JUNE LAGMAY City Clerk

HOLLY L. WOLCOTT Executive Officer

When making inquiries relative to this matter, please refer to the

Council File No.

November 2, 2011

To All Interested Parties:

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR

Office of the CITY CLERK

Council and Public Services Room 395, City Hall

Los Angeles, CA 90012 General Information- (213) 978-1133

Fax: (213) 978-1040

SHANNON HOPPES Council and Public Services

Division

www.cityderk.lacity.org

The City Council adopted the action(s), as attached, under Council File No. 11-1677 ,

at its meeting held November 1. 2011

City Clerk io

An Equal Employment Opportunity- Affirmative Action Employer

MOTION

I HEREBY MOVE that Council APPROVE the following recommendations (Item #26, Council file 11-1677) relative to a Zoning Administrator's determination appeal for property at 3951 Deervale Drive:

ADOPT the Notice of Exemption as detailed in the City Council meeting agenda for November 1, 2011.

November 1, 2011

CF 11-1677

PRESENTED BY--=-=-:-:-:-===----­PAUL KORETZ Councilmember, 5th District

SECONDEDBY __ -=~~~~=-------­TOM LABONGE Councilmember, 4th District

ADOPTED MN til 2011

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

26A

ITEM No. 26 - A

MOTION

I MOVE that the matter of the Continued Consideration of Categorical Exemption and Planning and Land Use Management Committee Report relative to appeals of a Zoning Administrator's determination for property at 3951 Deervale Drive (CF 11-1677), BE AMENDED to GRANT the APPEALS filed by Joe and Orit Picker relative to this matter and adopt the attached "Proposed Findings and Conditions."

PRESENTED BY: l~b th District

SECONDED BY:

November 1, 2011 ,,

ADOPTED . I

NOV <i 1 2011

NO\f 1 2611·.· .·'l' ~ ;, I

LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL

CF 11-1677 Proposed Findings and Conditions

3951 Deervale Drive Zoning Administrator's Determination

Submitted by: Council District Five

PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION

TO AllOW OVER HEIGHT WAll AND GATES

CF 11-1677 Case No. ZA-2010-3094-F-iA

3951 Deervale Drive, Sherman Oaks

Pursuant to Charter Section 245 the City Council has asserted jurisdiction over the South Valley Area Planning Commission case regarding 3951 Deervale Drive, Sherman Oaks, in the case ZA-2010-3094-F-1A. Council hereby reverses the decision of the South Valley Area Planning Commission and grants the requested Zoning Administrator's Determination. This grant is based upon the findings of fact set forth in Municipal Code Section 12.24. Furthermore the Council finds that the Zoning Administrator erred and abused his discretion by asserting in his determination that the approval could not be granted due to an alleged right of way encroachment when such issue is properly reviewed and approved by another City Department (Public Works), his failure to consider the project's consistency and compatibility with existing conditions in the surrounding neighborhood, his failure to consider the uniqueness of the subject property, his failure to consider the evidence of nuisance conditions at the site, as well as his reliance on the negative impacts of any precedent set by the grant. Zoning Administrator's Determinations are evaluated on their individual special circumstances; the action is this case is not based upon past precedent on other properties and does not set any precedent for properties outside the subject site.

The Zoning Administrator stated in his May 201h 2011 determination the reasons for

denying the proponents request. However, many errors were made as evidenced by the following.

1. The Zoning Administrator acknowledges the applicants justification for privacy and security concerns on page six of the determination by stating "Evidence supports [the applicants/ justifications including a crime report and supporting oral testimony from nearbv residents." The Zoning Administrator goes on to say that "The use of high walls and fences has become commonplace to abate the feeling of loss in securitv and privacy." Despite the admitted and confirmed security concerns, the Zoning Administrator erred in denying the request in part due to the lack of possible need for the over-in-height fence for security purposes, on page seven of the determination.

2. Additionally, on page six of the determination, the Zoning Administrator states that upon closing the public hearing, "he was leading towards an approval" of the case. However, after speaking to Bureau of Engineering regarding the underlying public right-of-way, the Zoning Administrator erred by using the placement of the wall as a partial justification of denying the request, as evidenced in page seven. However, the Bureau of Engineering, not the Zoning Administrator, is the guiding agency over public right-of-way issues in the City of Los Angeles. Due to this error, the Zoning Administrator partially ignored possible mitigations, and denied the request based on this issue, as stated on page eight of the ZA determination.

2

3. The Zoning Administrator cites Case No: ZA 95-0923(F) which allowed for an over-in-height wall directly across the street from the subject home on page two, four, six, and seven of the determination. Despite having a previously approved over-height-wall on an abutting property to the subject home, the Zoning Administrator ignored the previous precedent citing that the previous approval was partially used as a retaining wall. However, in dealing with aspects of aesthetics, the function of the wall, be it for retaining or privacy/security, there should be no difference. Additionally, the cited case allowed for a wall that stood taller than the functional use as a retaining wall. Thereby creating an additional privacy element to the previous approval. The Zoning Administrator erred by ignoring fhe correlation of the two cases and placed the function of the walls ahead of aesthetic and planning impact, an area where the two walls are similar.

4. On February 14, 2011, a site visit occurred by a Project Planner for the case. During that site visit it was noted on page four of the determination that "Staff observed numerous over-in-height front yard fences and walls in the neighborhood, as well as over-in-height front yard hedges. Many of the walls have columns with light fixtures." Also, the Zoning Administrator on page five acknowledged that " ... signatures of support were submitted with the app/ication ... which indicates most of all the adjoining and abutting propertv owners support the request." Additionally, the Zoning Administrator on page seven reiterates the point "It is noteworthy that the project proponent obtained signatures of support from several adjoining property owners. This indicates the proposed project mav not be out of character with the images that several residents have of their community." However, the Zoning Administrator on page seven erred by partially basing his decision of denying the request on the walls height not being consistent with the character of the area. This despite the site visit and the Zoning Administrators own observations.

5. Based on a February 14, 2011 site visit by a Project Planner for the case, a staff report was generated for the Zoning Administrator prior to the April 25, 2011 Zoning Administrators hearing. On page five of the ZA determination, the report is referenced as giving the following suggestion to the Zoning Administrator prior to the hearing. "Some design alteration may be considered for the subject wall in order to soften the solid massing and height of the wall, such as a combination stucco wall with a 2-foot high wrought iron type fencing on top of each panel instead of all stucco." Despite this Project Planners recommendation prior to the ZA hearing, this was not considered by the Zoning Administrator as a viable option. However, this is the same issue the Zoning Administrator used to create a difference between the previous approved over-in-height wall and the proponents wall on page seven of the ZA determination. Had the Zoning Administrator utilized this Project Planners recommendation, the two walls would not be dissimilar, and would not have allowed the disqualification of the precedent setting approved over-in-height wall. This error is highlighted on page eight of the ZA determination, where the Zoning Administrator suggests numerous landscaping mitigations, but not the mitigation recommended by the Project Planner that would have created the same mitigation on the approved wall across the street.

3

6. On page nine of the ZA determination, the Zoning Administrator errors in his determination by ignoring the previous evidence that is specific to this request and property, and citing the appropriateness of a neighborhood wide Fence Height District. The very nature of this application is to take into account the specifics of the individual case and render a decision based on the uniqueness of the situation, not to apply a neighborhood solution to a site specific issue.

The following findings of fact are required pursuant to Section 12.24 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, all of which are affirmatively proven.

1.) The wall is in conformity with the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.

The Applicant seeks approval for an existing wall up to 6' 6" in height and with lighting fixtures up to 7' 6" in height within the front yard area on a lot developed with an existing single family dwelling. The exception provisions of Section 12.22-C,20(f)(2) of the Planning and Zoning Code (the "Code") permit a maximum fence. height of 3' 6" within the required front yard. However, Section 12.24-X,? of the Code authorizes the Zoning Administrator, upon case-by-case application, to permit walls or gates not to exceed 8' in height, including light fixtures, in the required front yard, side yard or rear yard of any lot in the A or R zones.

The wall enhances the security and livability of the Property and secures the home from uncontrollable circumstances. The wall also includes lighting fixtures that add light to the street. The street itself is not lit by the City, and the added light provides safety for vehicles and pedestrians, deters loiterers, and decreases the potential for theft. The addition of light is also a deterrent for some of the animals that end up in the street, and can help a driver see crossing animals and pedestrians. Most of the properties on Deervale Drive have walls protecting their home's entrance, including the immediately adjacent property and the properties directly across the street, and the wall takes that into account with regard to both height and design. The wall creates an attractive and cohesive frontage for the Property, and compliments the neighboring properties.

Many of the homes in the surrounding area have undergone large remodeling projects, and while this Property has not, the addition of the wall helps the Property to better match the aesthetic of the neighborhood. The wall as modified is consistent with the design of the walls around the neighborhood, and its addition gives the home a more harmonious fit. The materials used and height of the wall are similar to the surrounding homes, in fact many of the colors and measurements are the exact same as some of the neighbors. In addition, the materials used were chosen because they offer great fire protection, which protects not just the Property but the adjoining properties as well. The wall was also constructed so that no plants or trees had to be removed, and to prevent damage to the sidewalk, street, water, sewage and other public improvements. The light fixtures on the wall are an added safety benefit for both the Property and the neighbors.

4

The wall is crucial for the safety of those living at the Property. Without the wall, the Property is entirely open on four sides to all people and animals wishing to enter. Evidence in the record supports that there has been criminal activity at the Property, including an attempt to steal a vehicle while it was parked in the driveway (leaving damage), and that there have been numerous wild animals in the backyard. Additionally, because the Property is so accessible, anytime someone is home alone they feel the need to keep all windows and patio doors locked in order to feel safe. The neighbor living directly next door is a famous actor, and there have been numerous instances of paparazzi entering the premises at all times of the day. The wall will reduce these intrusions, enhance the quality of life for the people and pets living on the Property, and allow them to be at ease to spend quality time outdoors. Detering the paparazzi will also prevent a public nuisance for all the surrounding neighbors.

Before the wall was constructed there was only a short wall of trees that separated the Property from the street, but nothing between the driveway and the street. As a result anyone or anything could enter the driveway unannounced and unwanted. Once someone enters the driveway, they have complete access to the circumference of the home and the entire Property. Additionally, pedestrians were able to see directly into more than half of the rooms in the house because it is set below street level. The house contains many windows and doors, so it is easy to see inside and break-in. If someone is sleeping or showering and leaves the patio door open, they have no protection from someone entering the home. Without the wall the Property would be left without perimeter protection, making the Property a prime target for vandalism, loitering and robbery.

The facts set forth in the Zoning Administrator's Findings of Facts support the granting of the Zoning Administrator's Determination, including but not limited to:

• "Staff observed numerous over-in-height front yard fences and walls in the neighborhood, with various designs and height (see staff photos of 11 examples), as well as over-in-height front yard hedges. Many walls have columns with light fixtures."

5

•

•

•

"Some design alteration may be considered for the subject wall in order to soften the solid massing and height of the wall, such as a combination stucco wall with a 2-foot high wrought iron type fencing (e.g., same as gate) on top for each panel instead of all stucco. The wrought iron would allow visibility of the existing hedges behind the wall, which will essentially enhance the wall with existing landscaping at a similar height, while providing the desired security by the applicant"

"The location of the gate or wall does not appear to hinder visibility of pedestrians or cars anymore than the previous hedges may have."

"The project proponent's reasons for a higher wall are to provide greater security and protection. Also, the purpose of a high solid wall is to restore privacy impinged upon by paparazzi attracted to the adjoining property. Evidence supports their justifications including a crime report and supporting oral testimony from a nearby resident"

Additionally, no precedent would be set by granting the Zoning Administrator's Determination. The Property is unique in terms of size, shape, topography, location, and activity, and accordingly these same circumstances do no apply to any other property.

Conditions of Approval have been imposed to limit the height of the wall, require modifications to its appearance, and to require that all necessary permits of approval are obtained, including any required approvals for construction in the public right of way.

Among the stated purposes of the Zoning Code is to "regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures and land ... to encourage the most appropriate use of land." This part of the Sherman Oaks neighborhood is characterized by stable, well preserved and maintained single family dwellings. Similar fence, wall and hedge heights within front yards of properties are found throughout the area, as documented by the photographs and City reports in the record. The wall, as conditioned, is compatible with the pattern of development in the area, and therefore, is in conformity with the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice.

The wall is the only immediately available and reliable solution for addressing security and aesthetic issues on the subject parcel. As it is in the overall public interest to maintain the safety, security and aesthetic integration of the neighborhood, this request serves the public necessity and convenience. The addition of this wall will provide aesthetic and security benefits to the property

6

owner and the larger neighborhood therefore it also serves the general welfare and serves the overall purpose and intent of good zoning practice.

2.) The wall is in substantial conformance with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan.

The Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake-Cahuenga Pass Community Plan, a part of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, designates the subject Property for Very Low Residential land uses with a corresponding zone of RE15. The Property is classified within the RE15-1-H Zone, consistent with the Plan land use designation and corresponding zone category.

The Community Plan does not specifically address quasi-judicial land use approvals that are authorized by the Municipal Code on a case-by-case basis, such as the instant Application. Walls are customarily incidental to the main use. The wall and gates are ancillary to the existing single family dwelling and, as such, are generally consistent with the intended development of the Property.

The first residential goal of the Sherman Oaks-Studio City-Toluca Lake­Cahuenga Pass Community Plan is to provide "a safe, secure and high quality residential environment for all economic, age and ethnic segments of the community." The proposed entitlement for the fence allows for the safe and secure enjoyment of this residential property and by enhancing security to this property and deterring trespassing it will enhance security generally throughout the residential community.

3.) The wall is not materially detrimental to the Property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the Property is located.

The wall is not materially detrimental to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the Property is located. The subject Property is developed with a single family residence and has a frontage of 149 feet along Deervale Drive. Vehicular access to the residence is off of Deervale Drive through the gate attached to the wall. The wall is located adjacent to the existing street curb and gutter and does not hinder pedestrian or vehicular visibility.

The wall does not create any detrimental effects on the character or aesthetics of the surrounding area. To the contrary, the wall, as modified, is sensitively designed to be compatible with the existing landscape, improvements and residence on the subject Property, At a maximum of 7' 6", the request is not excessive in servicing the Applicant's objectives of privacy, security and safety. In turn, the height and design of the wall will not obstruct visibility, solar access, air or ventilation for neighboring properties.

7

The Master Land Use Permit Application contains the signatures of all abutting property owners in support of the Application. Thus, the request will not be materially detrimental to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the Property is located.

The Zoning Administrator and City Council was presented with photographs, oral testimony and other evidence indicating that such walls are common within the surrounding community and in fact enhance homes within the community. The proposed wall will have no negative impacts upon surrounding properties but will enhance safety, security and esthetics throughout the greater community.

4.) The wall does not create any significant environmental impacts, including any detrimental effects on the view which may be enjoyed by the occupants of adjoining properties, and is appropriate as to the materials, design and location of the wall, and security it provides to the subject property has been properly considered.

The Planning Department determined that the subject request is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to the city's CEQA Guidelines and thus no potentially significant adverse impacts are identified in the project's environmental clearance. The requested improvements are minor in nature, the construction and maintenance of a property wall surrounding an existing single-family home. Class 3 of the City's CEQA Guidelines explicitly includes accessory structures including fences. Additionally State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(e) (Title 14 California Administrative Code) lists fences as categorically exempt from further consideration under CEQA. There are no negative impacts on surrounding properties or the environment from the proposed fence.

In Finding 3 above, the environmental effects and appropriateness of materials, design and location of the wall, including any effects on the view which may be enjoyed by the occupants of adjoining properties, and the security to the subject Property which the wall provides have been considered. The wall is an integral part of the front yard. It is designed to preserve the existing mature trees in front of the Property and the decorative elements and wrought iron materials complement the architectural integrity of the main dwelling. The wall, as modified and restricted by the conditions of approval, will not have any detrimental effects on the views enjoyed by the occupants or adjoining properties. As stated by the Zoning Administrator "most of all adjoining and abutting property owners support the request." Furthermore, the wall will help keep the subject Property secure from unwanted intruders.

ADDITIONAL MANDATORY FINDINGS

5.) The National Flood Insurance Program rate maps, which are a part of the Flood Hazard Management Specific Plan adopted by the City Council by

8

Ordinance No. 172,081, have been reviewed and it has been determined that this project is located in Zone C, areas of minimal flooding.

6.) On November 16, 2010, the project was issued a Notice of Exemption (Subsection c, Section 2, Article II, City CEQA Guidelines), log reference ENV 2010-3095-F, for a Categorical Exemption, Class 3, Category 6, Article Ill, Section 1, City CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15300-15333, State CEQA Guidelines).

9