Granny flats order

8/18/2019 Granny flats order

1/22

WEST

LOS NGELES

RE

PL NNING COMMISSION

200 N. Spring Street, Room 532 Los Angeles, California, 90012-4801, (213) 978-1300

www.lacity.org/PLN/index.htm

· DEC 1 8 2 15

Determination Letter mailingdate

Case No.: DIR-2015-290-BSA-1A

CEQA: N/A

Location

2716 S.

Krim

Drive,

2723 Anchor Avenue

Applicant

Mark Judaken

Representative: Ben Reznik, JMBM

Council

District: 11 - Bonin

Plan Area: West Los Angeles

Appellant

Carlyle Hall, Joanne Jackson, Los Angeles Neighbors

in

Action

Representative: Beverly Palmer

At its

meeting

on December 16, 2015,

the

West

Los

Angeles Area Planning

Commission

failed

to

reach a consensus. The Commission s failure

to

act results

in

the automatic denial

of the

appeal and

reaffirmation of the determination

of

the Director of Planning s Decision to deny an appeal that the

Department of Building and Safety erred or abused its discretion in the issuance of Permit No. 13010-

20000-01552 for the construction of a second single-family dwelling

on

a lot by applying (1) ZA

Memorandum

No.

120 instead

of

Section 12.24-W,43 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; and (2)

approving a 5-foot setback instead

of

complying with Section 12.08-C, 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal

Code.

The deadlock

2

2 vote resulted

in

a

f ilure t ct by

the Commission. The Commission s vote was

as

follows:

Moved:

Seconded:

Noes:

Absent:

Vote:

Donovan

Halper

Margulies,

Merritt

Waltz-Morocco

2 2

Fiscal Impact Statement: There

is no

General

Fund

Impact as administrative costs are recovered through

fees.

ms,

Commission

Executive

Assistant

II

les Area Planning

Commission

Effective Date/Appeals:

The determination

of

the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission is final and

not

further appealable.

If you seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, the petition

for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must be filed no later than the 9Q

1

h day following the date on which the City s

decision became final pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may

be

other time limits which

also affect your ability to seek judicial review.

Attachment: Director s Determination dated July 22, 2015

Zoning Administrator: Lourdes Green


2/22

UNNK

. WYAn

CHifF ZO NING

1\

DMINISlR ATOR

IT

Y O F L

os NG

E LES

DEPARTMEN

T

OF

CITY PLANNING

ASSOCIATE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS

JACK

C

HIANG

LOURD

ES

GREEN

THEODOREL

IR

VING

C

HARLE

S

t

R

AUSCH J

R

CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. lOGRA

NDE

DIR

fClOR

JIM TOKUNA GA

FERNANDO TOVAR

DAVID S WEJNTRAU B

MAYA

E 2AITZ

EV SKY

ER

IC G

AR

CE

TTI

RECEIVED

IUL

24

2

5

OFFICE OF

ZONING ADMINISTRATION

N.SPRING

SnU H

7 fLOO •

l OS A

NGElfl

.

(1\

90012

213) 9/8 -

I B

F

AX

:

213

)

978

-

1334

July 22, 2015

Mark Judaken (Owner)(Applicant)

2716

South Krim Drive

Los Angeles ,

CA

90064

Carlyle Hall Joanne Jackson

(Appellant)(R)

Los Angeles Neighbors in Action

271 Krim Drive

Los Angeles,

CA

90064

Robert

L

Glushon (R)

Luna Glushon

16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1016

Encino ,

CA

91436

MAYOF

www .

pla nnin

g.lacity.org

CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)

BUILDING AND SAFETY APPEAL

2716 South Krim Drive/2723 Anchor Avenue

West Los Angeles Planning Area

Zone

R1

-1-0

D. M. : 126B165

C. D. : 5

Legal Description: Lot 16, Tract 19015

Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.26-K

of

the Municipal Code, I hereby

DENY:

an appeal that the Department

of

Building and Safety erred or abused its discretion

in the issuance

of

Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the construction

of

a second

single-family dwelling on a lot by applying (1) ZA Memorandum No. 120 instead of

Section 12.24 W,43 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code ; and (2) approving a 5-foot

setback instead

of

complying with Section 12.08-C,1

of

the Los Angeles Municipal

Code.

I find that the Department

of

Building and Safety did not err

or

abuse its discretion

regarding the issuance

of

Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the constructi

on

of

a

second dwelling unit and that it correctly determined that a minimum 5-front yard setback

was

required.

FINDINGS

OF

FACT

After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the appeal , the information

provided by the Department

of

Building and Safety, the statements made

at

the public

hearing on April 23, 2015, all

of

which are by reference made a part hereof, as well as

knowledge

of

the property and surrounding district, I find as follows :

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUN TY AFFIRM ATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER


3/22


PAGE2

B CKGROUND

The subject property is an 11,640 square-foot through located between Krim Drive and

Anchor Avenue in the Cheviot Hills area of West Los Angeles . The property

is

developed

with a single-family dwelling with

an

attached garage and swimming pool. Construction

of

an 825 square-foot, second dwelling unit is underway along the Krim Drive frontage. The

property

is

zoned R1-1-0. The property's 0 conditions regulate the area's oil drilling

regulations. The property is located within the West Los Angeles Community Plan,

Neighborhood Conservation Interim Control Ordinance, and within the Baseline

Mansionization Ordinance.

The surrounding properties in the area are zoned R1-1-0,

R1

-1 and OS-1XL. The area is

improved with one- and multi-story single-family dwellings.

Anchor Avenue is a Local Street dedicated to a width of 50 feet and improved with

sidewalks, gutters, and curbs.

Krim Drive

is

a Local Street dedicated to a width of 35 feet and improved with a curb,

gutter. and sidewalk on one side of the street.

The West Los Angeles Community Plan designates the property for Low density residential

land uses with corresponding zones ofRE9, RS,

R1

, RD6, RD5, and RU Height District No.

1.

The property

is

within the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation

Specific Plan area.

Previous zoning related actions on the site include :

DBS-140112-DCP- On October 30, 2014, an appeal was filed with Los Angeles

Department of Building and Safety challenging the issuance of Building Permit No.

13010-20000-01552 with respect

to

permitting a second dwelling unit and allowing a

reduced front yard setback. On December

31

2014, the Department

of

Building

and Safety issued a determination denying the appeal. Subsequently, on April22,

2015, the Department of Building and Safety issued a revision to a portion of the

report dealing with specific lot setback calculations which did not alter the

Department's original conclusion

Permit No. 13010-20000-01552- On September 23, 2014, LADBS issued a building

permit to construct a new detached second dwelling unit with

an

attached garage.

ST TUTORY PROVISIONS OF UTHORITY

The provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code establishing authority in regard to this

appeal include the following :

Section 12.26-A of the Municipal Code addresses the functions of the Department

of Building and Safety and provides in part: The Department shall have the power

and duty to enforce the zoning ordinances of the City.


4/22


PAGE3

Section 12.

26-K

of the Municipal code provides

in

part, The Director of Planning

shall have the power and duty to investigate and make a decision upon appeals

from determinations

of

the Department

of

Building and Safety where it is alleged

there is error

or

abuse

of

discretion

in

any order, interpretation, requirement,

determination

or

action made by the Department of Building and Safety in the

enforcement or administration of Chapter 1 of this Code and other land use

ordinances in site specific cases...

ZONING ODE PROVISIONS

The applicable Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAM C) sections relative to this matter are as

follows:

SECTION 12.03. Definitions:

FRONTAGE. All property fronting on one (1) side of a street between intersecting or

intercepting streets, or between a street and right-of-way, waterway, end of dead

end street,

or

city boundary measured along the street line. An intercepting street

shall determine only the boundary of the frontage on the side of the street which it

intercepts.

LOT LINE, FRONT. In the case of an interior lot, the line separat ing the lot from the

street

or

place, and in the case of a corner lot, a line separating the narrowest street

frontage of the lot from the street, except

in

those cases where the latest tract deed

restrictions specify another line as

the

front lot line.

SECTIONS

12.07-C,1, 12.07.01-C,1,

12.07.1-C,112

.08-C.1 and 12.09-C.1

(RA,

RE, RS,

R and R2 Zones}

PREVAILING SETBACK. Prevailing Setback is a phrase used to define the front

yard regulations for RA, RE, RS, R 1, and R2 zoned lots. The Zoning Code reads in

part . . hat where all of the developed lots which have front yards that vary

in

depth

by not more than 1 0 feet comprised 40% or more of the frontage, the minimum front

yard depth shall be the average depth of the front yards of such lots. Where there

are two

or

more possible combinations of developed lots comprising 40% or more of

the frontage, each of which has front yards that vary in

depth by

not more than 10

feet, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average depth of the front yards

of

that combination which has the shallowest average depth. In determining the

required front yard, buildings located

on

key lots, entirely on

the

rear half

of

lots,

or

on lots in the C

or

M Zones, shall not be counted; provided, however that nothing

contained in this paragraph shall be deemed to require front yards which exceed

40

feet in depth.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S

INTERPRETATION

[ZA 2001-0331(ZAI) issued on

February 7, 2001]: The ZAI addresses prevailing front yard setback requirements

applicable to certain single-family zones throughout the city, including those properties

within designated hillside areas and/or on designated hillside streets :


5/22


PAGE

.. Consequently, it is determined that for properties within hillside areas, whether on

streets stamped hillside or not, the regulations calling for observance of the

prevailing setback shall apply on properties having a zoning classification which

contains the prevailing setback provisions, but in no event may the prevailing setback

result in less than a 5-foot setback being observed unless under an ICO or specific

discrete specific plan there is an express intent to supersede the prevailing setback

requirement

in

the zoning regulations.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMORANDUM NO . 120 (MAY 6, 2010)

A memorandum issued by the Directorof Planning supers.eding a prior inter-departmental

correspondence dated June 23 2003 addressing implementation of Assembly Bill 1866

which allows the creation of second dwelling units to be considered ministerially, without

discretionary review.

ZA Memo No. 120 established that a second dwelling unit

is

permitted by right on a lot if it

meets the following nine specific AB 1866 standards.

1. The second unit

is

not intended for sale and may be rented;

2. The lot

is

zoned for single-family or multi-family use;

3. The lot contains

an

existing single-family dwelling;

4. The second unit

is

either located within the living area

of

the existing dwelling

(attached) or on the same

Jot

as the existing dwelling (detached) ;

5. The total area of the increased floor area

of

an attached second unit does

not exceed 30 percent of the existing floor area;

6. The total area of the floor area for a detached second unit does not exceed

1 200 square feet;

7. The requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural

review, site plan review, fees, charges, and other zoning requirements

generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the

property are met;

8. The local building code requirements which apply to dwellings , as

appropriate, are also met; and,

9. A minimum of one additional covered or uncovered off-street parking space

is provided. If not otherwise prohibited by the zoning ordinance or any other

land use regulation, tandem parking is allowed and the parking space may

· be located in a required yard .

JUNE 23. 2003 - INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE ISSUED BY THE

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING AND THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND

SAFETY

Correspondence issued by the Ch i

ef

Zoning Administrator and the Zoning Engineer

instructing City Planning staff and St ructural Plan Check Engineers and Building Inspectors

to allow second dwelling units by right it they meet all of the required conditions itemized in

Section

12

.24-W,43 of the Municipal Code, a conditional use category to permit second

dwelling units subject

to

a discretionary procedure.


6/22

CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290 BSA)

P GES

CTION OF THE DEP RTMENT OF BUILDING ND S FElY

On December 31, 2014, the Department of Building and Safety LADBS) issued Report

No. DBS-14012-DCP, which responded to the appeal filed by Los Angeles Neighbors n

Action following the issuance

of

Building Permit No. 13010-20000-0152 for the construction

of

a second single-family dwelling by applying ZA Memorandum No. 120 and approving a

5-foot setback instead of complying with Section 12.08-C, 1

of

the Municipal Code.

The Department

of

Building and Safety appeal report follows . References to exhibits are

to

those attached to the LADBS report located n the case file and are not included with this

decision letter.


7/22

CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE6

Report No. DBS-14012-DCP Permit No. 1301 0-20000-01552):

REPORT ON

APPEAL FROM LADBS DETERMINATION TO THE DIRECTOR OF

PLANNING PURSUANT TO

LA M C

. §12.26

REPORT NO. DBS-14012-DCP

JOB ADDRESS :

2716

South Krim Drive

ZONE: R1-1

C.D. : 5 (Councilmember:

Paul

Koretz)

PLANNING AREA: West

Los

Angeles

APPEAL:

Date of Report: December

26 2014

Effective

Date

of

Determination

:

December 2014

Deadline

to

Appeal

to

DCP

: January 19,

2015

Appeal Fee : $500.00

Determine that the Department of Building and Safety ( LADBS ) erred or abused its

discretion

in

issuing Building Permit No.1301 0-20000-01552 for the construction of a

second Single Family Dwelling by applying (1) ZA Memorandum

No.

120 (Exhibit B)

· instead

of

the 12.24W43 of the LAMC; and (2) approving a five foot setback instead

of

complying with 12 .08 C.1 of the LAMC.

EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT A: Building Permit No.13010-20000-01552, issued September 23, 2014,

Add New Detached 2nd Dwelling Unit with Covered Porch and

Attached One-Car Garage Per

ZA

Memorandum No. 120.

EXHIBIT B: Zoning Administrator's ( ZA ) Memorandum No. 120

EXHIBIT C: Department

of

City Planning, Zoning Administrator's

Case No. 2001-0331 (ZAI)

EXHIBIT D: Department of City Planning ZIMAS Map

EXHIBIT E: Information Bulletin Document No. P/ZC 2002-015, Determining

Front Yards , When Subject to the Prevailing Setback Regulations

EXHIBIT F: Prevailing setback calculation

EXHIBIT G: Zoning Administrator's (

ZA

) 90-1439 (ZAI)

EXHIBIT H: Zoning Administrator's Interpretation ( ZAI ) 1270

APPENDIX: Appeal package submitted by appellant

ERVIEW:

The site is located within the West Los Angeles Community Plan and fronts on a

Hillside street stamped with a purple color in ZIMAS (Exhibit D . The lot is a


8/22


PAGE

through lot and is zoned R1 -1. The lot is currently developed with a single family

dwelling with attached garage.

Background

On September 23 , 2014, LADBS issued Building Permit

No

. 13010-20000-01552 to

construct a New Detached Second Dwelling with an Attached Garage .

On October 30 , 2014, an appeal was filed challenging LADBS' issuance of Building

Permit

No

. 13010-20000-01552. The appeal is included in the Appendix of this

report.

The appellant claims that LADBS erred or abused its discretion in allowing the

construction of a second Single Family Dwelling pursuant to ZA Memorandum No.

120 (Exhibit

B

and erred in the calculation of the required setback. As a result,

Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 should be revoked .

This appeal was filed pursuant to

the

City of Los Angeles Municipal Code ( LAMC )

Section 12.26K which gives the Director of Planning the power and duty to

investigate and make a decision upon appeals from determinations of LADBS

where it is alleged there is error or abuse of discretion in any order, interpretation,

requirement, determination or action made by LADBS in the enforcement or

administration of land use ordinances in site-specific cases.

Discussion:

The following are the issues identified in the petitioner's brief (Appendix), along with

the corresponding responses from LADBS:

Issue No :

The appellant claims that LADBS erred by allowing a second dwelling unit with

attached garage pursuant to ZA Memorandum 120 (Exhibit

B

and should have

instead used Section 12.24W43 of the LAMC which, among other provisions : (1)

limits the maximum f loor area of second dwelling un its to 640 square feet, Section

12.24W43(a)(1 ; and (2) requires that second dwelling units , when viewed from the

street, to appear as if

there is only one dwelling unit on the lot, Section 12.24W43(f).

LADBS Response to Issue No 1

We follow ZA Memorandum 120 issued by the Department

of

City Planning's Office

ofZoning Administration to assist with implementing AB 1866. City Planning issued

ZA Memorandum 120 (Exhibit B on May 6, 2010.

ZA

Memorandum 120 allows the

creation of a second dwelling unit

on

residentially zoned lots

to

be considered

ministerial , without a discretionary review

or

hearing. A second dwelling unit is

allowed by right if it meets all ZA Memorandum 120 standards. ZA Memorandum

120 limits the maximum floor area of second dwelling units to 1 200 square feet,

and does not contain any requirement that second dwelling units,when viewed from

the street, appear as

if

there is only one dwelling unit on the

lot.


9/22


PAGE 8

Building Permit No . 13010-20000-01552 provides for a floor area of 895 square feet

and does not take into consideration whether the proposed second dwelling unit,

when viewed from the street, appears

as

ifthere is only one dwelling unit

on

the lot.

Z

Memorandum 120 allows up to a maximum floor area to 1,200 square feet and

does not contain any requirement regarding appearance when viewed from the

street. Thus, Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 complies with ZA

Memorandum 120 and LADBS did not err

in

issuing the permit.

Issue

No 2:

The appellant claims that the calculation of the front yard setback was erroneous

because it was not done in accordance with LAMC section 12.08.C1, which requires

the front yard setback to be equivalent to the prevailing front yard setback for the

block, or to 20 of the depth of the subject site lot.

LADBS Response to Issue No 2

We follow Zoning Administrator Interpretation ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) issued by the

Department

of

City Planning's Office

of

Zoning Administration concerning the proper

application

of

the yard regulations in hillside districts affected by common problems.

Z

2001-0331 (ZAI) (Exhibit C) requires properties on hillside streets stamped with

a purple color in ZIMAS to maintain a 5 foot minimum front yard setback unless a

greater front yard is required by the prevailing setback. Pursuant to the zoning

codes applicable to front yard regulations for RA, RE, RS R1 and R2 zoned lots, a

prevailing front yard setback only exists where 40 or more of the lots on one side

of

a block have front yards that vary in depth by not more than 10 feet.

The proposed second dwelling unit fronts the east side of Krim Drive which is

on

a

hillside street stamped with a purple color in ZIMAS (Exhibit D and is therefore

subject to ZAI 2001-0331. As explained below, no prevailing front yard setback

exists for that side

of

the relevant block

of

Krim Drive because there

is

no

combination of lots comprising 40 or more of the lots on that side of the street with

front yards that vary in depth by not more than 1 0 feet.

Additionally, Appellant's contention that

in

the absence of a prevailing setback ,

LAMC section 12.08C1 requires a front yard setback of 20 of the depth of the lot,

and that such a setback must apply here, is incorrect. ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) does not

make LAMC's 12.08C 1's 20 -of-the-depth-of-the-lot provision applicable to

properties

on

Hillside streets identified with a purple color in ZIMAS. Therefore, the

required setback is a minimum of 5 feet.

Since at least 1950 the City's zoning code has authorized the Zoning Administrator

to adopt interpretations determining the proper application of yard regulations ,

including front yard setback regulations, to properties

in

hillside districts. ZA 2001 -

0331 (ZAI) is one in a line

of

several Zoning Administrator Interpretations concerning

the measurement

of

front yard setbacks in hillside districts. In 1950 the Zoning

Administrator issued ZAI 1270, which allowed a zero foot front yard setback in


10/22


PAGE

hillside areas for the properties fronting a Purple Street'

.

ZAI 1270

is

attached as

(Exhibit H).

After

1950 the Zoning Administrator issued two subsequent ZAI's concerning the

calculation

of

a front yard setback

in

hillside areas for the properties fronting a

Purple Street: one

in

1991, as clarified

in

1994, and the second

in

2001. ZA 90-

1439 (ZAI) rescinded the zero (0) foot setback authorized by ZAI 1270 and adopted

5 feet as the minimum front yard setback for lots

in

hillside districts fronting

on

a

Purple Street (Exhibit

G)

.

The most recent, ZA 2001-0331(ZAI) , amends ZA 90-1439(ZAI) slightly and

requires application of the prevailing setback

in

areas fronting on a Purple Street

where the prevailing setback is greater than 5 feet,

in

the interests of uniformity of

setback

on

given block. It also requires .a minimum five foot front yard setback

in

areas fronting on a Purple Street where the prevailing front yard setback is less than

5 feet. In all other respects, lA 2001 -0331 (ZAI) maintains the minimum 5-foot front

yard setback adopted in ZA 90-1439(ZAI).

Prevailing setback is a phrase used to define the front yard regulations for RA, RE,

RS, R1 and R2 zoned lots. LAMC Sections 12.07-C,1, 12.07.01-C ,1, 12.07.1-C, 1,

12.08-C ,1 and 12.09-C,1 all define calculation of prevailing setback

in

the same

manner, as follows, ..where all the developed lots which have front yards that vary

in depth

by

not more than 10 comprise 40% or more of the frontage, the minimum

front

yard

shall be the average depth

of

the front yard ofsuch lots. Where there are

two or

more possible combinations ofdeveloped lots comprising 40% ormore

of

he

frontage, each

of

which has front yards that vary in depth

by

notmore than 10 , the

minimum front yard depth shall be the average depth of the frorrt yards of that

combination which has the shallowest average depth.''

The calculation of the prevailing setback for the subject site, prepared by LADBS, is

shown in (Exhibit F) . The calculation of prevailing setback includes Lots 11, 12, 13,

14, 15, 16, and

17 of Tract 19015 and lot B

of

Tract PM 6337. The front yard

setback for Lot 12 is 56 feet; for Lot 13 is 38 feet; for Lot 14 is 75 feet; for Lot 15 is

89 feet; for Lot 17 is 63 feet and for Lot B is 2 feet. Lots

11

and 16 of Tract 19015

do not have a front yard setback , therefore, Lots

11

and 16 were included only for

the purpose

of

calculating the total frontage, but were excluded for purpose of

averaging the setbacks.

ZA Note: This paragraph was revised in an amended

report dated April22, 2015

ncl

submitted at the April23, 2015 public hearing.

The revised language

is

itemized after the Conclusion)

When applying the requirements of 12.08-C,1, prevailing setback could not be

established (Exhibit F) since there are no lots whose front yards vary by not more

than 10' which comprise 40% of the total frontage .

Information bulletin P/ZC 2002-015 (Exhibit

E)

further clarifies via an example of

how the calculati

on

is to be done. Additionally,

an

automated prevailing setback

calculator is available on LADBS website

at

www.ladbs.org. This calculator is

programmed to run multiple iterations to yield the shallowest average depth.


11/22


PAGE10

In conclusion, a 5 foot minimum front yard setback was required for lot 16 under

Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552. The plot plan shows that a front yard of 5

feet was provided, which meets the minimum required.

Conclusion

LADBS did not err or abuse its discretion

in

issuing Building Permit No. 13010-

20000-01552.

APRIL 22, 2015 REVISION OF ONE PARAGRAPH OF

BUILDING AND

SAFETY

REPORT'S

ORIGINAL REPORT

The following paragraph from the original Building and Safety action has been

revised in the April 22, 2015 report as shown in bold and cross-out.

The calculation of the prevailing setback for the subject site, prepared by LADBS,

is

shown in (Exhibit

F .

The calculation of prevailing setback includes lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

16, and 17 of Tract 19015 and lot B of Tract PM 6337. The front yard setback for Lot 12

is

56 feet; for Lot 13 is 38 feet; for Lot 14 is 7 5 feet; for Lot 15 is 89 feet; for Lot 17 is 63 feet

and

for

Lot B is 2 feet. Lot

11 of

Tract 19015

is

a key lot

and

pursuant

to

LAMC

12.08C1 is

not

required to be

considered in

the prevailing set back analysis. Lot 16

of

Tract

19015

has

been included and the prevailing

set

back

is

5 feet minimum.

ets

11 and 16 do not have a front yard setback, therefore, Lots

11

and 16 were included only

for the purpose of calculating the total frontage, but were excluded for purpose

of

averaging the setbacks:''


12/22


PAGE 11

.

PPE L

TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

An appeal of the Department and Building

and

Safety's action was filed

on

behalf of The

Los Angeles Neighbors

in

Action and Carlyle Hall Joanne Jackson on January

16

2015

to the Director of Planning. The appeal requested , pursuant

to

LAMC Section

12

.26-K, a

Director

of

Planning's determination

as

to whether LADBS erred or abused

its

discretion

issuing Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the construction of a second single

family dwelling under

Z

Memorandum 120, as well

as

determining that a 5-foot yard

setback was applicable.

APPELANTS POINTS:

Second Dwelling Unit

The project fails to comply with LAMC Section 12 .24 W 43 (Conditional Use for Second

Dwelling Units) by exceeding the maximum floor area

of

640 square feet

and

being visible

from the street as not permitted by Section

12

.24 W 43.Appellant claims that LADBS erred

by relying

on

ZA Memorandum 120 which establishes different standards from the

conditional use category. Appellant references original State legislation passed

in 1981

which allows by local ordinance any local agency to provide for the creation of second

dwelling units

in

single-family zones. Appellant notes that without the adoption of an

ordinance governing second

un

its, a local agency would default to the State standards

which allowed a maximum floor area

of

1 200 square feet and which did not include a

standard regarding visibility from the street.

Appellant identifies ordinance passed by City

in

1985 establishing the conditional use

category for second dwelling units (LAMC Section

12

.24 W 43) which established a floor

area cap (640 square feet) and the visibility standard for the creation

of

a second dwelling

unit as well as a number of other standards subject to discretionary review. Appellant cites

Assembly Bill 1866, passed

in

2002, which required that applications for second units be

considered ministerially, without any discretionary review, but concludes that local second

unit ordinances did not need to

be

amended

in

order to comply with ministerial

requirements . Appellant again notes that Assembly 1866 'defaults to the application of

State standards for those localities without a second unit ordinance. Appellant claims that

the City of Los Angeles has a second unit ordinance.

Appellant identifies a June, 2003 Inter-Departmental Correspondence issued by the Chief

Zoning Administrator

in

order to comply with Assembly Bill 1866 making the standards

identified

in

the conditional use category for second units ministerial and thus

as

a result

not subject to a conditional use permit.

Appellant challenges May, 2010 ZA Memorandum No. 120, issued by the Director

of

Planning which supersedes the June 2003 correspondence

and

which requires that second

units must comply ( default ) to the State standards

to be

considered ministerially.

Appellant claims that Director had no authority to issue such a change

and

that the

Memorandum

is

contrary

to

the City's Zoning Code

and

cannot form the basis for

approving the subject second dwelling unit.


13/22

CASE

NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA)

PAGE12

Prevailing

Setback

Appellant claims that the setback for the second dwelling needs to comply with LAMC

Section 12.

08

-C 1 which requires a setback of 20 of the depth of the lot not to exceed 20

feet or observance

of

prevailing setback calculations. Appellant challenges LADBS

reliance on ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) issued by the Chief Zoning Administrator in 2001 which

states that properties within hillside areas, whether on streets stamped hillside or not, are

subject to applicable prevailing setback calculations but in no event may result in a front

yard setback of less than 5 feet when a prevailing setback cannot be established.

Appel lant claims that the

Chief

Zoning Administrator has no authority to change standards

adopted by the City Council in LAMC Section 12.08-C. Appellant also claims that

prevailing setback was miscalculated because corner Lot 9 was not included.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing was conducted on April 23, 2015 in West Los Angeles.

In

attendance

were the appellant, the property owner of the affected project, neighbors and a

representative of the Department of BUilding and Safety .

Testimony

Carlyle

Hall Appellant

Live two lots north

of

project site.

There are legal issues underlying appeal

Speaker submits binder with testimony, exhibits, declarations, and copies

of

identified correspondence, ZA Memo and ZAI documents.

Speaker notes he is co-appellant with Los Angeles Neighbors

in

Action (LANA).

Speaker submits letter from the Cheviot Hills Home Owners' Association which

requests that ZA Memorandum 120 be set aside.

Subject property

is

a through lot with 11, 000 square feet.

Permits violate building ordinance.

Standards for permitted second dwelling unit allow a maximum size of 640 square

feet. The proposed second unit is 895 square feet.

Zoning ordinance states that second unit cannot be visible from street frontage .

Speaker shows Illustrations

of

what view would be.

Regarding

prevailing setback, ordinance requires 20-foot setback.

There are peculiarities of the Building and Safety appeal process.

Appeal

is

considered first by LADBS, then appealed to the Director and then to

APC.

City's official position

is

that timelines are not binding.

It is problematic that the appeal is to the Director whose issuance of2010 ZA Memo

is being challenged.

ZA Memo asks LADBS to disregard ordinance and set out new standards .

Now appealing to Director's action which should be rescinded .

Director should have no role in this appeal or the process is an exercise in futility.

Builder

is

allowed to continue with construction .


14/22


PAGE 3

Submit photos of construction activities and impacts

on

street. Developer putting

equipment on street. Have complained about such storage on the street. Developer

is using more of street than what was permitted.

Tried to attack lawfulness of the second unit process before the building permit was

issued.

Referring to binder submitted at hearing , Exhibit 1 is a copy of ZA Memo 120. There

is no legal reason or planning process provided for change .

LADBS is expected to ignore process and follow memo s direction .

City Attorney has argued that Chief Zoning Administrator s standards were

preempted by State law in Assembly Bill 1866 and must default to standards when it

does not have its own standards.

Have had standards since 1985

State s default standards were written in a lenient manner to allow second dwelling

units.

Exhibit 9 of binder is June 23, 2003 correspondence which recognizes that second

dwelling units must be allowed ministerially.

City for

7

years did ministerially follow these second dwelling unit standards.

State s default standards were to encourage cities to adopt standards but Los

Angeles is diverse, so City normally customizes by neighborhood.

Director is applying a one-size fits all standard and not customizing .

Director has discretion to impose conditions and lower standards.

Other cities took different approach and adopted tighter standards after adoption of

AB 1866.

Los Angeles is only city that went

in

different direction.

LADBS feels it must follow memo rather than ordinance.

Memo was big change

in

process, should have been hearings, debates and

amendment of zoning ordinance.

Director commanded LADBS to follow standards.

With regards to prevailing setback,

in

prior action Chief Zoning Administrator Huber

Smutz considered hillside properties as ones that were difficult to build upon and

which represented an inequitable application of zoning regulations.

Have no issue with Lot 9 claim

in

appeal.

Ken Gill Assistant Bureau Chief, Department of Building and Safety .

State says a locality has to adopt its own ordinance or follow State standards .

City Attorney had said follow State standards.

Even before ZA Memo 120, the City was following State s guidelines.

There was a prior Building and Safety appeal regarding the use of the 2003 Inter

Departmental correspondence with regards to a permit for a second dwelling unit.

Matter went to the Citywide Planning Commission (CPC) . (ZA Note: Subsequent

review shows that matter went to Har

bor

Area Planning Commission not the

CPC.

Commission granted the appeal to allow second dwelling un it based on State s

standards .

Since then , we have to approve same as State standards .

Zoning Code allows the authority to provide interpretation of zoning regulations.

With regards

to

prevailing setback, there have been various Zoning Administrators

Interpretations (ZAis)


15/22


PAGE 14

For Hillside streets which are purple, ZAI is always applied.

ZAI1270 (1950) established a zero-front yard for hillside properties abutting a street

stamped Hillside.

ZA 90-1439 ZAI) (February 15, 1991) established that a zero front yard was not

enough. It required a minimum 5-foot front yard setback on all Hillside stamped

streets unless there was an ICO or specific requirement by ordinance establishing a

different minimum setback. This ZAI repealed ZAI 1270.

ZA 2001-0331 ZAI) (February

7

2001) established that prevailing setback

requirements applicable to certain single-family zones would apply to Hillside areas

and Hillside streets but that in no event would a prevailing setback result in a front

yard

of

less than five feet.

The Municipal Code (Section

12

.22-C, 19) also allows a second dwelling unit

on

a

through lot with a depth of 150 feet or more.

Since 2004, LADBS has processed approximately 100 second dwelling units

ministerially.

LADBS does not make a decision on the validity of a Zoning Administrator's

Interpretation (ZAI) . It is a published document which can be appealed .

LADBS treats ZAis and ZA Memos equally.

A plan checker has no discretion to disagree with the application of a ZAI or ZA

Memo.

LADBS does not stop construction unless

we

made

an

error. Cannot withhold a

permit because property owner has a right to build.

Lot B (owned by appellant Carlyle Hall) if built before 1990 it was allowed to have a

zero front yard setback.

Lot 9 is a reverse corner lot which is excluded

in

prevailing setback calculations.

Lot

11

is a key lot which is excluded but added for frontage calculation .

Mark

Judaken

Owner

of

property ( 2327 Anchor/2716 Krim) which is subject of appeal.

Views submitted by appellant are distorted and taken from above the property.

His house is

10

feet above street with gabled roof and cannot be seen from Anchor

Avenue .

If

appellant prevails on setback, then appellant's permit

on

his own property would

be nullified.

Len Judaken Son of Owner of subject property under appeal.

Senior citizen who supports a grandpa unit .

Plan to move in to the second unit and be close to assistance to help as needed

and to be close to grandchildren .

This permit has gone through more scrutiny and

it

took two years to be issued due

to appellant objecting to LADBS throughout process.

As a result, LADBS scrutinized more from plan checker to higher ups.

Ken Gill has answered many of the relevant points.

Assembly Bill 1866 overrides City's zoning codes.

Ordinance 159,599 (1985) adopted with regard to second dwelling units relied

on

the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow a second dwelling unit.

Assembly Bill 1866 negated that ordinance as was applicable only with the

conditions of the second units.


16/22

CASE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA)

PAGE15

The 2003 inter-departmental correspondence enforced the 1985 terms and was

followed at the time.

The City had more experience in its review of Assembly Bill 1866 between June

2003 and May, 2010 .

Department concluded that City s prior ordinance did not comply with State 65852.

Other cities passed their own ordinances with more restrictive standards.

The City of Los Angeles did not pass its own ordinance and in May, 2010 it had to

adopt the State s·parameters.

The City Council

is

in

favor

of

second dwelling units.

Property is over 10,000 square feet.

Originally thought about subdividing it as

an

option . Could have built a 2,500

square-foot home.

Was not aware of LAMC Section

12

.22 allowing a second dwelling unit

on

through

lot.

On August 6 2003, the State s Department

of

Housing and Community

Development issued a Memorandum related to the second unit legislation.

Los Angeles does not have a second dwelling unit ordinance.

Chapter 1062 provided the governing regulations .

LADBS did not err. The permit is valid . The property could also be subdivided and

developed with two dwellings.

K Kim - Neighbor on Krim Drive

Do not have knowledge

of

the legality of structure.

Have complaints regarding construction on Krim Drive and workers who park on

street.

There are four seniors living on this street and have concerns for their safety.

Sue Behrstock Neighbor on Anchor Avenue

Live two houses south of subject property.

Cannot speak to ·legality.

There is no vehicle to express concerns.

Concerned with ramifications to integrity of community.

This can be financial incentive and create a domino effect on street.

I.Kim Neighbor on Krim Drive

Speaking on behalf

of

parents.

Bought house 20 years ago, selling point

is

that there

is

no other property

in

front

of

them.

Unit is apartment.

Fire hydrant is blocked by construction .

Joanne Jackson Appellant

Request that building permit be rescinded.

The City has adopted regulations via LAMC Section 12 .24-W.

Not

in

power of appeal to disregard officially adopted zoning statutes .


17/22


PAGE 16

Not a matter of interpretation of law like other cases.

Adopted standards are clear as to size (640 square feet) and visibility from street.

LADBS can clearly see conflict and should not have issued permit.

Lot is through lot, should be flagged to Planning and not given a second dwelling

unit. Different from a conventional lot which has front and rear yard .

This action entitles others to build a second dwelling unit , seven new homes could

be built. Merits thorough review and public hearing .

Krim Drive

is

a purple street and what

is

not clear

is

that City s front yard

is

ambiguous in Hillside Area.

Our house was built prior to Hillside ordinance when zero front yard allowed .

Ambiguity of through lot.

Shocked that project has been allowed to proceed.

Did meet with LADBS when plan check notice was provided .

Seeing s t r u c t ~ r e go forward .

Carlyle Hall - Rebuttal

Have not seen LADBS referral to a similar appeal.

Not familiar with LAMC Section 12.22 allowing a second dwelling unit.

1991 ZAI reduction to 5-foot front yard was temporary.

Can see structure from Anchor Avenue.

All Assembly Bill 1866 did was pull a process out of a discretionary conditional use

process.

It allowed standards to be pulled out of the conditional use process.

Len Judaken - Rebuttal

A ruling against appellant retains everyone s right to build a second dwelling unit.

Appellant did a subdivision on his own property. Appellant did what applicant can

still

o

.

Correspondence received after the Public Hearing

The record on the matter was maintained opened until April 27, 2015. The following

correspondence was received within the established deadline .

April 23

2 15 E-mail from Ken Gill

of

LADBS referencing citation in Municipal Code

regarding second dwelling unit on a through lot which he noted at hearing .

April 27 2015

-

Correspondence from Carlyle Hall on behalf of himself and of Los

Angeles Neighbors in Action . Submittal also includes a copy of the August 6, 2003

Memorandum issued by the State of California s Department

of

Housing and Community

Development (HCD) regarding implementation of Second-Unit Legislation effective

January

1

2003 and July 1, 2003. Following points are made:

AB 1866 empowers localities

to

include additional local standards to protect

historical resources and does not diminish or preempt local second unit substantive

standards.


18/22


PAGE 17

AB 1866 enacts procedural change

and

deletes requirement for a conditional use

process with standards and instead requires second unit applications to be

considered ministerially without discretionary review or hearing.

B 1866 allows procedural changes to be effectuated

by

operation of law without a

need to amend or adopt local ordinances for the creation

of

second units. Asserts

that local authorities could disregard their conditional use procedures.

Asserts that HCD does not preempt or nullify local governments prior second unit

ordinances which continue to be

in

effect and that a local government defaults to

State's standards only if a local city has not adopted its own standards

in

a local

ordinance.

Notes that local government still has flexibility in establishing substantive second

unit standards.

Asserts that the 2003 inter-departmental correspondence issued by Planning and

LADBS met intent of legislation by allowing the City to continu'e to use standards in

the conditional use process but not through a conditional use process but though a

ministerial process which was conducted for seven years .

Concludes that the 2010

Z

memo defaulting to State's standards cannot be

justified and that the CUP standards cannot be nullified due to said requiring a

discretionary process because HCD states that a locality does not need to take any

specific action to amend its local ordinances.

Notes that he is unaware of reference by LADBS representative at public hearing

on this matter to a prior administrative appeal which determined that the second

unit ordinance cannot be enforced and that the State's default'' standards must

instead be enforced.

Notes that applicant did not apply for a second dwelling unit via the through lot

criteria in LAMC Section 12.22-C, 19 but that complying with that provision would

require redesigning structure and might encounter other problems.

Summarizes the evolution

of

the

Z is

related to front yard setback

in

hillside area or

hillside street and concludes that these were to apply to by right projects and that

no evidence that such would apply to this type of project which he characterizes as

a by right waiver of a zoning requirement.

DIS USSION

In the instant case, the action is restricted to considering whether the Department

of

Building and Safety acted within the scope of its authority in issuing a building permit to 1)

allow the construction of a second dwelling unit by right

in

accordance with Z

Memorandum No. 120 which was issued to assist

in

the ministerial implementation of

Assembly Bi111866; and, 2 determine that a 5-foot front yard setback was required.

Second Unit

In taking its action, the Department of Building and Safety considered the appellant's claim

that LAMC Section

12

.24-W,43 should have been applied which would have limited the

size of the second unit to 640 square feet and which would not allow a second unit to be

visible from the street. LADBS follows standards identified in Z Memorandum No. 120

with respect to the implementation of Assembly Bill 1866 as this pertains to second units.

The standards establish a maximum floor area

of

1,200 square feet which the project does

not exceed. There

is no standard addressing or limiting any visibility from the street of a


19/22

CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE

18

second unit

so

noncompliance was not

an

issue. The standards

in Z

Memorandum No.

120 represent the State s standards which are applicable to the creation

of

a second unit.

As such, Building

and

Safety determined that it complied with all the requirements for the

issuance

of

a building permit as the proposed second unit met

all

nine standards identified

in

Z

Memorandum

No

. 120.

In acting ministerially

on

the matter, Building

and

Safety staff, including plan checkers,

were required to determine that all standards

in

the Memorandum were met before

proceeding to review the project for building code

and

other life

and

safety requirements .

The issue in this case is whether the Department s staff applied and complied with the Z

Memo correctly. It would not be expected that a plan checker or other staff member would

refuse independently

to

issue a permit based on his/her own interpretation of

an

Assembly

Bill s implementation

or

based on a challenge

to

an

officially issued Z Memorandum ,

which is one of more. than 130 such Z documents, dating back to the 1950s, that have

been issued to implement regulations and guide land use processes .

It

is

not

the intent

or

purpose

of

the review

of

this appeal

to

render a decision

on

the

standing

of

Z Memorandum No. 120. However some general observations are

noteworthy regarding such matter.

t

the public hearing

on

this matter, a representative of

the Department of Building and Safety referenced a prior Building

and

Safety appeal which

had dealt with the implementation of the State s standards and with the June 23, 2003

Inter-Departmental Correspondence based on the conditional use standards which the

appellant seeks to have

as

the guiding document.

Z

Memorandum

No.

120 superseded

the 2003 correspondence.

The prior Building

and

Safety appeal case noted (DIR 2007-0648

BSA)

involved an appeal

of

the revocation of a building permit to convert the accessory living quarters

on

a lot into a

second dwelling unit

in

the community

of

San Pedro.

In

this case LADBS issued the permit

for the second dwelling unit

in

2005 and subsequently revoked the permit based

on

the

application

of

the standards identified

in

the June 23,2003 Correspondence, which

in

said

appeal report

is

referenced as a policy document. Under said action , LADBS determined

that the request was located in a Hillside Area and thus could not meet one of the

standards

of

the 2003 document so as to

be

eligible for a ministerial approval. The

applicant appealed to the Director of Planning and the matter was considered by a Zoning

Administrator

on

behalf of the Director.

The appeal contended that the 2003 document is

in

conflict with State law which has

no

prohibition on development

in

Hillside Areas. It further stated that the City of Los Angeles

has not adopted

an

ordinance providing for ministerial approval of second dwelling units

and thus the applicable standards defaulted to those identified

in

Government Code

(65852.2(b)(A) -

I)

. The appeal further contended that the City adopted a policy

memorandum instead of adopting

an

ordinance through its legislati

ve

process and

therefore the City is subject to the State s standards. It also set forth that even if the

standards

in

the policy memo were the result of a properly adopted ordinance , findings

would have been required to preclude certain development and none have been adopted .

The Zoning Administrator

on

behalf

of

the Director of Planning , deni

ed

the appeal.

He

stated that LADBS exercised enforcement

and

administration of the Zon ing Code

consistent wi

th the

policy directives of the 2003 policy memo and that the matter was


20/22

CASE NO _DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 19

specific to the use

of

one property. The Director s action was appealed to the Harbor Area

Planning Commission.

At

the Harbor Area Planning Commission (APC) appeal hearing, the Zoning Administrator

explained that

his

action was not based

on

whether the 2003 policy memo complied with

the State but only

on

whether LADBS s action complied with the 2003 policy memo and

that it was not within his purview

to

determine if the policy memo was correct or not. The

APC asked the City Attorney present at the hearing his opinion regarding the 2003 policy

memo. The City Attorney stated that the 2003 policy memo did not comply with the State s

provisions of the Government Code. He added that the Government Code requires an

ordinance to be enacted and that this policy memo was not enacted through a legislative

process of the City. The APC considered whether the 2003 policy memo was used

incorrectly and determined that it should not have been used and that instead AB 1866

should have been applied ministerially. The·APC.granted the appeal and determined that

LADBS erred in using

the

2003 policy memo

as

the deciding factor in revoking the permit

and found that the 2003 policy memo was inconsistent with the provisions of State

Assembly Bill1866 and Government Code Section 65852.2

Although the action of the Harbor APC ultimately did consider the validity of a policy memo,

there remains a consistency between the APC s action and the subject action. If as

determined by the APC, the 2003 policy memo was found to be inconsistent with Assembly

Bill1866 any claims that the standards

in

said 2003 document should be upheld lacks for

merit. While not privy to the history

of

why ZA Memorandum No 120 was issued, it would

not

be out

of the ordinary to assume that it may have been in part an effort to correct the

lack

of

standing of the 2003 policy memo. While one could also challenge that ZA

Memorandum

No

120 has not been enacted through a legislative process and thus has no

standing, this seems irrelevant inasmuch as if

in

fact the City cannot point to a specific

ordinance passed which establishes a ministerial process for second units, then the State

standards apply regardless by default. LAMC Section 12.24 W 43 which remains part

of

the Code does not provide for a ministerial process but rather for a discretionary process

subject to a hearing.

Therefore, there is

no

error or abuse of discretion in the Department of Building and

Safety s action

to

issue a building permit for a second dwelling unit.

Prevailing Setback

In determining a front yard setback, LADBS followed the provisions of ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI)

which requires that for properties within hillside areas, whether on streets stamped hillside

or

not, the prevailing setback calculation can

be

used

if

required under the corresponding

zoning

but

that

in no

event shall a front yard of less than 5 feet be required . The subject

property fronts onto Krim Drive, a purple street stamped Hillside and thus this ZAI is

applicable. Nothing

in

this 2001 ZAI refers to these being interim regulations pending the

adoption of hillside provisions. In fact, this ZAI acknowledges that the hillside provisions

have been already in effect for 10 years. The 2001 ZAI specifically identifies properties

fronting onto a stamped hillside street as being subject to this ZAI. It does not default

solely to the provisions of LAMC Section 12.08-C, 1 regarding prevailing setback for such

properties.


21/22

C SE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA)

PAGE

2

The Municipal Code (LAMC Section 12.21 A 2) authorizes the Zoning Administrator to

adopt general interpretations determining the proper application of yard regulations as well

as the ability

to

interpret other zoning regulations . LADBS notes that since the 1950s,

there

have been ZAis issued regarding front yard setbacks

in

hillside areas , including for

those

properties fronting onto a purple street. These have been amended

as

necessary

throughout the years.

LADBS applied the prevailing setback calculator and has included

the specific calculations in its revised report which did not affect the original report. The

calculations could not establish a prevailing setback based on the required criteria and

therefore a 5-foot front yard setback was required.

There

is no evidence in the record that such calculations and applications of the front yard

setback requirements for a property fronting onto a stamped hillside street were applied

erroneously

by

the Department

of

Building and Safety.

There is no error or abuse of discretion in the Department of Building and Safety s action to

determine that a 5-foot front yard setback was required for the second unit.

In reviewing the information attached to the file, including information submitted by the

appellant, property owner and the Department of Building and Safety, as well as testimony

at the public hearing and subsequent correspondence, it is determined that the Department

of Building and Safety did not err or abuse its discretion in the issuance

of

a building permit

for a second dwelling and in its determination that a 5-foot front yard setback was required.

The Department carried out its duties based on statutory purposes and application of the

Municipal Code s provisions.

Citywide Impact

Pursuant to the requirements

of

Section 12.26-K

of

the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the

determination herein has no Citywide impact as the matter concerns only the use of the

specific property.

PPE L PERIOD EFFECTIVE DATE

The Zoning Administrator s determination

in

this matter will become effective after

UGUST

6. 2015, unless an appeal therefrom is filed with the City Planning Department.

It is strongly advised that appeals be filed early during the appeal period and in person so

that imperfections/incompleteness may be corrected before the appeal period expires. Any

appeal must be filed on the prescribed forms, accompanied by the required fee , a copy

of

the Zoning Administrator s action, and received and receipted at a public office of the

Department

of

City Planning on or before the above date or the appeal will not be

accepted. Forms are available on line at http://citvplanning.lacitv.org. Public offices

are located at:

Figueroa Plaza

2 1 North Figueroa Street,

4th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

(213) 482-7077

Marvin Braude San Fernando

Valley Constituent Service Center

6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Room

251

Van Nuys, CA 91401

(818) 37 4-5050


22/22

C SE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE

2

If you seek judicial review

of

any decision

of

the City pursuant to California Code of Civil

Procedure Section 1094.5, the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must be

filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which the City s decision became final

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may be other time

limits which also affect

your

ability to seek judicial review.

Inquiries regarding this matter shall be directed to Kellen Hoime, Project Planner for the

Office

of

Zoning Administration at (213) 473-9769.

MICHAEL LOGRANDE

Director of Planning

LOURDES GREEN

Associate Zoning Administrator

LG:KH:Imc

cc: Councilmember Paul Koretz

Fifth District

Adjoining Property Owners

Granny flats order

Documents