii rti:-.

¡¡:~ E~!J HWjlJ-1 ·

-- .¡"":",¡,t;,,i"'lií'" b,lt~ 'i"ii,'i', ~,¡,~,' ,,,.¡, "',"" .

," .:¡t!Ml

%~¡

..

.."en..¡¡..

:;:~!:::~:!

~~--,- ~- I

~ !:."~;¡ii ~z~¡ ~-;~'f':

I.

~

EXHIBIT NO. lA

This comes from a recirculated MNDdated April 18, 2007, an undated page

Item no. XVaL. is the MN response tothe March, 2007 City DOT traffic studyreport.

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -ENV-2006-6051-MND

XII b1.

Xlle,

~XIVa.

(i N fA

XVlf.

XVlld.

. The following recommendations of the Fire Department relative to fire safety shall be incorporated Into the buildingplans, which includes the submittal of a plot plan for approval by the Fire Department either prior to the recordation ofa final map or the approval of a building permit. The plot plan shall include the following minimum design features:fire lanes, where required, shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width; all structures must be within 300 feet of anapproved fire hydrant, and entrances to any dweilng unit or guest room shall not be more than 150 feet in distancein horizontal travel from the edge of the roadway of an improved street or approved fire lane.

Public Services (Police General)Environmental Impacts may result from project Implementation due to the location of the project in an area having marginalpolice services. However, this potential Impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following measure:

. The plans shall incorporate the design guidelines relative to security, semi-public and private spaces, which may

include but not be limited to access control to building, secured parking facilties, walls/fences with key systems,well-iluminated public and semi-public space designed with a minimum of dead space to eliminate areas ofconcealment, location of toilet facilities or building entrances in high-foot traffc areas, and provision of security guardpatrol throughout the project site if needed. Please refer to Design Out Crime Guidelines: Crime Prevention ThroughEnvironmental Design published by the Los Angeles Police Department's Crime Prevention Section (located atParker Center, 150 N, Los Angeles Street, Room 818, Los Angeles, (213)485-3134. These measures shall beapproved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

P bile Services (Schools)nvlronmental impacts may resuit from project impiementation due to the location of the project in an area with insuffcient

school capacity, However, the potential Impact will be mitigated to a level of Insignificance by the following measure:

. The applicant shall pay school lees to the Los Angeles Unified School District to offset the impact of additional

student enrollment at schools serving the project area.Public Services (Street Improvements Not Required By DOT)Environmental impacts may result from projecl Implementation due to the deterioration of street quality from Increasedtraffc generation, However, the potential Impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following measure:

. The project shall comply with the Bureau of Engineering's requirements for street dedications and improvements that

will reduce traffc impacts in direct portion to those caused by the proposed project's Implementation.Recreation (Increase Demand For Parks Or Recreational Facilities)Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to insuffcient parks and/or recreational facilities,However, the potential impact will be mitigated by the following measure:

. Per Section 17. 12-A of the LA Municipal Code, the applicant shall pay the applicable Quimby fees for theconstruction of condominiums, or Recreation and Park fees for construction of apartment buildings.

Increased Vehicle Trips/CongestionAn adverse impact may result from the project's traffic generation. An Investigation and analysis conducted by theDepartment of Transportation has identified significant project-related traffc impacts which can be mitigated to anacceptable level by the following measure:

. Implementing measure(s) detailed in said Department's communication to the Planning Department dated March 6,

2007 and attached shall be complied with. Such report and mltilgation measures(s) are incorporated herin byreference.

Utilities (Solid Waste)Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the creation of additional solid waste. However, thispotential Impact will be mitigated to a level of Insignificance by the fOllDwing measure:

. Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling uf paper, metai, glass, and other

recyclable materiaL.

EndThe conditions Dutlined in this propDsed mitigated negative declaratiDn which are nDt already required by law shall berequired as cDndition(s) of approval by the decision-making bDdy except as noted Dn the face page Df this document.

. Therefore, it Is concluded that no significant impacts are apparent which might result from this project's

Implementation.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

EXHIBIT NO.2

Page 1 of the multi page traffic flowstudy submitted jointly by the developersfor both proposed projects.

Conclusions are discussed in the lastparagraph on the page.

l.IRSCHJ6REEN

E.-x H (75 ~,

Hirsch/Green Transporttion Consulting, Inc.578 Washingtn BouJevard, N360Marina del Rey, California 90292

January 17, 2007

Mr. Sergio ValdezValley Development Review SectionLos Angeles Department of Transportation6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Suite 320Van Nuys, California 91401

RE: Cumulative Traffc Impact Analysis for Three Proposed Residential CondominiumProjects at Magnolia Boulevard and Ben Avenue in the Valley Village Communityof the City of Los Angeles

De'ar Sergio,

This lelter documents the resuits of an analysis of the potential cumulative traffc impacts ofthree separate and unrelated new developments located at or near the intersection of Magnolia

. Boulevard and Ben Avenue in the Valley Village community of the City of Los Angeles. Theproposed projects are each under revie\/ by the. Planning Department, and individually do notgenerate suffcient traffc to warrant specific analyses by your Department. However, concernshave been raised by the community and the iocal Council Offce that these three deiielopmentsare in close proximity to each other, and could create cumulative traffc impacts at or near theirlocations. Therefore, pursuant to a meeting at your offces in early October of this year, wehave been retained by the developers of the three projects to examine the potential cumulativetraffc impacts of these developments. Please note, however, that as the projects are eachbeing reviewed under separate applications, this analysis is intended only as supplementalinformation specifically addressing the cumulative traffc impacts of the projects on the localstreet system and area intersections; no assessment regarding the operations of the individualsite access scenarios, adequacy of individual parking suppiies or internal circulation, or otheraspects of the three projects is included in this report. These items are assumed to beaddressed on an individual project basis through the review process fOí each project

To summarize the results of our analyses, the proposed projects will result in only nominal net

new traffc generation, and will not produce significant cumulative traffc impacts to the adjacentintersections or nearby roadway network, and therefore, no traffc-related mitigation is warranted

either for any of the individual developments, or for the combination of the three projects. Thesupporting cumulative traffc impact analysis, assumptions, procedures, and methodologies arediscussed in detail in the following sections of this document.

Marina del Rey Phone 310.237.5492 Fax 310.237,5643Santa Clarita Phone 310.237.5493 Fax 310.237.5641

EXHIBIT NO.3

Page 1 of the City DOT analysis of thedevelopers traffic study submitted to theCity in January, 2007.

..

"

CITY OF LOS ANGELESINTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

Date:

11927-11935 Magnolia BI., 11945-11959 Magnolia BI., 5226-5238 Ben Av,

DOT Case No. SFV-2006-173

March 6, 2007

To:

From:

Mike Young, Associate Zoning AdministJPtorDepartment of City Planning ( oSergio D. Valdez, Tr sportation Engineer

Department of Transportation

Subject: CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR THREE PROPOSED CONDOMINUMPROJECTS NEAR INTERSECTION OF MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD AND BEN AVENUE

VT-65785, VTT-67012, TT.66949 (EXPEDITED PLANNING CASES)

..

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has completed the cumulative traffc assessment for the threeproposed condominium projects located at 11.927-11935 Magnolia Boulevard, 11945-11959 MagnoliaBoulevard, and 5226-5238 Ben Avenue, at the intersection of Ben Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard inValley Village. This traffic assessment is based on a traffc study prepared by Hirsch/Green TransportationConsultin9, Inc. submitted on January 24, 2007. After careful review of the pertinent data, DOT hasdetermined that the traffc study, as revised, adequately describes the project related traffic impacts of theproposed development.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

The three proposed projects consist of a total of 197 new condominiums. These sites are presentlyoccupied by three single family homes and 87 apartment homes. The proposed project will generate 486new daily trips, 37 new a.m. peak hour trips and 40 new p.m. peak hour trips, as shown in Table 1 below.The trip generation estimates are based on formulas published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers

(ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.

The traffc study was revised by recalculating the existing and projected vaJume-to-capacity (vie) ratios andlevels of service (LOS) at the study intersections after making the fOllowing changes:

. Hourly volumes producing the highest v/c values for cumulative bases were used, which did not

necessarily coincide with the highest peak hour volumes.

. The related projects calcuations were revised to reflect that the NoHo Commons Phase ii residentialcomponent was completed prior to the time the traffic counts were taken, and some of the relatedprojects' distributions were changed to more accuract!y reflect píOjecied usage of the roadway system.

The traffic study reviewed six intersections for traffic impacts

DOT's policy on significant transportation impact threshoids is summarized in Table 2. DOT hasdetermined that the proposed project will have a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Ben Avenueand Magnolia Boulevard as shown in Table 3, which is a summary of the volume-to-capacity ratios andlevels of service at the study intersections.. The Department of Transportation recommends that thefollowing Project Requirements be adopted as conditions of project approval in order to mitigate theproject's traffic impact to less than significant levels.

EXHIBIT NO.4

TABLE 2 of the City DOT March, 2007analysis showing significant thresholdguidelines for traffic impacts but withoutany narrative explanantion.

"..Mike Young

4 ~ March 6, 2007Table 2: Significant Transportation Impact Thresholds

Level of

Service

C

D

Projected future Volume to CapacityRatio e vie), including Project

between 0.701 and 0,800

between 0,801 and 0.900

~ 0,901

Project-Related Impact eLl vie)

E, F

~ 0.040

~ 0.020

~ 0,010

Table 3: Summary of Volume to Capacity Ratios (vie) and Levels of Service (LOS)

-

Year 2006 Year 200X Year 200X Projec Year 200XwithIntersecion PeakExistng without Projec with Projec Impact mitigationHour

vie LOS vie LOS vie LOS Llvle vie Ll vieLaurel Canyon 81 & AM 0,811 D 0,894 D 0,895 D 0,001 --- ---Chandler 81

PM 0,648 8 0:718 C 0.719 C 0.001 -- ---Ben Av & AM 0.487 A 0,549 A 0,551 A 0.002 --- __Chandler 81

PM 0.348 A 0.403 A 0.405 A 0.002 --- ---Laurel Canyon 81 & AM 0.612 8 0.658 8 0.658 8 0,000 --- ---Weddington Av

PM 0.521 A 0.564 A 0.567 A 0,003 --- --.

AM 1.23 F 1.266 F 1.271 F 0,005Laurel Canyon 81 &

-- __Magnolia BIPM 0.987 E 1.40 F 1.141 F 0,001 --- ---

Ben Av & AM 0,748 C 0.881 D 0.895 D 0,014 0,895 0,014Magnolia BI *PM 0.727 C 0,882 D 0,903 E 0,021 0,860 -0,022

Colfax A v & AM 1.001 F 1.75 F 1.75 F 0,000 --- ---Magnolia BIPM 1.014 F 1.95 F 1.95 F 0,000 --- ---

Cumulative Condominium Study11927-11935 Magnolia BI., 11945-11959 Magnolia BI., 5226-5238 Ben Av.

*5ignificantly impacted Intersection

V:\ProJect FolderslSan Fernando Valleylmag11933 SFV.ü6.173 (Cumulative Condo StudY)\SFV-OS.173 LTA (Cumulative Condo Sludy),doc

-)

EXHIBIT NO.5

-

Cover page of the City DOT guidelinesfor traffic studies. Neither the developerstudy nor the City DOT study certifythese guidelines were followed indeveloping the traffic detail in thedeveloper study.

_C sLOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (LAD

or)TRAFFIC STUDY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Revised March 2002

,, The purpose of these pOlicies ?ncproèedures is to provide the public, private consu/tantsand City

staff with standards, guidelinès, objectives and criteria to be used in the preparation of a trafficstudy, A traffc study may be required of a development project (Project) due to environmental

lawor City regulations and its purpose is to predict and analyze the circulation and congestion impactsof project-generated traffic and identify feasible mitigation measures. In order to ensure a timelyreview by LADOT, the following procedures and standards shall be followed in the preparation ofa traffc study, It should be noted that these rèquirements will be updated from time to time and maydiffer in certain areas of the City which h'ave specific plans or ordinances. You are encouraged toconsult with LADOT staff before beginning a traffc study. See Attachment "A" for a iist of acronymsused in this document.

oiji'¿

. TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS ......................................... 1

B. SCOPING PROCESS .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . .. 2C. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) GUIDELINES. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .. 4D. TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS..............,...........,......,..... 5

E. MAPS. . . . , . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . , , . . . , . , . . . . . . , . . . , . , . , , . , . . ,. 6F. VOLUME/CAPACITY (VIC) CALCULATIONS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) , . , . ,. 7G. SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT............................,.... 10

H. MITIGATION MEASURES (FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS) .........,...,....,.., 11

i. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TOM) PROGRAM,.., ,.",."." 16J. RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (NTM) PROGRAM..., 17

K. ATTACHMENTS.,...".,...,...,..."....",..".,...",...,."...",.. 19

A. TRAFFIC STUDY REQUIREMENTS

LADOT shali do an initial assessment of the project to determine if a traffc study is required,Generally, a traffc study may be required if: '

1. The project is likely to add 500 or more daily trips or iikely to add 43 or more PM peak

hour trips and, . , 'TRAFFI-,WPD 0312Q02

'- )'

EXHIBIT NO.6

.

The recirculated MND dated April, 2007acknowledges potentially significantimpacts on the school but fails to identifythem or determine what mitigation isappropriate and dismisses the

significance by saying mitigation will beaccomplished by paying "fees."

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONENV-2006-6051-MND

XIII b1.

. The following recommendations of the Fire Department reiative. to fire safety shall be incorporated into the buildingplans, which inciudes the submittal of a plot plan for approval by the Fire Department either prior to the recordation ofa final map or the approval of a building permit. The plot plan shall include the following minimum design features:fire lanes, where required, shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width; all structures must be within 300 feet of anapproved fire hydrant, and entrances to any dwelling unit or guest room shall not be more than 150 feet in distancein horizontal travel from the edge of the roadway of an improved street or approved fire lane,

Public Services (Police General)Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the location of the project In an area having marginalpolice servIces, However, this potential impact will be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following measure:

. The plans shall incorporate the design guidelines relative to security, semi-public and private spaces, which may

include but not be limited to access control to building, secured parking facilities, walls/fences with key systems,well-iluminated public and semi-public space designed with a minimum of dead space to eliminate areas ofconceaiment, iocatlon of toiiet facilities or building entrances in high-foot traffc areas, and provision of security guardpatrol throughout the project site if needed. Please refer to Design Out Crime Guidelines: Crime Prevention ThroughEnvironmentai Design published by the Los Angeles Police Department's Crime Prevention Section (located atParker Center, 150 N. Los Angeies Street, Room 818, Los Angeles, (213)485-3134. These measures shall beapproved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits,P blic Services (Schools) .

nvironmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the location of the project in an area with insuffcientschool capacity. However, the potential impact wil be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following measure:

. The applicant shall pay schooi fees to the Los Angeles Unified School District to offset the impact of additional

studenl enrollment at schools serving the prpject area.Public Services (Street Improvements Not Required By DOT)Environmental impacts may result from project impiementation due to the deterioration of street quality from increasedtraffc generation. However, the potential Impact wiil be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the following measure:

. The project shail comply with the Bureau of Engineering's requirements for street dedications and improvements that

will reduce traffc impacts in direct poriion to those caused by the proposed project's implementation.Recreation (Increase Demand For Parks Or Recreational Facilities)Environmental impacts may result from project impiementation due to insuffcient parks and/or recreational facilities.However, the potential impact wil be mitigated by the following measure:. Per Section 17. 12-A of the LA Municipal Code, the applicant shail pay the applicable Quimby fees for the

construction of condominiums, or Recreation and Park fees for construction of apartment buildings.Increased Vehicle Trips/CongestionAn adverse impact may result from the project's traffic generation. An investigation and analysis conducted by theDepartment of Transportation has identified significant project-related traffc impacts which can be mitigated to anacceptable level by the following measure:

. Implementing measure(s) detailed in said Department's communication to the Planning Department dated March 6,

2007 and attached shall be complied with. Such report and mitiigation measures(s) are incorporated herln byreference.

Utilties (Solid Waste)Environmental impacts may result from project impiementation due to the creation of additional solid waste. However, thispotential impacf will be mitigated to a level of Insignificance by the foliowing measure:

. Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metai, giass, and other

recyclable materiaL.

EndThe conditions outlined in this proposed mitigated negative declaration which are not already required by law shail berequired as condition(s) of approvai by the decision-making body except as noted on the face page of this document.

. Therefore, it is concluded that no significant impacts are apparent which might result from this project's

implementation.

XII e.

..

XIVa.

61 r- fA

XVlf.

XVii d.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

TO:FROM:

RE:

Jack Chaing, PI, kng DeptChuck Tennin (c,-T 8) 984-0377 clisag21 êyahoö~~omTRAFFIC CONGESTION ON W. MAGNOLIA BLVD FROM NO. HOLLYWOOD HIGH SCHOOLTHAT WAS NOT MITIGATED OR INCLUDED IN THE INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC STUDYBY HIRSH GREEN January 17, 2007 THAT WAS CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER 28,2007ONE DAY CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THREE (3) PROPOSEDRESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS ON MAGNOLIA BLVD BETWEEN BEN AVE ANDRADFORD AVE IN VALLEY VILLAGE

DATE: APRIL 18, 2007 Hearing May 1, 2007

CONTRIBUTING TRAFFIC IMPACT & CONGESTION~Q~gQ~~~~QOD _ HIGg~~gQQ~_l~~~§~~§Q_§~~Q~~~§~~__

ARGUMENTS----------1. On Wednesday April 18, 2007 and on Monday April 23,2007 I spoke to

Mr. Stephen Foster, Assistant Principal at No. Hollywood High Schoollocated on Colfax and Magnolia Blvds regarding traffic impact and traffic

congestion from the High School, that would have an increase in trafficon W. Magnolia Blvd for parking, vehicle traffic, foot tra~t~c, adding tothis already traffic Congested street..

2. Mr. Foster stated that next year "TRADITIONAL" full enrollment would be ineffect from September 2007 through June 2008 for all kids (3200) that willbe in school at the same time, between 8A.M to 3: 10P.M

3. An increase of 700 more kids in school at the same time 8A.M to i:10P.M.tha t are ~iiesent1y enrolled, during these hours. (22 % increase)

4. Traffic conditions and congestion will be much worse on W. Magnolia Blvdand on Colfax, according to Mr. Foster.

S. There will be NO parking on W. Magnmlia Blvd, according to Mr. Foster

6. The recently installed Bicycle lane on Colfax has added extreme trafficcongestion and unsafe conditions, according to Mr. Foster.

7. Possible solution, Mr. Foster said Widen the street!

Mr. Foster said to me that you Can call him and ,he would talk to you regardin.this matter. You can reach him at (818) 769-8510 Ext 208. A copy of hisbusiness card that he gave to me is attached.

ref: Case # VTT~65785 Env-2006-6051MNDCase # VTT-67012 ENV-2006-5007MND-RECl

This argument should be included in councilmember Wendy Greuel~s.!!tJ.D_._#07-0820 for consideration and review. .

(I

mÙ"\rIE..O.sC""~.

'"110§l ..."0~.. ~..ßdio ,\,..

"I¡¡DOFEú\lv~

STEPHEN FOSTERAsSISTAN PRINCIPAL

~)

ID ANGEL UNIF ScHOOL DiSICTNORTH HOLLYWOOD HIGH SCHOOL

Iìni;iìlLE.'.llIl-; ~"';F:P'~ ¡;TE(818)7698Sio,~

FAX (81) 5(-7124_06."" 1...;r.ln..."i¡,l?""''~

5231COLFAXAVENUE

RpMKH 108'

-'

EXHIBIT NO. 6A

A letter from the City Advisory Agencydated July, 14, 2006 cautioning that

since a vesting tentative tract cases werefiled that no additional requirements, can

.. be placed upon the project once the

Advisory Agency has issued her letter ofapproval (absence any appeal).

DEPARTMENT OF

CITY PLANNING200 N. SPRING STREET, ROOM 525Los ANGELES, CA 90012.4801

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

JANE ELLISON USHERPRESIDENT

ANDRES F. IRlANDOVICE-PRESIDENT

DIEGO CARDOSOREGINA M. FREER

ROBIN R. HUGHESSAB RI NA KAY

FR. SPENCER T. KEZ10SWILLIAM ROSCHENMICHAEL K. WOO

.TY OF Los ANGEL~(CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE OFFICES

S. GAIL GOLDBERG, AICPDIRECTOR

(213) 978-1271

GORDON 8. HAMIL TONDEPUTY DIRECTOR

(213) 978-1272

ROBERT H. SUTTONDEPUTY DIRECTOR

(213) 978-1274

FAX: (213) 978-1275ANTONIO R. VILLARAICOSAMAYOR JNFORMATJON

(213) 978-1270ww.lacity.orglPlN

GABRIELE WILLIAMSCOMMISSION EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

(213) 978-1300

July 14, 2006

Project Type, No. ofVESTING TRACT NO. 65785

VESTINGTENTATNE TRACT NO. 65785REQUESTING A ONE LOT SUBDNISIONTO DEVELOP 97 NEW RESIDENTIACONDOS AN 2M PARG SPACES ONA 52,88 1 NET SQUAR FOOT LOT IN THER3-l AN R4-l ZONES. ALL EXISTINGSTRUCTURES, INCLUDtNGAPARTMENT BUILDINCNf ÂNDGARGES, TO BE DEMOLISHED,

Council Distrct No, 2Communty: North Hollywood-Valley VilageT.B.M,; 562 Grid: G2

Address: 11945-11955 Magnolia Blvd.

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

This is a vesting tentative tract map. Your attention is called to the fact that NQ additionalrequirements can be placed upon the project once the Advisory Agency has issued her letter ofdecision.

Please carefully review this case and contact the staff assigned to the proj ect with any comment youmight have as far ahead in advance of the hearng as possible.

t'fCv~D- c. 7J~s~~ iMAYA ZAlTZEVSKYDeputy Advisory Agency

MZ:jh

~ - AN-EqUAL -EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY - AFF~~~ATl¥~-A~~~. EMPl:OYER -r

,

EXHIBIT NO. 7

A statement submitted by Chuck T ennanan affected resident detailing adiscussion with the Assistant Principal atNorth Hollywood High School regardingthe proposed proj ects.

)

EXHIBIT NO. 8

A statement submitted by Chuck T ennan

at the May hearing detailing his personaltraffic flow study.

.,

, i~,"NDQ~§.TRE~~-'~rlf'F I i:_ FLO~§TUDr Q!U~-,_!'AG!TlJLI ~~~':Q

Case # VTT-65785 RNV-2006-6051MNDVTT-67012 ENV-2006-5007MND-REC1

TO:

FROM:

Jack Chaing, Planning

Chuck TenninRandom street trafficCanyon Blvd

Individual automobilerandom time periods.

RE;

DATE:

\ .

25

Dept

counts on W. Magnolia Blvd from Radford to Laurel

count on vehicle-traffic traveling westbound withinThese random studies were hand counted!

~~,"~~li:_,:~~i c~~_i:QUN~_l~~~t~~~~~l_Q~_~-,_ MA~~Q~l~_~~':Q_ *

Date T .!~"._~!_~~t

4/06/07 7AM to 9AM1 PM to 2PM3PM to 7PM

4/21/07 3PM to 5PM6PM to 8PM

4/07/07 3PM to 4PM4PM to 7PM

8AM to lOAM.. 4/20/07

4/19/07

4/19/073PM to 6PM

5PM to 7PM

4/22/07

4/05/07

4/10/07

6PM to 8PM

6PM to 8PM

7AM to 9AM8AM to NOON1 PM to 4PM4PM to 7PM

4/14/07

4/11/073/29/07

3/30/07

4/25/07

1 PM to 4PM

3PM to 7PM

6AM to 8: 30AM

7AM to 9AM

7AM to 9AM

~~t-~!-~~~.!~l~~_lE~~_~~~~t_lQ ~i~) Total vehicles~-------------858590

1020510

H2090

110 10801320

6580

130

39014401500

90 1620155 1860

95 1140

100 1200500475500400

10001425

15001200

98 1176o CUJ 1530

1575105

100 100075 900

* Hand counted visual estimates taken in front of 11927 Magnolia Blvd.(between Radford & Ben)

EXHIBIT NO. 9

A map detailing the size of multi familyproj ects on adj acent streets and showingsubstantially less density per site than theproposed projects.

'1--

ij,218 TO

--T

---'

Ci

II

II

"lU

1 1

:0a:

"23

9272 i 273 i 274

-ia:

o:. R

D1.

5-1

270

"I

YV

L 1

0580

~I

Irn

cpc-

1986

-446

P0

Ii

~~

'--1-

--1

~i

Iin

I~

in¡¡

2691

2701

271

,'š

'_ 0

Irn

1 I '

z rn

c:0

00

1 I '

- ,

~~

(§"l

~. 0

inI I

Ie

o z

ll10

0'I

I

.'1I

rn 0 U

60'

60'

I Irn

Z,

50'

0-- (§ -i i

0 uI I 1

I

i1

I

I1/

929

.A'N

WE

DD

ING

TO

N:i/

11

1

'"'0

N

WW

.~~.

~0 ~

1/94

0

275

U/I

;18

6~

~z

.~

00

èin

zZ

in~

.~

Gi

~ ¡¡

~rn

0. 0

'",

00

~rn

zz

00

~,

uu

""0 ,

0I

0R

3 -I

Ç-Z

9IZ

5N

O-7

8-35

7-5U

8Y

V -

847

5-Y

V I

II

CPC -~994-ZI1

I~

04

38 TO 64

~IS

rnR

DI.

5-1

YV

-29

----

uin

øi

657D

1061

I11

47a

213

u

'167

IB

LD

G.

II

3)5

2/2 c~~~~.

23

148

Ii

í;0

Irn

ø1

"R

3-1

rnI

i

'J:

00

N107 TO 146

in

'''20

62/

1rn

11

in

i;;C

PC-1

966-

loa-

GPC

i1

,'" in

ø20

7 2/

00

2912

5

~---

-II

''I ~

CNO-,79-749 -SUB

/49

I,

"'i

"2 ALLEY

AL

LE

Y--

---

iC C-J9ssI-446-ûPC

I,

0€I

ii

I

40C

ON

DO

MIN

IUM

S~

II

i

100'

II

R4

i~

I'S

I

60'

G60

'32

'u

II

~ I

i

,ii",

o;

-,,

EXHIBIT NO. 10

..

The VVRA response dated Sept. 12,2006 to the initial MNsfor each project and not addressed in thesubsequent staff reports and recirculatedMNs.

~

September 12, 2006

City of Los Angeles

Department of City PlanningLos Angel"" City HallRnom 7¿2:Jú North Spring StreetLos AnccJes CA 90012

R~ M"1) ENV-5007 VTT 67012 11927-11935 Magnolia Blvd., Valley Vilage, CA.. ~D ENV-6051 VTT 65785 11953 Magnolia Blvd., Valley Vilage, CA.

¡vIND ENV-5910 TT 66949 5226,34,38 N. Ben Avenue, Valley Vilage, CA.

This response incorporates commentar that addresses each of the above cases, individually andcumulative because these projects are adjacent to each other, and cumulatively create a substantialenvironmental impact not acknowledged in the individual MN documents. The MN's for these 3projects represent a rush to environmental judgment, and contain contradictory, inaccurate and incompleteenvironmental CEAQ analysis. Our matrix analysis comparing various MN environmental categoriesfor these projects, on adjacent sites Indicated confsing conclusions on many categories such as LandUse Impacts, Public Services, Transportation and Land Use and Planning.

Both Magnolia project MND's conclude the identified environmental impacts will be reduced to a level ofinsignificance with implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Since no Specific Plan findingshave been made, nor other required evidence submitted, there is no legal basis to support such conclusionsand we object to such conclusions as an abuse of administrative discretion.

The environmental impact findings should have been the same for each project since each project is nextdoor to each other Project I 1953 Magnolia identified 26 potentially significant environmental issues,and I 1933, 25 potentially significant environmental issues, all dismissed with generalized mitigationstatements

Most significantly, both MNs incorrectly find no significant environmental impact from the loss ofaffordable housing on these sites. Exhibit I details a recent DWP meter report showing the rentalvacancy rate, not only in Valley Vilage, but all of North Hollywood is less than 2 %. Clearly the lowrental vacancy rate is environmentally significant and therefore the loss of existing affordable rentalhousing is environmentally significant.

Under Population and Housing Section Xl both MNs either found no net housing would be lost ( infact, alI rent controlled housing is lost) or that the project might cause the displaced tenants that"potentially need to find housing elsewhere (I 1933 Magnolia... .POTENTIALL Y, they will lose theirrental housingl. There is no explanation of how an unidentified "relocation plan" for either Magnoliasites mitigates the loss of existing affordable housing.

There is suffcient evidence presented by the multiple of potentially significant environmental impactsidentified in both Magnolia projects to justify an ieO prohibiting tract Inap approvals in Valley Villageuntil a full environmental impact study is done to determine the impact of these and potential futureenvironmental impacts for the Valley Village Specific Plan area. In particular such analysis should focuson the Laurel Canyon Orange Line station i 500 ft. radius area. Included, within that radius area, the area

i

bounded by Laurel Canyon on the West, Radford on the East, Magnolia Blvd. on the South and BurbankBlvd. on the North. Within this transit station radius area" in addition to these projects, tract maphearings were recently held for a 123 unit project at I 194 J Albers under VTT 65984, and 153 units at thecorner of Ben and Chandler under CPC Case No 2006 ,2 blocks north of

these Magnolia! Ben sitesand 3 smaller condo projects of 4, 4 and 20 condo units.

This sub area is within a i 500 ft. radius of the Orange Line station and city policy calls for affordablehousing for transit dependent development within that i 500 ft. radius. None of

these proposeddevelopments are affordable housing for transit dependent residents, contrar to City policy, the GeneralPlan and State law.

(1) Why do the MN's fail to address the inappropriateness of condo housing instead of affordablehousing within this 1500 ft. transit station radius?

The projects individually have failed to address the environmental impact consequences of allowing allprojects within this area to be concurrently developed as condos and there has been a failure to bothacknowledge and analyze the cumulative construction impacts including haul routing, and traffc impactsresulting from so many dense projects being built out during the same time frame adjacent to each otherand within a few blocks of other major projects.

In the Albers Case, VTT 65984, we previously called for a cumulative full envirortmental impact on thenumber of tract map projects being processed for Valley Village. Exhbit 2 details the general

location ofthese projects, that cumulative will create more than 500 expensive market rate condos and result in theloss of more than 250 rent controlled and market rate affordable housing units. Each week brings yetanother project, either replacing rent controlled housing or converting existing apartments to condos.

SPECIFIC MND COMMENTS:

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

EXCAVATION AND SITE BRACINGThe 11954 and 11933 Magnolia, sites are adjacent to each other. Each project has potentially seriousconstruction impacts on the other due to adjacent excavation and bracing safety issues during concurrentconstruction at both sites.

(2) Why did each MND fail to examine and make appropriate recommendations to addi'ess theenvironmental impacts of adjacent construction grading and bracing on each project?

(3) What are the appropriate safety recommendations and how wil they be implemented?

SOiL ANALYSIS AND WATER TABLEi 1933 Magnolia seeks a 3.5 height exception alleging a ground water

table at io feet precludes buildingthe project to comply with the 36 foot specific plan height limit. Excavating 3.5 feet more below gradewould allow the project to be built without a height exception but the applicant alleges such an excavationwould impact on the water table.

The larger project at 11954 Magnolia, next door, proposes building a two level below grade garage toaccommodate the required parking. A copy of that soil report which we reviewed indicates they found no

2

water at a depth of 50 feet. You can't have water at 10 feet below grade at one site and next door no waterat 50 feet below grade! Neither MN addresses this environmentally significant issue.

(4) Which project soil and geology report is correct and what is the depth of the water table andhow was it verified?

ix Land Use:SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE REPLACMENT HOUSINGBoth Magnolia projects:Exhibit I details a recent DWP meter report indicating the rental vacancy rate in Valley Village andnearby North Hollywood communities is less than 2% of existing rental stock. The low rental vacancyrate in Valley Village, is reflected by that DWP exhibit, and indicates a substantial potentialenvironmental impact may result from the inability to find suitable replacement rental housing because ofthat low vacancy rate as the consequence of the approval of these projects

(5) Why does both Magnolia MN projects fail to analyze the consequenees of the loss or affordablehousing given the DWP information that confirms a shortage of affordahle housing in ValleyVilage?

(6) Why did both Magnolia MNDs fail to analyze the environmental consequences of the loss ofaffordable housing at both Magnolia sites?

DENSITY AND ZONINGIn 2003, changes in zoning were adopted by the Council allowing 400 sq. ft and 800 sq. ft to be used to

determine the number of units that can be built under R4 and R3.(7) Why are 400 and 800 sq. ft standards being allowed to be used to determine how many 1200 andlarger condos can be built on a site?

(7) Why did that change not constitute a density up zoning in violation of the General Plan?

(8) Where is it stated that this 2003 zoning density change, using 400 and 800 sq. ft to determine thebuild able number of 1200 and larger condos, is in compliance with the City Housing Element of theGeneral Plan.

(9) Why is this zoning density increase being allowed to be used without requiring set asides foraffordable housing.

(10) What environmental impaet assessment was done for that 2003 density change to examine theenvironmental impact on density inerease over the existing R3 and R4 zoning of these 3 sites?

There is no R4 zoning within the bûündaries üfthe Valley Village Specific Pian area except at these sites.

(II) When did the parcels at 11933 and 11953 get partially up zoned to R4?

(12) Who authorized such spot zoning?

(13) Why did the MNDs fail to examine the environmental impact consequences of spot zoning?

3

(14) Why do both MNs fail to discuss that the Specific Plan was intended to reduce the densityimpact of existing zoning, and that approval of the density proposed is environmentallyincompatible with the goals and purposes of the Valley Vilage Specific Plan?

XII. POPULATION AN HOUSINGPOPULATION GROWTHRe 11933 Mae:nolia: 76 new units

(15) Please explain how increasing the number of units and the number of2 and 3 bedrooms in thenew units, compared with one and two bedroom units in the existing buildings, wil not substantialinduce population growth compared with the existing rental population at the site?

Re 11954 Mae:nolia. 97 new units next door.

(16) Please explain how adding 97 2 and 3 bedroom units to a site occupied by 36 1 and 2 bedroomunits wiD not induce substantial population growtb at the site, compared with the existing rentalpopulation at the site?

(17) Xl L.c states 20 tenants wil be displaced. The site contains 36 units. Please explain the 20tenant displacement figure cited?

Both Mae:nolia sites:

(18) Both Magnolia projects: Please explain under XLI b, how the loss of 87 affordable rental unitsat both sites wil have no significant environmental impact as stated in both MNDs?

(19) Please explain what Relocation Plans have been submitted for review and how it wasdetermined these relocation plans reduce the loss of existing affordable housing at the sites to a levelof environmental insignificance?

XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION

Earlier in the year, the developer of the i 1933 Magnolia site indicated he knew about potentialdevelopment of the next door site by another developer At that time he indicated a possible joint venturejoining the sites into one project. An issue arose of

the proposed height of the adjacent 11953 site andno joint venture occurred. These 3 projects, adjacent to each other, cumulatively create a huge potentialunaddressed and unmitigated traffc impact that is not addressed or even acknowledged in any of theindividual MNs.

Magnolia Blvd, while designated as a secondary highway, is in tàct a substandard highway through thisarea of VaHey ViHage. The street measures 27 feet curb to center line, compared with the standard of35feet curb to center line required for secondary highways. Magnolia through this area is currentlyrestricted to one trafc lane in each direction. These sites are approximately less than 500 Feet fromNorth Hollywood High School and its parking lot entrance is located on Magnolia to the east of

thesesites.

Street parking is restricted between 8 and 6 on the single family residential streets to the south ofMagnolia and those streets lack typical urban infrastructure improvements such as curbs, sidewalks andparkways. Magnolia Blvd. is the entry and exist routes for access to the nearby Hollywood Freeway, a

4

few blocks east of these Magnolia Blvd. sites. Oakood School, a private high school is located onMagolia between the NORO high school and the Freeway ramps. Both schools generate substantialvehicle trac. NORO School has night classes competing for street parking.

There are serious ingress and egress issues with the 11933 Magnolia project since all the traffc will enterand leave onto a one lane substandard secndar highway.

(20) Why were non ofthese significant environmental traffc flow and traffc congestion impactsidentified and discussed uuder Sectiou XV of each of the above MN's?

Yours truly,

~ &' id~Tom PatersonDirectorThe Valley Vilage Resident's Association5329-4 Vautage AvenueValley Vilage CA 91607tiiatersíaaol.com

5

EXHIBIT NO. 11

The VV letter addressed to thePlanning Commission on November 1,2006 in connection with another 121 unitcondo within the 1500 ft. radius of theOrange Line transit station.

ë.Xfi i f-/TJ ,ITH V fiLEY VILAGE RESIDENT'S ASSOL1ATION

53 29- Vantage AvenueValley Village CA 91607

818-769-4259tpaters(iaol. com

Nô~

November 1,2006 tOCity of Los Angeles Planning CommissionLos Angeles City Hall200 North Spring StreetLos Angeles CA. 90012

Re: VTT 6598411941-12005 Albers, Valley Village CA Hearing November 9,2006

Dear Commissioners:

In my appeal letter of October 11, 2006, I indicated there would be a supplemental exhibitdetailing out various condo projects approved or pending approval filed between Januar, 2005and October, 2006 within a 1500 ft. radius of the Laurel Canyon Blvd. Orange Line Station.That information is detailed on Page 2.

The statistics show that a significant gain of 544 market rate condos, expected to sell in the$400,000 plus range, and requiring nearly a $100,000 annual income, results in a loss of rental,primarily rent controlled housing for long established low and moderate income residents, and noreplacement comparable replacement rental housing being built within this 1500 ft. transitconidor for low and moderate income transit dependent residents. In fact no rental housing isbeing built! As my October commentary reports, the rental vacancy rate in Valley Village, andall of North Hollywood is less than 2% and has been at that level for some time, yet the Cityencourages loss of existing rental housing

The pictre presented by the chart on Page 2 is hardly the balance in housing CouncilmemberGreuel has repeated called for during our discussions with her and her staff regarding the needfor in ICO in Valley Vilage, and in particular within the 1500 ft. transit station radius.

My October 1 1 commentary pointed out this glut of condo applications appears to have beenstimulated in part by changes to the criteria used to determne the number

of buildable units inthe R3 and R 4 zones. We again urge you to request the Planning Department to revisit thiscriterion. The result of the continuing use of this criterion is no new affordable housing inValley Village. There is no need for set aside low and moderate income housing within thesecondo projects, because the change in criteria in effect grants developers a density bonus withoutrequiring any seta sides in exchange fûf the Increaseå àensity.

This exhibit shows that there are lots suitable for small infill condo developments that do notneed to destroy irreplaceable existing rent controlled housing for low and moderate incomeValley Villagers. The Commission must act by imposing an ICO to address how to save existingaffordable housing while providing for increased housing within Valley Village

Action must be taken now to insure that these market rate condos don't become market rateapartments later at the expense of existing low and moderate income rent controlled housing.

I.. - I ' i , "11'1_ I

rJN fY-f wNsr u C¡ ) D t,P£tJ'bl NÇ" -'I:f?R.ò VE D .

fR ocrc q-Slit

Ð:l:BITN'-

Ii1/

L/

~

o fb

/fßy

JlI(';TOl ç¡

~ v l1A1Yr

~

~~~ ~

~~

C/7.,; /'?_- -¡ h/¿,/

=i.

/

./

,

ffl.

I

i

It. !iiI

ì

i

I

ìi

._u.-l___.

I-----1-.-

57UPy /9, , .

~"õiy,.~,¿". c.7f~/r7?GJcc:c::_,:c:c,,-::::==c=..c:.::cc==:c_=:.:c.=::::::=:=====-=:..c:.. . .-

t¿)(-HOS/T tJO:Z~:;THE V nLLEY VlLAGE RESIDENT'S AssocÎA nON

5329-Vantage AvenueValley Village CA 91607

818-769-4259tpaters(iao1.com

We urge you deny this application and order an rco for Valley Village in order to assess how topreserve existing rental housing while providing for new residential housing within ValleyVilage

Yours truly,

Tom PatersonDirectorThe Valley Village Resident's Association

CC: Councilmember Greuel

Council member ReyesCouncilmember Wesson

NO. ADDRESS TRACT CONDOS LOSTNO. RENTALS1 5226 BENNA 22 32 11927-35 MAGNOLIA67012 75 513 11945-59 MAGNOLIA65785 97 364 5405 AGNES/12006 CHALERCPC3930 153 o adaptive reuse5 11941-12005 ALBERS65984 121 746 5227 BENPM 4 I-7 5404 BELLINGHA PM 4 I5401 MORELLA64193 10

--8I9 5234 VANTAGE

63170 6110 12010-13 MAGNOLIA

62588 14 9II 5555 CARENTER61448 5 I12 I 1940 CHALER62284 20 1013 5255 HERMTAGE61880 6 I14 5309 BELLINGHA61893 12 I

TOTALS 544 190

i -t= -1 L-=d

2

- -0- - -- -'"

~-3. x ll I B/ í

i. (J .

1 DATE 8/31/01 CITY OF LOS ANGELES _ INDIVIDUALLY METERED APARTMENBY ZIP CODEAUGUST 20010 ZIP CODE NBR UNITS NBR IDLE NBR OWNER-OCC TOTA0 90001 1,167 93 10 90002 3,243 154 470 90003 9,180 707 50 90004 15,887 346 1060 90005 9,655 161 770 90006 13,752 497 280 90007 9,618 340 9800 90008 9,544 366 490 90009 0 0 00 90010 264 0 00 90011 14,798 933 110 90012 6,556 85 1110 90013 788 9 160 90014 833 12 00 90015 3,882 149 520 90016 10,988 489 190 90017 3,631 128 400 90018 10,377 516 230 90019 17,690 460 810 90020 14,559 299 930 90021 268 5 10 90023 4,408 109 60 90024 13,243 201 7200 90025 18,156 173 4070 90026 17,500 589 611 DATE 8/31/01 CITY OF LOS ANGELES - INDIVIDUALLY METERED APARTMEN

BY ZIP CODE0 ZIP CODE NBR UNITS NBR IDLE NBR OWNER-OCC TOTA0 90027 17,257 299 2120 90028 1 i i 967 232 2290 90029 11,333 271 340 90030 0 0 00 90031 6, 464 177 B0 90032 5,301 145 140 90033 8,587 247 920 90034 20,988 205 3790 90035 9,633 ill 1160 90036 14,469 158 4320 90037 11,320 794 140 90038 9,646 196 560 90039 5,855 142 250 90041 4,016 80 350 90042 10,945 303 390 90043 5,929 345 250 90044 9, 994 643 260 90045 7,818 283 211u

0 90046 12,237 122 1820 90047 3,772 253 20 90048 8,262 130 1220 90049 9,220 67 2710 90050 0 0 00 90051 0 0 00 90052 0 0 01 DATE 8/31/01 CITY OF LOS ANGELES - INDIVIDUALLY METERED APARTMENBY ZIP CODE0 ZIP CODE NBR UNITS NBR IDLE NBR OWNR-OCC TOTA

http://ww.lacity.org/lahdlvacdataaug200i 907 c. txt7/19/2006

EXHIBIT NO. 12

Councilmember Greuel motion datedMarch 16, 2007 after the circulation ofthe City DOT March, 6, 2007 trafficreport, calling for a comprehensiveassessment of traffic conditions withinthe study area.

"'''n 1 U LUUI-12xHI BIT N(),j (/~ITRANSPORTATION

MOTION

Several pending and approved development projects are located on Magnolia Blvd.

between Laurel Canyon Blvd. and Colfax Avenue (the Study Area), Current traffclevels in the Study Area are at near capacity during peak hours, and there is concern

that the cumulative impacts of approved and pending projects will increase hazards in

this already hazardous area.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the Department of Transportation be directed to undertake acomprehensive assessment of 1) current traffc conditions in the Study Area and 2) the

projected impact of approved and pending projects on traffc conditions in the StudyArea.

I FURTHER MOVE that the Department of Transportation be directed to report back tothe Transportation Committee of the City Council within 60 days with the results of such

assessment together with its recommendations for street improvements needed tohandle the cumulative impacts of approved and pending projects.

PRESENTED BY:

Wendy GreuelCouncilmember, 2nd Distric

fi(.1 6-

SECONDED BY, ~ ¿,~v

¡

g

IAR 1 6 2U07

o I r~ 0"6 r2J=:

CD 2._

~

EXHIBIT NO. 13

Request to Planning Director Goldbergdated April 23. 2007 requesting bothcases be continued pending completionand assessment of the traffic study calledfor in the March 16, 2007 Greuel motion.

Documents

TPANSMITTAL TO CITY COUNCILclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2007/07-3505_rpt_plan_10-29-07.pdf · (7) Condo projects only: 2 copies of Commission Determination mailng labels (includes