east los angeles planning commission

Informacion en Espaflol acerca de esta junta puede ser obtenida 1/amando a/ (213) 978-1300.

Address Any Communication To:

EAST LOS ANGELES PLANNING COMMISSION 200 North Spring Street, Room 532

Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 978-1300

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -.J INTERESTED PARTIES

-.J ABUTTING PROJECT SITE -.J OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS

-.J 500-FOOT RADIUS Concerning property at

1845 West San Fernando Road

Case No.: ZA-2014-0708-ZV-1A Community Plan: Northeast Los Angeles Council District No.: 1

Hearing Date: Hearing Time: Hearing Place:

Wednesday December 9, 2015 after 4:30 P.M. Ramona Hall Community Center 4580 North Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90065

The East Los Angeles Planning Commission invites you to attend a hearing regarding the property highlighted above. The law requires that owners and renters near this site be notified of this hearing. If you do not wish to attend the hearing, you may ignore this notice.

The hearing involves an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny pursuant to Charter Section 562 and Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.27 -B , 1, a Variance from Section 12.17.5 of the Municipal Code to allow the establishment, use and maintenance of a 5,253 square-foot banquet hall with 338 square-foot dance floor and 160 square-foot live entertainment stage, accommodating a maximum of 200 persons, with hours of operation from 10 a.m. to 12 midnight daily, in the [Q]MR1-1CDO-RIO Zone, as otherwise not permitted and not to adopt the action of the Lead Agency in issuing Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV-2014-0709-MND as environmental clearance for the project.

APPLICANT:

APPELLANT:

Yun Hyo and Ki Sang Song Representative: Donna C. Bullock

Yun Hyo and Ki Sang Song Representative: Donna C. Bullock

AGENDAS are posted for public review in the Main Street lobby of City Hall East, 200 N. Main Street, Los Angeles, California, and are accessible through the Internet World Wide Web at http :1/www .Ia city. org/pl n/i ndex. htm

TESTIMONY: Written testimony may be submitted prior to the hearing (see instructions below); however, oral testimony can only be given at the hearing and may be limited due to time constraints . Sign language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be provided if you contact our office at least three (3) business days before the hearing .

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS ON SUBMITTING TESTIMONY SEE BELOW

DECISION: The Commission's decision will be based on the merits of the case and the applicable law. The Commission can consider the entire action even if only a portion has been appealed. A report of the Commission's action will be mailed upon request after the hearing . Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2), any court challenge of the Commission's action may be limited to those issues considered at the public hearing .

FILE REVIEW: The complete file, including the determination is available for public inspection in the Commission office, Room 532, 200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please call (213) 978-1300 several days in advance to assure file availability.

CORRESPONDENCE AND EXHIBITS

The Commission members are not City employees. They are citizens who have been appointed by the Mayor. They function in a quasi-judicial capacity and therefore, cannot be contacted before the hearing. Any written testimony which you wish them to see may only be submitted to our office using the following guidelines:

1. If you wish to submit materials to the Commission for their consideration , they should be received in the Commission office ten days prior to the date of the hearing . If Monday is a holiday, they should be received by noon of the preceding Friday.

2. Please provide an original and fourteen (14) copies (15 sets) of all correspondence or exhibits (for the file, (5) Commission members, Director of Planning, Chief Zoning Administrator, Associate Zoning Administrator, City Planner, Commission Executive Assistant and City Attorney). All fifteen copies/sets may be mailed in the same envelope.

3. Correspondence must be on letter size or legal size paper (8 2" x 11" or 8 2" x 14").

4. All oversized exhibits (photos, plans, artists' renderings) must be able to fit in a legal size folder. Therefore, they should be mounted on foldable paper or a file size copy must be provided. Photo exhibits must be mounted on light cardboard or foldable paper.

5. Write the ZA case number on all communications and exhibits (for Parcel Map, Private Street and Certificate of Compliance appeals use the original case number, for Coastal Development Permit appeals, write the CDP number).

6. ALL materials submitted to the Commission become City property and cannot be returned . This includes any correspondence or exhibit used as part of your testimony to the Commission.

As a covered entity under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Angeles does not discriminate. The meeting facility and its parking are wheelchair accessible. 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 your request not later than three working days (72 hours) prior to the meeting by calling the staff person referenced in this notice.

J -

' ~ . !

' " . •; ·· ..

I d

MASTER APPEAL FORM

-.-

(with its attachments). . · . . \

... .. . . .... .

ORIGINAl •

. APPEAL APPLICATION

This application is to be used for any appeals authorized by the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) for discretionary actions administered by the Department of City Planning.

1. APPELLANT BODY/CASE INFORMATION

Appellant Body:

0 Area Planning Commission D City Planning Commission D City Council D Director of Planning

Regarding Case Number: ...::;ZA;;_;_:-2::..:0:....;1....;.4....;.-7...::;0..::.8-...::;Z:....:;V _______________________ _

Project Address: 1845 W. SAN FERNANDO ROAD, LOS ANGELES, CA 90065

Final Date to Appeal : -=0~9:...:11:....:.1.:..:12:..::0~1=-5 __________________ _

Type of Appeal : 0 Appeal by Applicant

D Appeal by a person, other than the applicant, claiming to be aggrieved

D Appeal from a determination made by the Department of Building and Safety

2. APPELLANT INFORMATION

Appellant's name (print) : YUN HYO and Kl SANG SONG

Company: LA PARTY SALON

Mailing Address: 1845 NORTH SAN FERNANDO ROAD

State: -=C:..:..A.:....._ ___ _ City: LOS ANGELES

Telephone: (213) 622-2500 E-mail : [email protected]

Zip: 90065

• Is the appeal being filed on your behalf or on behalf of another party, organization or company?

0 Self D Other: ---------------------------• Is the appeal being filed to support the original applicant's position? 0 Yes D No

3. REPRESENTATIVE/AGENT INFORMATION

Representative/Agent name (if applicable) : -=D:.::O::..:.N..:..:N..::A....:....::C:..:.... =B-=U-=L=-LO=C.:...:K'-----------------

Company: -------------------------------------------------------------------

Mailing Address: 1125 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 205

City: LOS ANGELES State: ....:C'-'-A'------- Zip: 90017

Telephone: (562) 726-0778 E-mail: [email protected]

CP-7769 appeal [revised 6/18/2015] Page 1 of 2

4. JUSTIFICATION/REASON FOR APPEAL

Is the entire decision, or only parts of it being appealed? 0 Entire D Part

Are specific conditions of approval being appealed? DYes 0 No

If Yes, list the condition number(s) here: --------------

Attach a separate sheet providing your reasons for the appeal. Your reason must state:

• The reason for the appeal • How you are aggrieved by the decision

• Specifically the points at issue • Why you believe the decision-maker erred or abused their discretion

5. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT

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

Appellant Signature: ----~-----·-/1-________ _ Date: _ __,9

A:....'l.__ _ _,20=1....,£'----

6. FILING REQUIREMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

• Eight (8) sets of the following documents are required for each appeal filed (1 original and 7 duplicates):

o Appeal Application (form CP-7769)

o Justification/Reason for Appeal

o Copies of Original Determination Letter

• A Filing Fee must be paid at the time offiling the appeal per LAMC Section 19.01 B.

o Original applicants must provide a copy of the original application receipt(s) (required to calculate their 85% appeal filing fee).

• Original Applicants must pay mailing fees to BTC and submit a copy of receipt.

• Appellants filing an appeal from a determination made by the Department of Building and Safety per LAMC 12.26 K are considered original applicants and must provide noticing per LAMC 12.26 K.7.

• A Certified Neighborhood Council (CNC) or a person identified as a member of a CNC or as representing the CNC may not file an appeal on behalf of the Neighborhood Council; persons affiliated with a CNC may only file as an individual on behalf of self.

• Appeals of Density Bonus cases can only be filed by adjacent owners or tenants (must have documentation).

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

• A CEQA document can only be appealed if a non-elected decision-making body (ZA, APC, CPC, etc.) makes a determination for a project that is not further appealable. (CA Public Resources Code § 21151 (c)). CEQA Section 21151 (c) appeals must be filed within the next 5 meeting days of the City Council.

This Section for City Planning Staff Use Only -Base Fee: Reviewed & Accepted by (DSC Planner): Date:

"$ f5,4~0.<i,S 0 c·van do~ 2wee.p oqfii{WI$ Receipt No: Deemed Complete by (Project Planner) : Date:

'l'37£p z_ D Determination authority notified J D Original receipt and BTC receipt (if original applicant)

CP-7769 appeal [revised 6/18/2015] Page 2 of 2

1845 W. San Fernando Road - Zone Variance Reasons for Appeal I Justifications FINAL DRAFT

I N T R 0 0 U C T I 0 N : REASONS FOR AN APPEAL

Based on the justifications and reasoning provided in the Letter of Determination, we believe that not all relevant information had been provided and therefore the decision made by the Zoning Administrator is potentially erred. We present th is appeal in hopes of providing a brief summary of essential information that will aid in reaching an accurate decision.

T 0 PIC S 0 F I MP 0 R TAN C E : POINTS OF INTEREST

This document presents and will expand upon the four topics listed below.

1. The Letter of Determination explicitly states that a key point is the existence of a Banquet Hall Use in a MR1 zone. Further research of this topic revealed that in 2008, a Banquet Hall was established in a MR1 zone via Zone Variance under the jurisdiction of The City of Los Angeles.

2. Approval of applicant's request to establish banquet hall in MR1 zone will enhance the life and enjoyment of the neighbors and community as a whole . There has been explicit support by a large majority of relevant community members.

3. There has been concerns regarding nuisance complaints from neighbors, but there is no hard evidence or police reports of violence, noise, or criminal activity related to the Banquet Hall operation at the proposed project site. The Letter of Determination also states that neither the applicants intent nor character are in question regarding follow-ups in mitigating noise, traffic and parking impacts.

4. The issue of Temporary Special Events Permits had also arose to warrant significant attention. It is stated that there has been too many events and notification to stop obtaining permits had been mentioned.

5. A brief sequence of events outlining notable topics regarding this project's history-from establishment to Letter of Determination, will be provided to aid in understanding the points mentioned above has affected the course ofthis project.

EX PlAN AT I 0 N : HOW WE ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION

This segment of the document provides further details regarding the four topics mentioned above.

1. - In the Letter of Determination, the Zoning Admin istrator explicitly states that "discussion of any of these [banquet hall] uses being in the MR1 Zone . .. would be the kev point for this finding" and that a crucial concern is that the "approval of the request sets a precedent for any other uses not permitted in the MR1 Zone."

-The applicant is aware that his inexperience with the zoning code had led him make the mistake of modifying the warehouse before proper entitlements, but it is unfair to continually penalize this mistake when the applicant is genuinely attempting to amend his errors. -The Letter of Determination emphasizes that applicant "converted the space to a banquet hall use without the required permits and discretionary entitlements necessary" when, in fact, only the interior of the building had been repainted and slightly modified for aesthetic purposes. Removable furniture such as tables and chairs have been provided during the temporary events to accommodate dining services. Regardless of making the warehouse more presentable for "temporary events" the aesthetic changes are considered completely by-right renovations.

5. -The applicant commenced using the premises as a banquet hall in late 2012. Applicant's lack of knowledge led to operation without proper permits. He became aware of requirements after being cited in 2012. - Applicant took immediate action and in 2013 hired a specialist for Zone Variance services per LA City planning staff's direction. - Mentioned specialist failed to file the case with the City within designated timeline; therefore, applicant sought another consultant to expedite his case through LA City planning. - Case was filed with the City in February of 2014. - Case could not be presented to the Greater Cypress Park Neighborhood Council (GCPNC) prior to hearing because new board members were being elected and seated at the time. - During the first hearing held in 2014, Council District 1 and LAPD were not in opposition of applicant's request. By request from CD1 and LAPD, hearing was postponed by 3 months to be presented and reviewed by the neighborhood council. - Representatives attended the initial neighborhood council meeting, but was faced with opposition due to unsupported nuisance complaints such as noise, parking, etc. by individuals whose residency could not be confirmed nor identified. - In June of 2014, a site walk through took place with Council District 1 and LAPD. The neighborhood council was rejected invitation to this event per Council District 1 and LAPD request. -A separate site walk through was held with a representative of GCPNC, and no major concerns were expressed during the visit. -During the July neighborhood council meeting with CD1 and LAPD, the same representative of GCPNC who visited the site presented numerous issues and concerns not discussed during the site visit . Level of opposition escalated, and the applicant was branded as an irresponsible operator with great misconduct. - CD1 and LAPD took a stance of opposition along with GCPNC to support GCPNC's stance. Similarly, GCPNC indicated they would support if CDl and LAPD supported. -The applicant and representatives later discover that mentioned representative of GCPNC was the operator of a Cafe. Proper measures should have been taken place in order to neutralize the detrimental input by this member and also exclude him from all voting activities regarding this project due to conflict of interest. - Influences from these mixed communications delivered during the neighborhood council meetings obscured many of the applicant's explanations. -In the midst of emotional distress by all parties holding decisive influence, GCPNC passed a motion to suspend the project from being further discussed at monthly held neighborhood council meeting for 3 months, rendering applicant unable to defend his position.

. '

Office: Downtown Applicant Copy Application Invoice No: 25762

City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning

City Planning Request

• mJ . Scan this QR Code® with a barcode

reading app on your Smartphone. Bookmarl< page for fUture reference.

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, Article 9, L.A.M.C.

Applicant: SONG, YUN HYO Representative: URBAN PLANNING CONCEPT- PAE, JONATHAN ( 8:818-4280271 )

Project Address: 1845 W SAN FERNANDO ROAD, 90065

!NOTES:

ZA-2014-708-ZV-1A

Item Appeal by Applicfint-85% of the Application Fee (Enter application fee amount) *

Item Charged Fee *Fees Subject to Surcharges $5,480.80

Fees Not Subject to Surcharges $0.00

Plan & Land Use Fees Total $5,480.80

Expediting Fee $0.00

OSS Surcharge (2%) $109.62 Development Surcharge (6%) $328.85 Operating Surcharge (7%) $383.66

General Plan Maintenance Surcharge (5%) $274.04

Grand Total $6,576.97

Total Invoice $6,576.97

Total Overpayment Amount $0.00

Total Pald(this amount must equal the sum ol all checks) '$6,576.97

Council District: 1

Plan Area: Northeast Los Angeles

Processed by VANDER ZWEEP, CASSANDRA on 09/11/2015

Signature:C.l £,y{)r 1;-f

Printed by VANDER ZwEEP, CASSANDRA on 09/11/2015. Invoice No: 25762. Page 1 of 1

-.

I Fee I % Charged Fee

I $6,448.oo 1 85% $5,480.80

Case Total $5,480.80

J.~.h. De.p;;:r:t,Wt:i.'i.t; t:.:t g._t _i~Jd. i.n-~ ;::n (~ .. :i;:~f',._ ·_ t;}"

ltfi ~-fi'l ~:: J{; :~)._;' ·:;c::?.:L.:: 9i )_J./~OLt·· ,;~: ~~-~- -~~:.:, tJ,:

~ 0 ID .... '0 rt

0 ..... 0 w ,.,. co -.l co -.l 0

c en PJ

-(11 -..]

"'' "' "' -.l -..]

I. d

. . DETERMINATION LETTER

...

UNN K. WYATT CHIE F ZO NING ADMINISTRATOR

~ITY OF LOS ANGELE- DEPARTMENT OF

CITY PLANNING ASSOCIATE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS

JACK CHIANG LOURDES GREEN

THEODORE L. IRVING CHARLES J. RAUSCH, JR.

JIM TOKUNAGA FERNANDO TOVAR

DAVIDS. WEINTRAUB MAYA E. ZAITZEVSKY

August 27, 2015

Yun Hyo and Ki Sang Song (A)(O) 1845 North San Fernando Road Los Angeles, CA 90065

Donna C. Bullock (R) 1125 West 6th Street, Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90017

cAuFoRNIA

ERI C GARC ETTI MAYOR

CASE NO. ZA 2014-0708(ZV) ZONE VARIANCE

MICHAEL J. LOG RAN DE DIRECTOR

OFFICE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATION

200 N. SPRING STREET, 7'" FlOOR

LOS A NGELES, CA 90012

(213) 978 -13 18

FAX: (213) 978-1334

www.planning.lacity. org

1845 West San Fernando Road Northeast Los Angeles Planning Area Zone [Q] MR1-1-CDO-RIO D. M. 148-5A215 C. D. 1 CEQA ENV 2014-0709-MND Legal Description: Arb 15, PT

lrrigable Lot 2, Subdivision of the Hunter Highland View Tract

Pursuant to Charter Section 562 and Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.27-B, I hereby DENY:

a Variance from Section 12.17.5 of the Code to allow the establishment, use and maintenance of a 5,253 square-foot banquet hall with 338 square-foot dance floor and 160 square-foot live entertainment stage, accommodating a maximum of 200 persons, with hours of operation from 10 a.m. to 12 midnight daily, in the [Q]MR1-1-CDO-RIO Zone, as otherwise not permitted .

FINDINGS OF FACT

After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the application, the plans submitted therewith , and the statements made at the public hearing on June 30, 2015, all of which are by reference made a part hereof, as well as knowledge of the property and surrounding district, I find that the five requirements and prerequisites for granting a variance as enumerated in Section 562 of the City Charter and Section 12.27 -B, 1 of the Municipal Code have not been established by the following facts :

BACKGROUND

The subject property is a level , irregular-shaped corner parcel of land. The site contains 27,322.3 square feet and has a frontage of 145.66 feet on the west side of Cypress Avenue and a frontage of 122.48 feet on the east side of San Fernando Road with a depth measuring between 188.75 feet and 201.89 feet. The site is developed with a 6,859 square-foot building previously utilized for offices and manufacturing and a two-story 7,350 square-foot manufacturing/office use. Currently, the subject building (6,859 square feet)

A N EQUAL EMPLOYME N T OPPORTU N ITY- AFF IRMATIVE ACTION E MPLOYER

CASE NO. ZA 2014-0708(ZV) PAGE2

contains two separate businesses, a food preparation and delivery catering business and the subject banquet facility . A total of 30 on-site parking spaces are provided to serve all uses.

The property is zoned [Q]MR 1-1-CDO-RIO. [Q] Conditions attached to the property are pursuant to Ordinance No. 181,062. The [Q] Condition on the property precludes any new auto related uses and certain commercial and industrial uses. In addition, the [Q] Condition also requires that projects defined within Section 2 of the Cypress Park and Glassell Park Community Design Overlay (COO) and any floor area addition to a pre-existing autorelated establishment comply with all applicable design guidelines and development standards of the COO. The proposed project is not affected by the COO.

The site is located within the Cypress Park and Glassell Park (COO), Special Grading Area, Transverse Ranges and Los Angeles Basin and 1.9 kilometers away from the Hollywood Fault. The site is further located in the Liquefaction Zone, Central City Revitalization Zone, East Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone and the River Improvement Overlay District.

North adjoining properties are zoned [Q)M1-1-CDO-RIO and improved with a combination of light industrial and commercial uses.

South adjoining properties are zoned [Q]MR1-1-CDO-RIO and developed with industrial uses.

East adjoining properties are zoned R2-1-CDO and developed with single-family residential and duplexes.

The west adjoining property is zoned [Q]CM-1-CDO-RIO and developed with Rio De Los Angeles State Park.

San Fernando Road, adjoining the subject property to the west is a Class II Major Highway, dedicated a variable width ranging between 60 feet and 80 feet and improved.

Cypress Avenue, adjoining the subject property to the east is a Class II Major Highway, dedicated a width of 100 feet and improved.

Macon Street, adjoining the subject property to the north is a Local Street dedicated a width of 20 feet and improved.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing was conducted on this matter on June 30, 2015 in City Hall. In attendance and t~stifying were representatives for the property owner/applicant, as well a neighbor and representatives of the Police Department and the Office of the First Council District.

Correspondence, including a petition, was received prior to the hearing in opposition to use and/or with concerns over noise impacts. One letter noted that noise impacts have

CASE NO. ZA 2014-0708(ZV) PAGE 3

occurred related to the use at this location and that there is another entertainment nightclub in the area which effectively controls its noise.

The following is a summary of the points made in the public hearing testimony:

Liz Jun - Relative of applicant

• Site has been used as banquet hall for one year. • During the past 12 months, it operates under temporary special events. • Typically open on Friday and Saturday and usually in the evening between 5 and

11 p.m. • Caterer has license for alcohol. • Located across park, no noise. Across Cypress, there is residential zone.

Building A on property, which is two stories, blocks banquet hall impacts. • Building A is used for manufacturing uses. • Northerly of site, there are manufacturing uses. • Parking has been temporarily restriped to support parking. • Met with the Neighborhood Council who addressed parking concerns. • Valet parking can be provided any time that there is a banquet and can be free

to guests. • No use of the facility for concerts is proposed. • Facility is opened weekdays but have no scheduled events. • Fire occupancy is 304 persons. • . Maximum number of guests is between 115 and 120. • Property owner is applicant. • Have met with the Police Department. • In 2014, there was an incident. Building A had been rented out and then it was

discovered that the tenant was using the building to grow marijuana.

Donna Bullock- Representative for the applicant

• There have been attempts to meet with the Police. • Have had miscommunication with Sheriff. • Parking complies and if there is a need for more, valet parking will be provided. • There is a private security guard during each event. • A proposal for 1 guard per 50 guests would be acceptable. • There is no camera surveillance system but will install one. • There is also manufacturing across the street which provided a buffer. • During weekdays, the location would only be used for reception or meetings with no

live entertainment. • The other use on the property is a catering business. Copy of catering permit

submitted. • This catering company (Aionti) does not cater any of the applicant's events. • There is a club about 600 feet away. (ZA Note: Cafe NELA is apparent reference

which is located at 1906 Cypress)


Neighbor- Frederick Street

• Oppose request. • Noise pollution cannot be quantified. • Parking has not been worked out. There are no parking restrictions on Cypress. • Spillover parking impacts will use up Police resources. • Applicant leases location out for profit, what is recourse to control excessive noise,

security concerns, etc.? • Location will be burden on Police. • Findings subjective regarding noise. • Property owner does not operate business, these are leased events. • Concerned with issues of safety.

Sergeant Fernando Carrasco- Los Angeles Police Department, Northeast Area Vice Unit

• In 2012 there was a loud party occurring at 1845 San Fernando Road. • Contacted security guard and tried to contact owner. • Called owner (K. Song) and requested permits. • Did not have any permits, there was a OJ, no dance hall or cafe entertainment

permit. • The owner was cited. • Visited again in 2012, temporary permit provided by owner issued by Building and

Safety. • Owner was not cited this time. • Officer asked if warehouse was zoned for banquet hall. • In 2014, officer left Vice unit and came back in March, 2015. • May 23, 2015, there was a random patrol of area and event occurring . Owner was

not present. • People were going in and out, congregating, loud music coming out of building,

there was no monitoring of doors and guards were not aware. • There was no monitoring enforcement. • Four blocks away at 1310 San Fernando Road, there is another warehouse

conducting parties, not sure if word is getting out that one can do this in area. • Oppose zone variance. • There is a club on Cypress and Division for which there are no complaints. • Alcohol cannot be sold, except by caterer's license. Even a tip jar is illegal.

Sergio lnfanzon- Office of the First Council District Representative

• Support creation of small businesses. • But cannot support this business. • It is misleading as to what is going on. • What has been property owner's role these last three years? • In 2014, there was a banner on building announcing banquet hall. • Contacted Police and found out the violations and the clarification of the process to

obtain permits.


• The existing catering business cannot be connected to the owner and the banquet hall.

• Permits are missing . • Council office gave applicant chance to continue process to apply for zone variance. • Applicant/owner continued to hold festivities even when told to stop to get permits. • There have been too many events. • Temporary Special Events (TSE) permits have certain requirements. • Owner has not been present during TSEs occurrences and alcohol has been

available. • Owner did not show up at Neighborhood Council meeting. • The Neighborhood Council gave applicant another chance as representative could

not elaborate or request or provide more information at meeting . • Submitting e-mail comments from Building and Safety wherein one of the Building

and Safety supervisors requests that no more TSE permits be issued for this location.

• Too many inconsistencies throughout process. • Council office also represents the interests of the community. • Council office does not trust the future operation of the banquet hall.

REBUTTAL

• Neighborhood Council letter provided in support of request, so appropriate conduct by owner must have been recognized.

• Police Department's last citation was in 2011-2012. • Process has been delayed because owner hired other companies to process

variance. • Council Office worries about violations, Police have issued only one. • With zone variance, all issues will be addressed. • Point is that business operate appropriately. There are no fights, these are family

events. • TSEs have been appropriately issued. • Noise impacts on residential uses can be addressed. Door can be kept closed if

necessary. • There have been no alcohol citations. • Caterers who have licenses can provide alcohol.

The matter was taken under advisement to allow for any additional comments and for the applicant to further address the required variance findings. On July 13, 2015, the applicant's representative requested an extension of the original deadline for comments which was granted and extended until August 11 . 2015.

The following correspondence was received after the hearing, during the open advisement period:

August 11 , 2015 - Packet from the applicant's representative which includes: Supplemental findings ; support letters from businesses and banquet hall customers


including one letter from a property owner offering his property for overflow parking; copy of Greater Cypress Park Neighborhood Council letter noting its motion adopted to support request provided that parking is controlled and monitored so as not to cause inconvenience to residents; copy of seller's permit issued to current catering tenant in same ownership; copy of alcohol license for caterer used by banquet hall; copies of special events rental agreements for use of hall including of some events which were cancelled .

MANDATED FINDINGS

In order for a variance to be granted, all five of the legally mandated findings delineated in City Charter Section 562 and Municipal Code Section 12.27 must be made in the affirmative. Following (highlighted) is a delineation of the findings and the application of the relevant facts of the case to same:

1. The strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations.

The request entails a variance to legalize the use and maintenance of an existing banquet hall in the MR1 Zone. The MR1 Zone does not permit a banquet hall use. The ownership includes two buildings (Buildings A and B) with two tenant spaces on-site. The banquet hall is located within a portion of Building A which shares its space with a catering/delivery service company. The applicant, who is also the property owner, is seeking a variance to legalize the establishment of a banquet hall for 200 patrons which includes a 338 square-foot dance floor and 160 square-foot live entertainment stage with proposed hours of operation from 10 a.m. to 12 midnight, daily. The property has 30 parking spaces, including tandem spaces, which serve all three tenant spaces on the ownership. The use is intended to be for private receptions and not open to the general public as would be characteristic of a banquet hall. According to the applicant, the facility has been rented out for various type of family events. The applicant cites a need for this type of facility in the area.

As noted, a banquet hall is not a permitted use in the MR1 Zone. A banquet hall is treated as a private club which is first permitted in the RAS3 Zone and then in the RAS4, R5, all C Zones, M1, M2 and M3 Zones. A private club is also permitted by conditional use permit, CUP, (Section 12.24-W,35 of the Municipal Code) in various other zones but not in the MR1 Zone. Therefore, the use requires a variance in the MR1 Zone to operate regardless of how it is classified . The applicant's representative references in the supplemental findings that a conditional use permit can be issued upon the application for a zone variance. It is unclear what is meant by that assertion as there is no conditional use category that allows a banquet hall in the MR 1 Zone. The variance is the discretionary action necessary apart from another option which would be for a zone change request from the MR1 Zone to either a CM or M1 Zone, which are corresponding zones in the community plan land use category for this property which would allow the use by right.

The representative indicates that although there are two tenants on the property, the applicant has difficulty leasing the remaining space due to its size and the reduced

CASE NO. ZA 2014-0708(ZV) PAGE?

demand for manufacturing space in the area. The applicant has owned the property for 20 years and converted the space to a banquet hall without the required permits and the discretionary entitlements necessary. The representative notes that" ... In order to legally establish a banquet hall use, much of the applicant's tight budget has been allocated in applying for a zone variance permit and hiring consultant services; the harsh disapproval would only lead to unnecessary financial hardship and disorder for the client." The representative further notes that expenses have been incurred to improve the building space as a banquet hall and a denial would create financial losses. Such expenses would have been minimized had the necessary requests been made before the space was converted to non-permitted use.

The findings for a variance are rigorous and require meeting a test of true hardship regarding the use of a property. Financial issues are not a consideration, especially when such could have been avoided by adhering to the MR1 Zone regulations. Of significance for the grant of the variance is whether the use of the property is reasonably compromised by the zoning provisions. In this instance there is no hardship associated with the request that relates directly to any hardship associated with the zoning provisions and their application as to how the property can be used and developed. These regulations apply equally to all other properties in the MR1 Zone. There is no finding that can be made that the zoning regulations regarding the prohibition of a banquet hall impedes the ability of the property owner to continue to enjoy a reasonable and viable use of the property in accordance with the corresponding MR1 Zone permitted uses.

The MR1 Zone allows a wide range of permissive uses. In this case the property owner retains the ability to utilize the property for an extensive number of such uses. The MR 1 Zone is not restricted to manufacturing uses and in fact many of the industrially zoned uses along this San Fernando corridor are experiencing a resurgence with uses such as warehouses being converted to studios and other creative space uses which seek the type of open building design that the banquet hall occupies. The trend to find creative office space is one which does not rely on traditional floor layouts but rather wherein flexibility of space is preferred , which would also fit the use of the property. A sampling of the MR 1 Zone permitted uses includes banks, media production uses, computer support facilities, computer and media-related production, offices associated with industrial uses as well as uses permitted in the CM and C2 Zones subject to certain limitations. Thus, the variety of uses permitted in the zone is ample.

The request to allow a non-permitted use category in this zone can be characterized as a self-imposed hardship inasmuch as compliance with the Municipal Code requirement can be attained and the zoning provisions do not impair the property owner from enjoying the use of the property in accordance with the permitted MR 1 Zone uses. As noted, the property owner converted the space to a banquet hall use before acquiring any necessary permits, including a change of use and new Certificate of Occupancy and a variance. Had the necessary permits been requested, the necessary entitlements would have been identified as these apply to

CASE NO. ZA 2014-0708(ZV) PAGES

the MR 1 Zone, a zoning designation that has been in effect for 25 years at this property.

Charter Section 562 states that a variance shall not be used to grant a special privilege or to permit a use substantially inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the same zone. A variance is an appropriate means to seek relief from a condition that is not self-imposed and to remedy a disparity of privileges. In this case a grant of the variance request would be akin to the granting of a special privilege which is otherwise not provided to other property owners who abide by the applicable zoning provisions

2. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone and vicinity.

The subject property/ownership is located on a corner but it is not different from some of the immediately abutting properties also within the same zone, MR1, which comply with the zoning provisions. Thus, there are no special circumstances applicable to the properties which do not apply to other properties. The block face within which the property is located is zoned MR 1. The blocks northerly and southerly of the project site are zoned M1.

The applicant's submitted justification regarding this finding addresses primarily the impact of noise and mitigation of such an impact given the brick walls and the lower level of the site as compared to nearby residential uses as well as a proposal to consider adding a foyer to mitigate impacts. This is a suggested rationale to mitigate noise impacts but as the finding requires, it does not provide any distinct justification or description of any special circumstances applicable to this property which do not apply equally to the other adjacent properties in the MR1 Zone.

3. Such variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of such special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, is denied the property in question.

No other similarly zoned properties in the same zone and vicinity have been granted any variances to allow for a use which is not permitted in the MR 1 Zone. This finding requires that a similar variance has been granted in the local community so as to not constitute a "special grant" or that other similarly zoned properties have the property right which the applicant seeks. In this instance, there are no similar zoned properties which enjoy this use in the vicinity or within the MR 1 Zone.

The applicant's submission regarding this finding is to note that there are two other banquet halls in the area which do not have easy access or on-site parking, thus rendering the subject banquet hall a more attractive option to patrons. There is no discussion of any of these uses being in the MR1 Zone which would be the key point for this finding. Instead, the submitted finding claims that the applicant should


be able " ... to enjoy the substantial property right similarly offered to the other two mentioned venues ... " is unfounded as there is no evidence submitted that such venues are located in the MR1 Zone. Such venues, when located in all C Zones or M1, M2 and M3 Zones are permitted by right.

An approval of the request sets a precedent for any other use not permitted in the MR 1 Zone to seek to establish via variance. No other property has been shown to have such a substantial property right and no such similar right is denied the property owner

4. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located.

The MR1 Zone was created to protect industrial land and to protect it from other unrelated commercial uses. As evident, however, there are a range of other permitted uses which, while not typically characterized as industrial, are also permitted under the MR1 Zone while reserving the land for future growth. As noted , many of the permitted uses are also not characterized as heavy industrial so there is no assertion that can be made that another use would create equal or more intense impacts associated with air and noise as has been suggested in the application.

The community plan designation for this property is for Limited Manufacturing with corresponding zones of CM, M1 , MR1 and P. This means that an applicant could apply for a zone change for either CM or M1, which would allow a banquet hall use. Such a process is one wherein the merits of retaining the MR1 Zone can be more appropriately considered vis-a-vis the objectives of the Northeast Community Plan and the legislative intent in adopting the Plan. Such a zone change request would not require a plan amendment as both the CM and M1 Zones are permitted corresponding zones in the plan designation.

The applicant has offered to mitigate potential noise, traffic and parking impacts that may occur as a result of the proposed use by considering additional sound mitigation measures and supplementing parking. There may be other concerns regarding security when there are well-attended events that may demand on-site security and potential City resources to monitor or respond if there are problems. The applicant's intent nor character are in question regarding following-through on implementing such measures. However, it is noted that much of the conduct is dependent on the party that leases the venue and the ownership presence that is on-site.

A letter of support conditioned on the control and monitoring of parking , was submitted by the Greater Cypress Park Neighborhood Council. The Council Office testified in opposition to the request as did the Police Department. As summarized elsewhere, there was also correspondence received in support and opposition to the request.


Nonetheless, it is the merit of the variance request that is germane to this finding. Granting a non-permitted use in the MR1 Zone in the absence of legitimate findings of hardship, special circumstances and substantial property right issues can set a precedent which can cumulatively impact the area. A valid disparity of privileges has not been established in this case.

5. The granting of the variance will adversely affect any element of the General Plan .

The Northeast Los Angeles Community Plan designates the property for Limited Manufacturing land uses, with corresponding zones of CM, M1, MR1 and P and Height District 1.

A banquet hall use is a permitted use in the CM and M1 Zones. Both of these zones are permitted corresponding zones within this plan designation and a zone change could otherwise be requested as has been noted elsewhere in this action . The Community Plan recognizes the potential incompatibility of residential uses near industrial uses, especially those permitted in more intense industrial zones and the Plan seeks to prevent such situations, which was reflected in the down zoning from M2 to MR1 Zone on the subject property in 1990. There are other block faces along San Fernando Road which are also zoned MR1. Thus, any variance approval can have cumulative effects for other similarly zoned properties. Whether the retention of the MR1 Zone uses remains critical to this block face and others is more appropriately considered in the context of the overall Community Plan rather than on a piecemeal basis where no demonstrable findings can be made for the granting of a variance. Therefore, the granting of the. variance would adversely affect the objectives of the Community Plan.

ADDITIONAL MANDATORY FINDINGS

6. The National Flood Insurance Program rate maps, which are a part of the Flood Hazard Management Specific Plan adopted by the City Council by Ordinance No. 172,081, have been reviewed and it has been determined that this project is located in Zone C, areas of minimal flooding.

7. On April 16, 2014, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ENV-2014-709-MND) was prepared for the proposed project. On the basis of the whole of the record before the lead agency including any comments received, the lead agency finds that with imposition of the mitigation measures described in the MND (and identified in this determination), there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment. I do not concur with said action in that the mitigation measures will not be sufficient to mitigate cumulative impacts to land use and to the Community Plan .

APPEAL PERIOD - EFFECTIVE DATE

The Zoning Administrator's determination in this matter will become effective after SEPTEMBER 11, 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://planning.lacity.org. Public offices are located at:

Figue·roa Plaza 201 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) 374-5050

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 Kinikia Gardner, Planning Staff for the Office of Zoning Administration at (213) 978-1340.

LOURDES GREEN Associate Zoning Administrator

LG:KG:Imc

cc: Councilmember Gilbert Cedillo First District

Adjoining Property Owners

. '

MASTER LAND USE . .

·APPLICATION ;.

_,

APC

MA!'> 1 t:R LAND USE PERMIT APPLICATI~d LOS ANGELES CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Plannln Existing Zone

Community Plan N f.., Case Filed With

--~~=-~~------~~~~~~O~J=I----~~1D_s_c_s_ta_ffl~-----r------~~~-----+--~~11r

CASE No. ___ ------..JlXL-....1·. 2--....0~]__._4 ---loi~ 0~7--U-0---1 4--{?--+-v) __ APPLICATION TYPE ______ -,--______ z.,....,-O....,N,-E_V_A_R_I,-A_N....,C_E __ -:-:--...,.---.--.-------

(zone change, variance, conditional use, tract/parcel map, specific plan exception, etc.)

1. PROJECT LOCATION AND SIZE

Street Address of Project 1845 W . SAN FERNANDO ROAD 90065 Zip Code _________ _

Legal Description : Lot PT IRRIGABLE L T 2 Block _____ N_O_N_E _____ Tract SUBDIVISION OF THE HUNTER HIGHL~ND

Lot Dimensions --,---2_2_0_x-=-1_4_6 ___ Lot Area (sq. ft.) II IBN

27,322.3 S .f Total Project Size (sq. ft.) ___ 5_,_2_5_3_s_.f_. __ mACT

(tnllEGU.t..Ai'l)

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

D .b h t . t b d Zone variance to authorize the use of a banquet hall with dance floor on a MR'h1zone.

escn e w a 1s o e one:--------------------------------------

Present Use: Manufacture !{ OffiCE Proposed Use: Banquet Hall

Plan Check No. (if available) _B_1_3_L_A_1_2_9_7_2 __________ Date Filed: 1 0/18/13

Check all that apply: 0 New Construction 8 Change of Use lid Alterations 0 Demolition

llf' Commercial 0 Industrial 0 Residential 0 Tier 1 LA Green Code

Additions to the building: 0 Rear 0 Front 0 Height 0 Side Yard

No. of residential units: Existing To be demolished Adding Total

3. ACTION(S) REQUESTED

Describe the requested entitlement which either authorizes actions OR grants a variance:

Code Section from which relief is requested: I 2. ·l 1 . S Code Section which authorizes relief: ---'1""2...,. 2::.1..;._ ______ _

Z.oN'b vAIZ.{~NC:e To MJHoTZJZ.E "llit U~E- G1' .P. SAIII@~g MLL IJ\.trn ~ANCt Ft.Ooll ON /1 twtlli-iZJ*J~

Code Section from which relief is requested: __________ Code Section which authorizes relief:-----------

Code Section from which relief is requested: ______ ____ Code Section which authorizes relief:----------

List related or pending case numbers relating to this site:

of 3

4. OWNER/APPLICANT INFORMATION

Applicant's name '(VN HYO S 0"-1 Cr Company-------------------

Address: 184-5 N. SANij;Ee.JVP.N DO rao Telephone:(Zi3>l 6Zz--z5DO Fax: (

L- A CLl Zip: Cf 0 065 E-mail:

•.'} ' ~ r · r~~ :~ r' ~· · £'stre7 f o-v'q-Q)"4f-!cC. C e>"f

P · ('fd'ff f r .. l. · · l ~~SIINGt~~o ·~~~ : ·,~ ~i'N u f~\Jft roperty owners name 1 1 erent rom aw 1cant _____ .:.__::_.:._q:::..___.:......!.l"....;.:.""'_.:..;n ___ __.:.... ________________ _

Address: _____________________ Telephone: ( ______ Fax: (

_____________________ Zip:--------- E-mail: _____________ _

Contact person for project information JONp..n!A-N f'A& Company U.11 BAN Pt..ANNINft 0>!'lCcrf

Address: G12 ~- LA f#l.Ytllt PMk: PIA-leE I..{Wl'T 42 Telephone: ( -6 I~ ) 42'0 - 02'1[ Fax: (

__..Lo:..:S=-...:..A.:....:cN_El.:::....:...H.;...:~:....~ ..... ?'--CA----------zip: qoo51 E-mail: u{'CP~IGN . Ll\@ 6NA1l. ccH

5. APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT

Under penalty of perjury the following declarations are made:

a. The undersigned is the owner or lessee if entire site is leased, or authorized agent of the owner with power of attorney or officers of .a corporation (submit proof). (NOTE: for zone changes lessee !lli!Y not sign).

b. The information presented is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

c. In exchange for the City's processing of this Application , the undersigned Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers or employees, against any legal claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval given as a result of this Application.

Signature: ~ ~ Print: Ywt~ lJYD &n!)

ALL -PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

State of California

County of t.s.'{ A~a~-/

On o nsert Name of Notary Public and Title)

personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(£.) whose name('S} is/are-sub cribed to e within instru ent and acknowledged to me that h8/she/tRey-executed the same in hislher/thei!: authorized capacity(i-), and that by his/her/theiH!ignature~n the instrument the person(s1, or the entity upon behalf on which the persorl(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

c5: -< 2=2>:: (Seal) Signature

6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/FINDINGS

In order for the City to render a determination on your application, additional information may be required. Consult the appropriate Special Instructions handout. Provide on attached sheet(s) this additional information using the handout as a guide.

NOTE: All applicants are eligible to request a one time, one-year only freeze on fees charged by various City departments in connection with your project. It is advisable only when this application is deemed complete or upon payment of Building and Safety plan check fees. Please ask staff for details or an application.

Base Fee

Recei~to i 2t:- 3 7 v CP-7771 (09/09/2011)

Planning Staff Use Only Reviewed and Accepted by [Project Planner] Deemed Complete by [Project Planner]

Date

Date

ZONE VARIANCE BANQUET HALL (ZV) 1845 W. San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, CA 90065

1. Explain why the strict application of the zone code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations.

The site is approximately 27,322 square feet, MR1-1 zoned area. Located within the site are two buildings, previously used for manufacturing and offices. In this variance application, the previously mentioned 'office building' owned and operated by the applicant will not be considered-its use will remain unchanged; this is a request to permit the operation of a banquet hall (inside the manufacturing building) in the MR1 zone.

The applicant met several hardships when attempting to adhere to the strict MR1 zoning guidelines. In further detail, the applicant has owned this land for nearly two decades-since 1998-and has faced significant difficulty finding tenants willing to lease the massive space (approximately 6,980 square feet) . Recently, 1,727 square feet was leased by a take-out catering restaurant, leaving 5,253 square feet, but hardships still persist. Several reasons for such difficulties are as follows:

o One, the lot is located within the Industrial (M1 & MR1) strip running along Cypress Avenue, an area where industrial demands have been steadily declining. This trend is very apparent when observing the shift in building usage within the direct vicinity of this lot. A majority of the businesses steadily gaining popularity within this industrial strip provide valuable services to the residential across Cypress Ave. Many of these businesses pertain to food related amenities, such as: Kermanig Bakery, Cafe Nela, Sparten Market (Grocery}, Alonti Catering, Peking Noodle, etc. Due to this decline in industrial demands, finding tenants that desire to establish a position in the industrial field is considerably difficult.

o Two, due to the enormous size of space to lease or rent for profit, it has been and will be very challenging for the client to rely upon this option as a main source of income.

o Three, because the amount of space is too excessive for a single tenant to effectively use, partitioning the area became the first viable approach. This led to another hardship: As tenants would lease spaces away from one another-to

CRECE~V&Dconflict, the appeal of the remaining-now undesirable-locations ITY OF LOS~~~~tly drops, warding off the already limited pool of potential occupants.

AUG f 1 2015

CITY PLANNING DEPT. ZONING ADMINISTRAiiotJ

Zone Variance, 08/04/15

As previously mentioned, the applicant has owned the land for nearly twenty years. Unfortunately, due to the aforementioned conditions, he has consistently struggled to acquire stable and sufficient income from adhering to the MRl zoning regulations. As a solution to this prolonged dilemma, he decided to implement a banquet hall use in order to: beneficially expand his interest by co-operating with the recently established take-out catering restaurant within the same building, effectively utilize the vast space, and better serve the nearby community. In order to legally establish a banquet hall use, much of the applicant's tight budget has been allocated in applying for a zone variance permit and hiring consultant services; the harsh disapproval would only lead to unnecessary financial hardship and disorder for the client.

The applicant has therefore incurred significant expense in the improvement of the space into an attractive, extremely well-maintained banquet hall facility for family oriented celebrations and events. If denied of this request, the applicant will be faced with unnecessary financial losses from mentioned investments, because the attractive flourishing of this building would cease to have value as an industrial structure.

Discussed further in this document, is it observed-from a very objective stance-that the 'pros' far outweighs the very few 'cons' of approving the establishment of this banquet hall.

2. Describe the special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone and vicinity.

The lot is surrounded by industrial zones used for mainly food and health related services from the sides, and is located in front of a residential neighborhood. It is also important to inform that this lot is also abutting a very attractive State Park-Rio de Los Angeles State Park. After reviewing data of this site, it has been concluded that the only harmful concern might be noise. Because the building was previously used for industrial purposes-a special circumstance of this zone-it adheres to strict regulations regarding noise pollution.

Summarized below is several of the relevant points explaining why noise pollution would cease to be an issue due to the subject property's specific location.

o As per standard, brick walls are considered very effective sound reducers as show by their SRI (Sound Reduction Index). Further expanded below:

o Two attributes of a wall that drastically increases their capability to reduce sound levels are its 'mass' and 'completion'. In short, the heavier the material

2 Zone Variance, 08/04/15

used, the harder it is for sound waves to vibrate such walls, therefore increasing the reduction of noise. 'Completion' is an attribute that involves the physical construction of the wall; the less windows, doors, and breaks in the consistency, the more effective the sound reduction.

o The building where potential noise could be created is completely constructed of solid brick walls where the only breaks in completion lie on the wall facing away from the residential zone. Regarding the wall facing the residential zone, there is an entire separate office building, acting as a massive buffer that sound must travel through. (This can be seen in the floor plan.)

o The topographical data and on-site observations reveals that the physical elevation of the banquet hall, in comparison to the residential zone, is significantly lower due to the slope of the land. The lot resides on a moderate incline, going uphill towards the residential zone. This specific placement is a large benefit in regards to sound, as it places a substantial buffer between the Banquet Hall and the residences. The brief explanation for inclusion of these facts is because: the slope forces more obstacles-such as, the taller office building abutting the Banquet Hall and the hillside green belt-to more efficiently hinder the path of any noise. This making it significantly more difficult for sound waves to "bend" over these obstacles.

Based on the sample of the research above, we can see that this specific location is very effective in eliminating a problem that many other banquet hall uses struggle to resolve. In addition, the applicant has volunteered to make certain that full-time security guards monitors all doors and windows at all time to ensure noise pollution is minimized.

Furthermore, the applicant met with LAPD representatives and confirmed that all appropriate compliances with operating regulations are met. Alongside a dedicated security guard to enforce protocols, the applicant has installed security cameras throughout the facility to ensure the safety of the patrons. To maintain strict compliance to regulations, very conspicuous signs have been placed to info r.m guests · that smoking and alcohol is strictly prohibited outside of appropriate areas.

Because the applicant truly desires to maintain the overwhelmingly positive relation with the surrounding neighborhood, to further minimized sound pollution, he has suggested to construct a foyer into the banquet hall. This foyer will significantly reduce sound pollution, as having two doors-one from the outside into the foyer and one from the foyer into the banquet hall-effectively doubles net sound reduction.

The applicant has demonstrated an exemplary job, not only in making his banquet hall virtually sound-proof, but also in eliminating any other complications that may reduce


the value of the neighborhood-such as, environmental aesthetics, exterior building sanitation, roadside pollution, etc. To vouch for his actions, written feedback (letters of support) from neighboring business owners have insisted that they have had absolutely no complaints of noises or issues associated with the banquet hall facility.

3. Explain why the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of the special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships is denied to the property in question.

Previously stated, the rapidly declining demand for industrial uses in this specific location has opened opportunities to many fledgling companies, therefore altering business trends to serving local residents various food related amenities. Observation of businesses located within relevant locations in North-East Los Angeles, resulted in the discovery two other "Banquet Halls" within slightly moderate proximity. Although it is important to note that distance is one reason many residents do not prefer these locations, many have mentioned that these facilities do not provide some of the most basic provisions.

One of said venues is located in a multi-story building on the second floor and provides no handicap access. A reason as to why this caused much concern was that, although the loose term "Party and Festive Events" are used, elders attend many of these events as they are memorable celebrations of their beloved descendants. This lack of handicap accessibility-although not affecting every group-is still undoubtedly very off-putting to a large portion of our valued community.

The second Banquet Hall that many locals mentioned, appeared quite often in the research data as well. Residential feedback, along with research, shows that this facility severely lacks the parking availability to accommodate for larger-more commonevents. Specifically, there is a total of only four provided on-site parking. With only so few reserved parking spaces, it is blatant as to why many of our locals would be dissatisfied.

From an objective standpoint, scrutinizing the structural characteristics of the applicant's proposed Banquet Hall, there is very little-if any-complications that would cause any displeasure with the customers. The proposed project area is approximately 5,300 square feet and the total of all buildings on the lot amount to approximately 14,200 square feet. As required per regulations set forth by the Department of Building and Safety, the applicant has the proper amount of stalls; the ample 30 stalls provides more than enough parking accommodation for all small to medium events. When,


additional parking should be required, the applicant ensured that this commonly overlooked problem was not disregarded.

The applicant also has an agreement with his adjacent business neighbor where attendees to the events have permission to use his parking spaces on his property as well. This business owner attended the public hearing, but did not testify and provided a letter of support to this application. To even further improve the satisfaction of the citizens, the applicant has even volunteered to implement valet parking if future situations calls for such additional services. Finally, if an event is held that demands for additional parking than all these services can manage, there is significant street parking available on Cypress Avenue.

To deny such capable location would not only harm the applicant by imposing on him additional unnecessary hardships, but also the community in rejecting a genuine desire voiced by a large majority. Allowing the operation a very capable and highly beneficial request would allow our applicant to enjoy the substantial property right similarly offered to the other two mentioned venues.

To provide concrete support statistics, attached hereto are letters from local residents. These letters reflect the real need for banquet hall facilities in this area, particularly as LAPD do not permit major parties in residential houses. Each letter attached displays that the local residential and commercial neighbors all support the proposed project.

4. Explain why the granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the subject property is located.

To reiterate relevant information with more a detailed breakdown: Feedback from locals show that the residential demography leans heavily towards citizens of Hispanic cultural backgrounds. These citizens raised several reoccurring concerns about banquet halls in the area: Many of these residents admire festive atmospheres and find special events such as weddings, birthdays, quinceaneras, etc. very desirable, but several obstacles impede them from holding these events. According to local residents, LAPD strictly enforces the residents from hosting "house parties" as many past incidents have infringed various community regulations such as noise. It is also notable that in the North-East Los Angeles area, the residential community finds severe difficulty in locating appropriate "Banquet Hall" type venues that includes sufficient basic provisions. Several of the voiced concerns pertained, but not limited, to: ample parking, handicap accessibility/friendly, adequate venue size to house 100- 300 guests, and affordability. This establishment undeniably improves the living quality of customers and local


residents who enjoy the attractive, clean, family oriented and festive atmosphere produced by this banquet hall. By majority residential opinion, this banquet hall facility is considered highly attractive and well-maintained in comparison to the other banquet halls in the area. Within the resident's comfort vicinity, there are only two sub-par venues that-compared to our client's proposed banquet hall-are much smaller in size with less favorable accommodation to fulfill the community's basic venue-oriented needs.

It is also beneficial to note that due to the trending food-related amenities in the local area, many locals have attempted to reserve restaurant-type facilities for these festive events, only to be met with unsatisfying results due to certain regulations. Restaurants are restricted by law in entirely closing their services to the public as a result of private reservations. This means that these particularly personal events would have to be celebrated in the presence of strangers and unwanted visitors beyond their control. With the two most common locations-restaurants and homes-being unfit settings to hold these special events, a fully functional and readily accessible venue such as a Banquet Hall is required to alleviate the desires of the community and benefits the LAPD in drastically narrowing their range of surveillance.

As previously mentioned, there are also several catering and bakery services within the premises. The applicant has a caterer registered with the ABC for alcohol requested events. Proof of compliance with all regulations exists from the fact that the applicant has never been cited for any violations relating to service of alcohol and has had a valid permit for every individual event. Also attached are the permits for the catering business onsite. From a business and financial standpoint, the addition of this Banquet Hall would serve as an enormous benefit to both the applicant and all the surrounding businesses. The combination of a venue providing regulated and dedicated space for special events, accompanied by very close services to provide quality and timely food to these events is undeniably a highly attractive advantage to all the local food companies.

To disapprove the applicant's proposal would lead to several undesirable hardships for the community. If the establishment of this Banquet Hall were to be denied, the next viable course of action the applicant would take would be the implementation of an industrial manufacturing business permitted by right. The establishment of such business, given the lot's surroundings should bring rise to glaring issues.

o One, the establishment of a manufacturing business permitted by-right would create equal, if not more, air and sound pollution.

o Two, it should be understandable that the development of a potentially pollution-heavy and hazardous waste discharging facility, even if very strictly


monitored and controlled, would create a detrimental impact to nearly every individual in the proximity, including the fact that this location is directly across the street from a public park where children play and youth sports teams regularly meet who would be detrimentally affected. Health I Food related businesses would be significantly crippled by abutting such building along with the general living quality of our valued citizens residing in the neighborhood, who have provided the attached letters of support.

o Finally, the State Park-an environmentally beautiful and preserved landmarkwould have to face many unforeseeable effects, because industrial facilitiesmore often than not-place a taxing burden on nature.

In addition, the applicant has improved the neighborhood for the local residents. The applicant inspects and maintains the public sidewalks on both Cypress Avenue (where there is additional parking available for events) and San Fernando Road (adjacent to the public park entrance and the premisesL all for the benefit of his patrons to the banquet hall premises and the neighborhood at large. These areas used to go for months, even years, without any maintenance by the City, with protruding overgrowth from trees and bushes, trash, broken glass and other unsightly- even hazardous conditions, which the local residents must suffer. The applicant cleans areas which he is not required to maintain, because they are aqjacent to the banquet hall facility. The applicant has made a huge difference in the appearance and safety of at least a block in any direction from the business location. He also has diligently maintained the appearance of the outside ofthe buildings with regular graffiti removal. It would be a hardship and a shame ifthis application were denied, removing the reason for applicant's efforts to so maintain the appearance and safety of the areas near the location.

5. Explain why the granting the variance would not adversely affect any element of the General Plan.

As presented in all previous sections, our applicant desires to achieve compatibility between the intent and purpose of the General Plan: "to promote the provision of a variety of services throughout the city in locations that are convenient to the public yet do not impact nearby properties."

From an objective viewpoint, taking into consideration the information from the findings above, the purpose of this request should be very understandable. The benefits to the citizens, businesses, surrounding environment and nature far outweighs the potential harm that could arise from the rejection of this request. All aspects of this Banquet Hall, is completely parallel with the intents and purposes of the General Plan, with exception that the location lies on MRl (Industrial) zoned strip .


I

urban planning conce... . u· p,... ~rill plan"'"- I &!Nk!K ~ne I •"'ir!etrq .....

672 South La Fayette Park Place. Unit 42. Los Angeles, California 90057 t> 213.739.0955 e> [email protected]

Zone Variance- Banquet Hall with Dance Floor (ZV)

Proposed Project Address: 1845 W. San Fernando Road Los Angeles, CA 90065

1. That the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations.

The site contains approximately 27,322.3 square feet of lot area zoned MRI-1. The site was previously used as offices and manufacturing building, where a portion of the existing office is to remain. The subject variance application is to allow a banquet hall in the MRI Zone.

The project area is populated by residents with Hispanic cultural background, for which a

special event such as quinceaneras and wedding receptions are popular. The proposed banquet services are designed to primarily accommodate for wedding receipts, quinceaneras or similar

functions, for which catering services will provide food and drinks.

Due to lack of a banquet halls or similar facilities the size of the proposed project site in the area, it has been difficult for the residents in the area to find a similar accommodation to carry

out special events for a large group of guests.

A banquet hall is not permitted on a MRI Zone; however, the zone allows restaurant uses that are open to the general public/ free standing with a conditional use permit pursuant to Planning and Zoning Code Section 12.24-W.40. Since restaurants provide food service, it is not rare to find banquet amenities at restaurants. Restaurant uses can be open to the general public; however, the proposed project will accommodate private events that are generally closed to the general public. Furthermore, the proposed project will limit the days and hours of operation of the banquet venues to an extent much less than that of a restaurant use.

The site is surrounded by manufacturing uses, antique shop, residential (single family and duplexes). A total of 30 parking spaces are provided on the site in compliance with the code. The proposed operational hours are from I 0 a.m. to 12 a.m. daily. Despite the proposed hours, the actual operation will only take place portion of these hours per day since the private events are not expected to be held throughout the whole operational hours.

1 , .

4-07(11

('

I

urban planning conce.,.. i.J p 1::. ~~ I p~tn~~~n& I"'*-~ I ~rtrl& 672 South La Fayette Park Place. Unil42. Los Angeles, Cal~ornia 90057

l> 213.739.0955 e> [email protected]

The subject banquet hall will only serve private receptions and will not be open to the general public; therefore, the proposed project will be potentially less-intensive than that of a restaurant use. Due to a lack of banquet facility in the project area, the subject banquet hall is expected to serve primarily families living and working in the immediate area of the West Los Angeles community.

The denial of this request would result in unnecessary hardships for the applicant because the existing banquet hall will not be permitted although the use is much less intensive than a restaurant use, which is permitted by the zone with a conditional use permit and the use will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding uses. The proposed use will not result in a change to the existing building except for the tenant improvement of space to effectively accommodate for private events like quinceaneras and wedding receptions.

As explained with reasons above, the Zoning and Planning Code's desire to achieve compatibility between the uses on the neighboring properties and the applicant' s desire to provide a more viable/functional business operation can be accommodated in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning and Planning regulation.

2. That there are special circumstances applicable to the subject properly such as size, topography, location or surroundings that do not apply generally to other property in the same zone and vicinity.

The site is populated by residents with a Hispanic cultural background, for which special events such as quinceaneras are very popular. However, due to a lack of restaurants or banquet facilities in the area, it has been challenging for the residents to find appropriate facilities to accommodate a large group of guests; hence, a high demand for this type of use persists. The proposed use is similar to a restaurant use, which is permitted by the zone with a conditional use permit, but will be much less intensive than a restaurant use due to limited operating hours and banquet venues will be open for private events only, which will not be open to the general public. The granting of the request will allow revitalization of the blighted conditions of the project area and will provide a banquet facility, which is in high demand for the residents in the area.

2

urban planning conce .. ,. •rdllt«tulill ..mnii!C I~~ le>fllitltefttll UFIC.

672 South La Fayetle Park Place. Unit 42. Los Angeles, California 90057 t> 213.739.0955 e> [email protected]

3. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity but which, because of such special circumstances and practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships is denied to the property in question.

The proposed use will not result in a substantial physical change to the existing building except tenant improvement of the interior portion to accommodate for the banquet hall use. Declining demand for industrial uses, the age of the structure and demographic changes have created special circumstances regarding the need for banquet uses. The MR1 Zone permits a restaurant use as accessory to the industrial use on the site or a restaurant that is free standing and open to public with a conditional use permit. It is very common for restaurant to provide banquet services similar to the proposed project. Since the proposed project will be limited to private events with limited operating hours, it is considered less intensive than a restaurant use. Whereas a restaurant approved by a conditional use permit, will be open to the general

public and also have non-restricting business hours. Therefore, this banquet hall will not have a negative impact on the surrounding business and neighborhood, but instead provide public convenience to residents in the area where there is a lack of banquet facilities. Therefore, the denial of this request will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships for the applicant, to whom a substantial property right or use will be denied while other properties are allowed to be used for a restaurant use, which is considered more intensive use than the proposed project. Therefore, granting of this request would allow the applicant to enjoy the same property right or use generally possessed by other property in the same zone and in the project vicinity.

4. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located.

The property across the street to the west are zoned M2-l and belongs to Rio De Los Angeles State Park.

The adjoining properties to the north are zoned M 1-1 with mostly manufacturing uses and to the south are classified as both MR-1 and M 1-1 zones developed with industrial buildings.

The adjoin properties to the east across Cypress A venue are zoned in the R1 ~ 1 and R2-l

developed with single family residential and duplexes.

The project is not expected to generate any impacts that are typically associated with Light Manufacturing industrial uses such as fumes and chemicals in the air.

In order to mitigate the potential traffic conflicts that might arise due to the proposed banquet hall use, the guests are not recommended to park on the residential streets. Also, the banquet hall use will not occupy the site throughout the entire operational hours on a given day.

3

urban planning conce._ . UPC. ~~ I plenlllftC I t.Jncko!t~ l •111~~~te~ 672 South La Fayette Park Place. Unit 42. Los Angeles, California 90057

t> 213.739.0955 e> [email protected]

As aforementioned above, the proposed project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the same zone or vicinity in which the property is located.

5. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect any element of the General Plan.

The Northeast Los Angeles Community Plan designates the subject property as Limited Manufacturing land uses with corresponding zones ofMRl , Ml , and M2.

The subject property is within the Cypress Park and Glassell Park area and East Los Angeles State Enterprise Zone.

The variance is not specifically addressed by the Community Plan text. However, the proposed project will create a much needed use in an area without resulting in adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposed project is in conformance with the spirit and intent of the General Plan which promotes the necessary services to be located in appropriate locations convenient to the residents.

4

August 1 0, 20 15

Lourdes Green Zoning Administrator Department of City Planning City of Los Angeles 200 N. Spring St. , Room 763 Los Angeles, CA 90012

Donna C. Bullock Attorney at Law

1125 W. 61h Street, Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 900 1 7

(562) 726-0778 Fax: (562) 683-0319

[email protected]

Re: Case No. ZA 2014-0708(ZV)

RECEIVED CITY OF LOS ANGELES

AUG t 1 2015 CITY PLANNING DEPT. ZONING ADMINISTRATION

Project Address: 1845 W. San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, CA 90065 Banquet Hall Application

Dear Ms. Green:

Enclosed are the documents submitted in support of the above-referenced Zone Variance Application requesting a Conditional Use Permit in this case on behalf ofYun Hyo Song and Ki Sang Song to use the project location as a Banquet Hall. During the June 30, 2015 public hearing held before you in this case, you set the due date for submission of further documents in support of the Zone Variance application as August 11 , 20 15.

Attached is the factual statement of the supporting justification to meet the five required variance findings for the requested Zone Variance, which you specifically requested be submitted after the hearing.

Attached as Exhibit "A" are over thirty five (35) letters of support for the proposed use from members of the community. Also attached are letters of support from the immediately neighboring business owners on either side of the proposed Banquet Hall project. There is a huge outpouring of support from the residents and business owners alike, to show that the community desires the proposed Banquet Hall and support the applicants in this project.

Attached as Exhibit "B" are the permits and licensure documents ofPepi Company of California LLC dba Alonti Cafe & Catering, which is the business tenant of the applicant occupying premises within the same building as the proposed Banquet Hall, which documents you specifically requested at the hearing. As more fully described in the attached findings statement, this business is a beneficially corresponding use to the proposed Banquet Hall, available at all times to cater the events. Also attached as Exhibit "C" is a printout of the

Lourdes Green Zoning Administrator Case No.: ZA 2014-0708(ZV) August 10, 2015- page two

permit information for the other caterer used by the Applicant, Intimate Inns of California dba Florentine's Catering Service, which has an Alcohol Beverage Control type 47liquor license and a type 58 Caterer's Permit to sell alcohol off premises for alcohol requested events at the project location. In addition, on the issue of the lawful requirements for service of alcohol, California Business & Professions Code, §23399.1 , states in pertinent part:

"No license or permit shall be required for the serving and otherwise disposing of alcoholic beverages where all of the following conditions prevail:

1. That there is no sale of an alcoholic beverage .. 2. That the premises are not open to the general public during the time alcoholic

beverages are served, consumed or otherwise disposed of. 3. That the premises are not maintained for the purpose of keeping, serving,

consuming or otherwise disposing of alcoholic beverages. Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to permit any person to violate any provision of the Alcohol Beverage Control Act."

The applicant location would be fully permitted to serve alcohol at the Banquet Hall events through the caterer's ABC licensure. The above-cited code section also indicates that as long as there is no charge for liquor (and no tip jars- which the police instructed could be construed as payment for liquor), for a private event at the project location which is not primarily maintained for the service of alcohol (meaning there is no bar fixture or bar business operation onsite), there are no legal issues relating to service of alcohol at events. It should also be noted that according to the witnesses at the public hearing, there is no record of any police activity or arrests at the project location relating in any way to alcohol service, consumption or permits- or any other cause. The only police concern has been the proper permits for the project, which would be cured and fully addressed by your issuance of the CUP upon this Zone Variance application. This applicant has complied with all legal requirements for the proposed events, and will continue to do so upon issuance of the requested CUP.

In addition, at the hearing, there were concerns raised about the permits used for the events which have already taken place at the project location. However, each and every event held at the proposed Banquet Hall had a valid Temporary Special Event permit issued by the City of Los Angeles. An online request for clearance was made to "Permit LA" which would research the location and issue a clearance for each event. Each clearance for each event would then be taken to the City Planning Department for the actual permit. Only after the permit was approved would the permit fee of$137.88 per event be paid. The owners ofthis project were lawfully entitled to make any application to a public agency, for the issuance of the clearance and each Temporary Special Event permit. It was the duty and responsibility of the permitting agency to grant or deny the requests. As each event ever held at the project location, had an individual clearance and an individual Temporary Special Event permit, each such event was lawfully held. At a meeting after the June 30, 2015 public hearing with Sgt. Carrasco of the Los Angeles Police

Lourdes Green Zoning Administrator Case No.: ZA 2014-0708(ZV) August 1 0, 2015 - page three

Department (who testified at that public hearing on behalf of LAPD), the procedure used by the applicant for the Temporary Special Event permits was explained, clearing up certain misunderstandings about the propriety of the conduct of this business owner. Although Sgt. Carrasco did not support the project initially, he stated at that meeting that he has no further objections to it - if the project was lawfully permitted, through the requested CUP. The CUP can only be issued upon granting of the requesting Zone Variance upon this application. It is most respectfully requested that this application be granted, such that the business owner can operate with all lawful pennitting for the Banquet Hall facility. Sgt. Carrasco stated that he had no further objections, upon inspection of the premises, as long as the CUP was issued.

It was upon Sgt. Carrasco's instructions that certain events previously booked and scheduled at the project located were cancelled by the applicant pending the outcome of this application. This action was to fully comply with the police requirement for the required operating permits before any more events took place at the location, upon granting of this Zone Variance application and issuance ofthe CUP. Attached hereto as Exhibits D-1 , D-2, D-3 , D-4 and D-5 are five cancelled event contracts, showing losses of income, and potentially subjecting the owners to liability for breach of those contracts, as a result of strict compliance with the instructions of the police. Also attached as Exhibits "E-1 " and "E-2" are two letters of Personal Reference for the good character of the applicant manager, Mr. Song, from his church pastor and another elder. His good character, and cancellation ofthese events, evidences the intention ofthese applicants to abide by all legal requirements for the operation of this proposed Banquet Hall use. It is again most respectfully requested that the Zone Variance application be granted.

The remaining attached documents are all submitted for your consideration, in support of the Zone Variance application. If you have any questions or require any information, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

s~c Donna C. Bullock Attorney at Law

DBC:dc

Enclosures

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT ·

...

·;

{E-NV; M:ND~ CE and o-r Notice of Exemption)

CITY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

ROOM 395, CITY HALL LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

LEAD CITY AGENCY icoUNCIL DISTRICT City of Los Angeles CD 1 -GILBERT CEDILLO . . --·- ·-· PROJECT TITLE CASE NO. ENV-2014-709-MND ZA-2014-708-ZV

PROJECT LOCATION 1851 W SAN FERNANDO ROAD

PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Zone Variance for a change of use from 5,235 square feet of manufacturing to a banquet hall, on a 27,332 square foot lot in the (Q]MR1-1-CDO Zone.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT IF OTHER THAN CITY AGENCY Yun Hyo Song 1845 San Fernando Road Los Angeles, CA 90065

FINDING: The Clty Planning Department of the City of Los Angeles has Proposed that a mitigated negative declaration be adopted for this project because the mitigation measure(s} outlined on the attached page(s} will reduce any potential significant adverse effects to a level of insignificance

(CONTINUED ON PAGE 2)

SEE ATTACHED SHEET(S) FOR ANY MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED.

Any written comments received during the public review period are attached together with the response of the Lead City Agency. The project decision-make may adopt the mitigated negative declariation, amend it, or require preparation of an EIR.

I Any changes made should be supported by substantial evidence in the record and appropriate findings made. .

THE INITIAL STUDY PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IS ATTACHED. I NAME OF PERSON PREPARING THIS FORM - . -

TITLE TELEPHONE NUMBER

I I Mlt\1REL OrB~ leN · City Planning Associate l213J ~1 %-13~ lD

- . ADDRESS SIGNATURE (Official) DATE

I

200 N. SPRING STREET, 7th FLOOR (\

~~A~c;}1~ APRIL l ~I 101~ LOS ANGELES, CA. 90012 It, ~ --. .. v ........... v

\

ENV-2014-709-MND Page 1 of 19

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENV-2014-709-MND

1-100. Aesthetics (Signage) • Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to on-site signage in excess of that allowed

under the Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 91.6205. However, the potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measures:

• On-site signs shall be limited to the maximum allowable under the Municipal Code. Vlll-10. Explosion/Release (Existing Toxic/Hazardous Construction Materials)

• Due to the age of the building{s) being demolished, toxic and/or hazardous construction materials may be located in the structure{s). Exposure to such materials during demolition or construction activities could be hazardous to the health of the demolition workers, as well as area residents, employees, and future occupants. However. these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measure:

• (Asbestos) Prior to the issuance of any permit for the demolition or alteration of the existing structure{s), the applicant shall provide a letter to the Department of Building and Safety from a qualified asbestos abatement consultant indicating that no Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM} are present in the building. If ACMs are found to be present, it will need to be abated in compliance with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1403 as well as all other applicable State and Federal rules and regulations.

• (Lead Paint) Prior to issuance of any permit for the demolition or alteration of the existing structure(s), a lead-based paint survey shall be performed to the written satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety. Should lead-based paint materials be identified, standard handling and disposal practices shall be implemented pursuant to OSHA regulations.

• (Polychlorinated Biphenyl- Commercial and Industrial Buildings) Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) abatement contractor shall conduct a survey of the project site to identify and assist with compliance with applicable state and federal rules and regulation governing PCB removal and disposal.

XIV-10. Public Services (Fire) • Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the location of the project in an area having

marginal fire protection facilities. However, this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measure:

• The following recommendations of the Fire Department relative to fire safety shall be incorporated into the building plans, which includes the submittal of a plot plan for approval by the Fire Department either prior to the recordation of a 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 an approved fire hydrant, and entrances to any dwelling unit or guest room shall not be more than 150 feet in distance in horizontal travel from the edge of the roadway of an improved street or approved fire lane.

XIV-30. Public Services (Police} • Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the location of the project in an area having

marginal police services. However, this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level 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-illuminated public and semi-public space designed with a minimum of dead space to eliminate areas of concealment, location oftoilet facilities or building entrances in high-foot traffic areas, and provision of security guard patrol throughout the project site if needed. Please refer to "Design Out Crime Guidelines: Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design", published by the Los Angeles Police Department. Contact the Community Relations Division, located at 100 W. 1st Street, #250, Los Angeles, CA 90012; (213) 486-6000. These measures shall be approved by the Police Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

XVII-20. Utilities (Local Water Supplies - All New Construction) • Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the cumulative increase in demand on the

City's water supplies. However, this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measures:

• If conditions dictate, the Department of Water and Power may postpone new water connections for this project until water supply capacity is adequate.

• Install high-efficiency toilets (maximum 1.28 gpf), including dual-flush water closets, and high-efficiency urinals (maximum 0.5 gpf), including no-flush or waterless urinals, in all restrooms as appropriate.

• Install restroom faucets with a maximum flow rate of 1.5 gallons per minute. XVII-90. Utilities (Solid Waste Recycling)


MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENV-2014-709-MND

• Environmental impacts may result from project implementation due to the creation of additional solid waste. However, this potential impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following measure:

• (Operational) Recycling bins shall be provided at appropriate locations to promote recycling of paper, metal, glass, and other recyclable material. These bins shall be emptied and recycled accordingly as a part of the project's regular solid waste disposal program.

• (Construction/Demolition) Prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the applicant shall provide a copy of the receipt or contract from a waste disposal company providing services to the project, specifying recycled waste service(s), to the satisfaction of the Department of Building and Safety. The demolition and construction contractor(s) shall only contract for waste disposal services with a company that recycles demolition and/or construction-related wastes.

• (Construction/Demolition) To facilitate on-site separation and recycling of demolition- and construction-related wastes, the contractor(s} shall provide temporary waste separation bins on-site during demolition and construction. These bins shall be emptied and the contents recycled accordingly as a part of the project's regular solid waste disposal program.

XVII-100. Utilities (Solid Waste Disposal)

• • All waste shall be disposed of properly. Use appropriately labeled recycling bins to recycle demolition and

construction materials including: solvents, water-based paints, vehicle fluids, broken asphalt and concrete, bricks, metals, wood, and vegetation. Non recyclable materials/wastes shall be taken to an appropriate landfill. Toxic wastes must be discarded at a licensed regulated disposal site.


LEAD CITY AGENCY: City of Los Angeles

CITY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

ROOM 395, CITY HALL . LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

INITIAL STUDY and CHECKLIST

(CEQA Guidelines Section 15063)

l~OUNCIL DISTRICT: CD 1 -GILBERT CEDILLO

!~ATE: 03/17/2014

RESPON~~B~E ~GENCI~ES: Department of City Planning · .

ENVIRONMENTAL CASE: RELATED CASES: ENV-2014-709-MND ZA-2014-708-ZV

PREVIOUS ACTIONS CASE NO.: D Does have significant changes from previous actions. y Does NOT have significant changes from previous actions.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ZONE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE USE, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF A BANQUET HALL WITH A DANCE FLOOR IN THE MR1-1 ZONE.

ENV PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Zone Variance for a change of use from 5,235 square feet of manufacturing to a banquet hall, on a 27,332 square foot Jot in the [Q]MR1-1-CDO Zone.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS: Properties to the north, across Macon Street, are zoned [Q]MR1-1-CDO and are improved with a metal polishing shop and various industrial uses. Properties to the east, across Cypress Avenue, a Major Highway Class II, are zoned R2-1-CDO and are improved with single family dwellings and duplexes. Properties to the south are zoned [Q]MR1-1-CDO and are improved with an antiques dealer and repair shop[. and various industrial uses. Properties to the west, across San Fernando Road, a Major Highway Class II, are zoned [Q]M2-1-CDO and are improved with the Rio de Los Angeles State Park. The entrance to the State Park is a continuation of Macon Street.

PROJECT LOCATION: 1851 W SAN FERNANDO ROAD

COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: AREA PLANNING COMMISSION: CERTIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD NORTHEAST LOS ANGELES EAST LOS ANGELES COUNCIL: STATUS: GREATER CYPRESS PARK

"</' Does Conform to Plan

D Does NOT Conform to Plan

EXISTING ZONING: MAX. DENSITYnNTENSITY

[Q]MR1-1-CDO ALLOWED BY ZONING:

MAX. DENSITY/INTENSITY LA River Adjacent:

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE: ALLOWED BY PLAN

NO LIMITED MANUFACTURING

DESIGNATION:

PROPOSED PROJECT DENSITY: l '

ENV-2014-709-MND Page 4 ofl9

Determination (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation:

D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions on the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

0 I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

0 I find the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed ih an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation me~sures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects {a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

City Planning Associate (213) 978-3978

""'···""···--""···""·····""'·--=·-""·--=- -·""····-""--""'- =--""····""- -""'·"'-'--""--··""--""'-··""""'"""'·· ·""··-""'"'··""···""····=·····""'·····=········· ""'···"'"··· ·""'--··"""··-==···""'·-···""·····=·--"-'---""-·"""'"' "•""··-""'··.-""····""'·· ·""'···""····""'····""""""'""'""""""'·····=····' ......................... -. ................ ,. ... _, ........ ... . .... .

Signature Title Phone

Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information

sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project~specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project~specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less that significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross~referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR, or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately

analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site~specific conditions for the project.

ENV -20 14-709-MND Page 5 of 19

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A sources list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.


Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

V AESTHETICS 0 GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS i 0 POPULATION AND HOUSING

0 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST V HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS l V PUBLIC SERVICES RESOURCES MATERIALS ) CJ RECREATION

0 0 I

AIR QUALITY HYDROLOGY AND WATER ! D TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

0 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES QUALITY ! V UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

0 CULTURAL RESOURCES 0 LAND USE AND PLANNING !Cl MANDATORY FINDINGS OF

D GEOLOGY AND SOILS D MINERAL RESOURCES i SIGNIFICANCE 0 NOISE i . ..;. ___ , .. ____ ,_ k-~~--., ~-·- ,_ .... - . -~><--~··" -~ .. -~ ........... ··-=··· ......... __ .... ·- .... ................ _ . ··- · __ ____ .. .. : ... ~ . :

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST (To be completed by the Lead City Agency}

Background

PROPONENT NAME:

Yun Hyo Song APPUCANT ADDRESS:

1845 San Fernando Road Los Angeles, CA 90065

AGENCY REQUIRING CHECKLIST:

Department of City Planning PROPOSAL NAME (if Applicable):

PHONE NUMBER: (213) 622-2500

DATE SUBMITTED: 02/27/2014

' i

j


Potentially significant

Potentially unless Less than significant mitigation significant . imPa.ct . -incorporated lmpa~t No Impact

I. AESTHETICS a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ~ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, ~

rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ~ surroundings?

d • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect ~ . day or ni!;Jhttjme views in the area?

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide ~

Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ~ c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined ~

in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? v e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location ~

or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Ill. AIR QUALITY a. . Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? v b. · Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or v

projected air quality viola.tion?

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for v which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d . . Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? v e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? v IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat ~

modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species In local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive v natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined ~ by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory v fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ~ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural ~ Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ·-~---~----· .. ._ .... ~-·-·-·~--., -········· .... ··· ··~ ............. ............. , .. . •. ... , ... .. .... .. ... ., ... ····· ···•··· . .. .. ................. .. . , • .. . , ......... . ..... •.•.,, ······-· ·····

ENV-2014-709-MND Page 8 of19


Potentially unless Less than significant mitigation significant

impact incorporated Impact No Impact

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical v : resource as defined in § 15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological v resource pursuant to§ 15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or v unique geologic feature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal v , cemeteries?

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including v the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

b. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including v the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Strong seismic ground shaking?

c. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including v the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

d. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including v the risk of loss~ . injury, or death involving: Landslides?

e. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? v f. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become v

unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site • landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

g. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform v BIJildin.g Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

h. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or v alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for

, the disposal of waste water? . . . .

VII. GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may v : have a significant impact on the environment?

b . Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose v . of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

a . Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the v . routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through v reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous v materials, substances. or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites v compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would .it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan v has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f . For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in v . a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency v .. . !.(;l~P.?..~~~.P.I~~- ?~. (;l~~r~(;lncy evacuation plan? . . ..... ~ ·- .. . ·········-··-· ·· ···· ·······- ' ··· .. .. . ~- . .... . . ..... . . .




Impact . incorj)orated Impact .. __ No impact . .

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death v involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized

. areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUAUTY - .

a. . Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? v .. ··-

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with v groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support

• existing land uses or plannedus.es for which permits have b~n wanted)?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, Including v through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

t"j[ . . . . . . .

Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including v through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing v or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f. : Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? v g. Place housing within a 100-year' flood hazard area as mapped on a federal v

Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard , delineation map? .

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or v redirect flood flows?

I. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or deat~ v involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? v X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

a. Physically divide an established community? ~ b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency v

with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community v conservation plan?

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of v value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource v recovery site delineated on a local general plan. specific plan or other land

; use plan? XII. NOISE

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards v established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable

. standards of other agencies?

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or v groundborne noise levels?

c. A substantial permanent Increase in ambient noise levels In the project v vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the v . project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

·--·~---~ ...... , ....... ~- --~- .. -----~-............ _, __ , ,,., .,............ .. . .. ...... .. . --· .... , ...... ' . ... . .. . .. . . . .. -. .. .. . ... ...... ......... ._ ... ~ ..... ......... --··· ..... •p··-··--~~- ................ .... .... ........ .... . . .. ... ·- · - ~ · . ...... - · · .. ........... .....




Impact incorporated impact No impact

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan ../' has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project

, area to excessive noise levels?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose ../' i people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, ../' by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through

, extension of roads or other infrastructure)? i':-

.. . . .

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ../' construction of replacemen~ housing elsewhere?

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of v : replacement housing elsewhere?

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?

b. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Police protection?

c. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the

• public services: Schools?

d. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated v with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the

. public services: P~rks?

e .. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated ../' with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Other public facilites?

XV. RECREATION

a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional v parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or v expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

a. Co"fllctwllh "'applicable pia", e<di"a"ce or policy e""bliahi"g meaaurea of CCCL effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation Including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ---- ~ -·· ·- · - - ~ -- - .. . -· , . -- - . - - -· - -- - - . - -- -




impact incorporat~d .. Impact No impact

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but v not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for

• desi.~nated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic v

levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or v dangerous Intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g ~, farm equipment)?

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? v f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, v

bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus

. turnouts, bicycle racks)?

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water v Quality Control Board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment v facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could

. cause significant environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or v expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing v . entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves v or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the v project's soUd waste disposal needs?

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ,;' waste?

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, v substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively ,;' considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial y adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083, 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080, 21083.05, 21095, Pub. Resources Code; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cai.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cai.App.4th at 11 09; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cai.App.4th 656.

E~-2014-709-~ Page 12 of 19

;

DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Attach additional sheets if necessary)

The Environmental Impact Assessment includes the use of official City of Los Angeles and other government source reference materials related to various environmental impact categories {e.g., Hydrology, Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, etc.). The State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology - Seismic Hazard Maps and reports, are used to identify potential future significant seismic events; including probable magnitudes, liquefaction, and landslide hazards. Based on applicant information provided in the Master Land Use Application and Environmental Assessment Form, impact evaluations were based on stated facts contained therein, including but not limited to, reference materials indicated above, field investigation of the project site, and any other reliable reference materials known at the time.

Project specific impacts were evaluated based on all relevant facts indicated in the Environmental Assessment Form and expressed through the applicant's project description and supportive materials. Both the Initial Study Checklist and Checklist Explanations, in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles's Adopted Thresholds Guide and CEQA Guidelines, were used to reach reasonable conclusions on environmental impacts as mandated under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project as identified in the project description may cause potentially significant impacts on the environment without mitigation. Therefore, this environmental analysis concludes that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be issued to avoid and mitigate all potential adverse impacts on the environment by the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions contained and expressed in this document; the environmental case file known as ENV-2014-709-MND and the associated case(s), ZA-2014-708-ZV . Finally, based on the fact that these impacts can be feasibly mitigated to less than significant, and based on the findings and thresholds for Mandatory Findings of Significance as described in the California Environmental Quality Act, section 15065, the overall project impact(s) on the environment (after mitigation) will not:

• Substantially degrade environmental quality. • Substantially reduce fish or wildlife habitat. • Cause a fish or wildlife habitat to drop below self sustaining levels. • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. • Reduce number, or restrict range of a rare, threatened, or endangered species. • Eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory. • Achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. • Result in environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. • Result in environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: All supporting documents and references are contained in the Environmental Case File referenced above and may be viewed in the EIR Unit, Room 763, City Hall. For City information. addresses and phone numbers: visit the City's website at http://www.lacity.org ; City Planning- and Zoning Information Mapping Automated System (ZIMAS) cityplanning.lacity.org/ or EIR Unit, City Hall, 200 N Spring Street, Room 763. Seismic Hazard Maps- http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/ Engineering/lnfrastructureffopographic Maps/Parcel Information- http://boemaps.eng.ci.la.ca.us/index01.htm or City's main website under the heading "Navigate LA".

TITLE: TELEPHONE NO.: PREPARED BY:

City Planning Associate (213) 978-3978

ENV -20 14-709-MND

DATE:

03/17/2014

Page 13 of 19

lm act? Explanation

APPENDIX A: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION TABLE

I. AESTHETICS

a. NO IMPACT Since there are no scenic vistas in the area, the Project will have no impact.

b. NO IMPACT Since there are no scenic resources in the area, the Project will have no impact.

c. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS Provision of excessive slgnage could MITIGATION INCORPORATED potentlaly degrade the visual character

of the site and its surroundings.

d. NO IMPACT Since the Project Is an interior change within an existing building, it will not create a substantial source of light or glare.

II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

a. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in prime farmland, there will be no impact.

b. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in land zoned for agriculture, there will be no impact.

c. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in forest land, there will be no impact.

d. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in forest land, there will be no impact.

e. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not l.ocated in farmland or forest land, there will be no impact.

Ill. AIR QUALITY

a. NO IMPACT Since the Project is an interior change of use with no significant increase in emissions, it will not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any air quality plan.

b. NO IMPACT Since the Project is an interior change of use with no significant increase in emissions, it will not violate any air quality standards.

c. NO IMPACT Since the Project is an interior change of use with no significant increase in emissions, it will not contribute to a considerable net increase in pollutants.

d. NO IMPACT Since there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity, the Project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

e. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not generate any objectionable odors, it will not affect a substantial number of people.

ENV~2014-709~MND

1-100

Mitigation Measures

Application of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to Insignificance

Page 14 of19

lm act?

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

f. NO IMPACT

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

ENV-2014-709-MND

Ex lanation

Since there are no sensitive species on the Project site, there will be no impact.

Since the site is built-up urban land, the Project will have no impact on riparian resources.

Since the site is built-up urban land, the Project will have no impact on wetlands.

Since the site is built-up urban land, the Project will have no impact on the movement of native species.

Since there are no protected trees on the site, the Project will have no impact protected trees.

Since the Project is not located within a Habitat Conservation Plan, there will be no impact.

Since the property is not an historic resource, the Project will have no impact.

Since the property is not in an area of known archaeological resources, and involves no disturbance of the soil, the Project will have no impact.

Since the property is not in an area of known paleontological resources, and involves no disturbance of the soil, the Project will have no impact.

Since the property is not in an area of known human remains, and involves no disturbance of the soil, the Project will have no impact.

Since the Project is not located in an Alquist-Priolo zone, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is an interior change of use, there will be no potential adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking.

Since the Project is not located in a known earthquake hazard zone/liquefaction area, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not located in a landslide hazard area, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will require no grading, there will be no significant erosion impacts.

Mitigation .Measures

Page 15 of 19

· Impact? Ex lanation

f. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in an area of unstable soil, there will be no impact.

g. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in an area of expansive soil, there will be no impact.

h. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not use septic tanks, but will be connected to the city's sanitary sewer system, there will be no impact.

VII. GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

.a. NO IMPACT Since the Project is an internal change of use, it will not generate significant greenhouse gas emissions.

b. NO IMPACT Since the Project is an interior change of use, it will not conflict with any applicable plan regulating greenhouse gases.

VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

a. NO IMPACT Since the Project involves no hazardous materials, there will be no impact.

b. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS Since the Project could release MITIGATION INCORPORATED hazardous materials such as asbestos

during demolition of the existing building interior, there could potentially be a significant Impact

c. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not near any school, there will be no impact.

d. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located on a hazardous materials site, there will be no impact.

e. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in an airport land use plan area, there will be no impact.

f. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, there will be no impact.

g. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not impair an emergency response plan, there will be no impact.

h. NO IMPACT Since the Project is not located in an area subject to wildland fires, there will be no impact.

IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

a. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not violate any water quality of waste discharge standards, there will be no impact.

b. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not deplete groundwater supplies, there will be no impact.

c. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not substantially alter drainage patterns on site, or alter the course of a stream or river, there will be no impact.

ENV-2014-709-MND

Vlll-10

Mitigation Measures

Application of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to insignificance

Page 16 of 19

lm act?

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

f. NO IMPACT

g. NO IMPACT

h. NO IMPACT

L NO IMPACT

j. NO IMPACT

X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

XII. NOISE

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT ,

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

ENV-2014-709-MND

Explanation

Since the Project will not alter any drainage patterns on site, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not create any new runoff, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not within a 100 year flood zone, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not within a 1 00 year flood zone, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not downstream from any dam, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not located in a tsunami area, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not physically divide an established community, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not located within any habitat conservation plan or community conservation plan, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not located with an area of known mineral resources, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not located with an area of known mineral resources, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will create no significant exterior noise, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will create no significant vibrations or noise, there will be no

· impact.

Since the Project will not create a significant permanent increase in exterior noise levels, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient exterior noise levels, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is not located within an airport land use plan, there will be no impact.

Mitigation Measures

Page 17 of 19

lm act?

f. NO IMPACT

XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES

a. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED

b. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

XV. RECREATION

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

XVI. TRANSPORTATIONfrRAFFIC

a. NO IMPACT

b. NO IMPACT

c. NO IMPACT

d. NO IMPACT

e. NO IMPACT

ENV-2014-709-MND

Ex lanatlon

Since the Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not induce any population growth, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not displace any housing, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not displace any people, there will be no impact.

Since the Project is a change of use fr5om manufacturing to a banquet facility, there could potentially be a significant impact on Fire protection.

Since the Project Is a change of use fr5om manufacturing to a banquet facility, there could potentially be a significant impact on Police protection.

Since the Project will not create any new demand for schools, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not create any new demand for parks, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not require any new or altered governmental facilities, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not increase the use of parks, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not increase the use of recreational facilities, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not conflict with any applicable transportation plan, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not conflict with any congestion management plan, there will be no Impact.

Since the Project will not change any air traffic patterns, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not create any hazardous transportation facilities, there will be no impact.

Since the Project will not impair any emergency access, there will be no impact.

XIV-10

Mitigation Measures

Application of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential Impacts to Insignificance

XIV-30 Application of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential Impacts to insignificance

Page 18 of 19

Impact? Explanation

f. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not conflict with any pian for non-auto related transportation modalities, there will be no impact.

XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

a. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not generate significant amounts of wastewater, there will be no impact

b. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not result in the construction of any new wastewater facilities, there will be no impact.

c. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not result in the construction of any new stormwater drainage facilities, there will be no impact.

d. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS Since the occupancy of the facility will MITIGATION INCORPORATED significantly Increase, there could

potentially be a significant Impact on water supplies.

e. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not require any new wastewater facilities, there will be no impact.

f. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS The proposed Project could generate MITIGATION INCORPORATED significant amounts of waste

associated with banquet facilities.

g. NO IMPACT Since the Project will comply with federal, state and local regulations concerning solid waste, there will be no impact.

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

a. NO IMPACT Since the Project will not substantially degrade the environment, or reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife, or harm an historic resource, there will be no impact.

b. NO IMPACT Since all similar Projects have had and will have their impacts mitigated to insignificance, there will be no impact.

c. NO IMPACT Since the Project will have no substantial adverse impacts on human beings, there will be no impact.

ENV-2014-709-MND

XVII-20

Mitigation Measures

Application of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to insignificance

XVII-90, XVII-1 00 Applicat ion of the proposed mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts to insignificance

Page 19 of 19

~-..;. --~ . -·--- . --- ·---·--- ..

MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS

...

\ I,

(if applicable: Building &:Sa-fe.t'f Re_ports, :Police Reports, Alcohol & B~ver.:age Control)

......---

CYPRESS PARK & GLASSELL PARK [Q] CONDITIONS CPC-2008-3991.ZC

10. The following uses shall be prohibited: a. Drive-through Establishments (including, but not limited to fast food, coffee, drug stores and banks), b. Commercial Shipping. c. Electronic Message Display Signs or other similar signs were content is displayed electronically, d. Lumber Store or Lumber Yard, or Contractor's Equipment Yard in excess of 20,000 square feet of lot area. e. New Public Storage facilities. Public Storage in existence within the subject subarea boundary upon the effective day of this ordinance will enjoy a pre-existing status. f. Pole and Pylon Signs, g. Equine or Motorcycle sales, h. Recreational Vehicles Park. i. Concrete MiXIng, Concrete Product Manufacture, j. Recycling Materials Sorting Facilities, k. Scrap Metal Storage, Processing, Bailing or Collecting, I. Freight Yards or Terminals, m. Truck Yard and Overhauling, n. Truck Rental Facilities.

42. (Q]MR1-1-COO

1. The following uses shall be prohibited, except for those uses in existence within the subject subarea boundary upon the effective day of this ordinance: Automobile and Trailer Sales; Automotive Repair; and Automotive Use as defined in Section 12.3 of the lAMC; Automotive Exhaust Test Station; Battery Servicing.

2. The following uses shall be prohibited, except for those uses in existence within the subject subarea boundary upon the effective day of this ordinance: Automobile Storage Area and/ or Automobile Sales (Used). These uses may be allowed in conjunction with a facility that sells new automobiles.

3. The foUowing uses shall be prohibited, except for those uses in existence within the subject subarea boundary upon the effective day of this ordinance: Wholesale Auto Parts and Accessories and Retail Sale or Assembly of Auto Parts and Accessories; Tire Shops including Tire and Tube Repair and Retreading; Automobile Repair; Automobile Laundries (self-served or non automated). These uses may be allowed in conjunction with a facility that sells new automobiles provided that the use is fullY contained within a building.

4. The foUowing uses shall be prohibited, except for those uses in existence within the subject subarea boundary upon the effective day of this ordinance: Automobile Hoists. This use may be allowed pursuant to existing zoning provision provided it is in conjunction with an existing automobile repair or service facility and provide that the holst is contained completely within an existing buDding.

5. Auto-related establishments in existence within the subject subarea boundary upon the effective day of this ordinance will enjoy a pre-existing status. To be considered as a pre-existing auto-related establishment, written documentation in the form of business license and/ or certificate of occupancy showing continuous legally established operation and specifically stating an auto-related establishment use shall be submitted to the Direclor of Planning. Other Documentation will not be deemed adequate proof for the purpose of the proposed ordinance.

6. Expansion of auto-related establishments listed In items 1, 2, 3, and 4 existing on the effective date of the subject ordinance shall not exceed 20% of existing floor area.

7. An auto-related establishment which is, has been, or hereafter becomes vacant or unused as an auto-related establishment, or unoccupied for a continuous period of one year, shall not thereafter be considered as a pre-existing or continuing auto-related establishment and shall have lost its rights to continue to be permitted within the limitations of this ordinance.

B. Any project as defined within Section 2 of the Cypress Park and Glassell Park Community Design Overlay (COO) and any floor area addition to a pre-

34

CYPRESS PARK & GLASSELL PARK [Q) CONDITIONS CPC-2008-3991-ZC

existing auto-related establishment shaU comply with aU applicable Design Guidelines and Development Standards of the COO.

9. The following uses shal be prohibited: Automobile Dismantling Yard as defined in Section 12.3 of the LAMC; Auto Wreckage and Auto Salvage uses.

10. The following uses shall be prohibited: a. Drive-through Establishments (including, but not limited to fast food, coffee, drug stores and banks), b. Commercial Shipping, c. Electronic Message Display Signs or other similar signs were content is displayed electronically, d. Lumber Store or Lumber Yard, or Contractor's equipment Yard in excess of 20,000 square feet of lot area. e. New Public Storage facilities. Public Stdrage in existence within the subject subarea boundary upon the effective day of this ordinance will enjoy a pre-existing status. f. Pole and Pylon Signs, g. Equine or Motorcycle sales, h. Recreational Vehicles Park. i. Concrete Mixing, Concrete Product Manufacture, · j. Recycling Materials Sorting Facilities, k. Scrap Metal Storage, Processing, Bailing or CollecUng, I. Freight Yards or Terminals, m. Truck Yard and Overhauling, n. Truck Rental Faci~ties.

35

California ABC - License Qu(> System - Data Summary

California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

License Query System Summary as of8/16/2015

!License Information !License Number: 536397 ~rimary Owner: NOSH PIT THE jABC Office of A~~Iication: 04 - LA/METRO !Business Name !Doing Business As: CAFE NELA !Business Address !Address: 1906 CYPRESS AVE Census Tract: 1852.03 jcity: LOS ANGELES County: LOS ANGELES

~tate: CA Zip Code: 90065 !Licensee Information !Licensee: NOSH PIT THE

I CompanJ!_ ltiformation

I Officer: TRAVIS, DAVID {CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER}

I Officer: TRAVIS, DAVID {PRESIDENT/SECRETARY}

I Stock Holder: TRAVIS, DAVID jLicense Types

1} License T~~e: 40- ON-SALE BEER License T~ee Status: ACTIVE Status Date: 22-0CT-2013 Term: 12 Month{s} Original Issue Date: 21-0CT-2013 Ex_eiration Date: 30-SEP-2015 Master: Y Du~Iicate: 0 Fee Code: P40

Condition: OPERATING RESTRICTIONS License T~~e was Transferred On: 21-0CT-2013 FROM: 40-184419

k::urrent Disci.elinary Action ( .. No Active Disciplinary Action found . . .

jl)isci~Iinary History I .. No Discip_linary History found . . .

IH:old Information I .. No Active Holds found . . .

!Escrow ( . . No Escrow f!!und . ..

http:/ /www.abc.ca.gov /datport/LQSdata.asp?ID=7 4150802

Page 1 of2

I I I I I I

8117/2015

About the Venue Page 1 of 1

Live House and Beer Garden 1906 Cypress Avenue~ Cypress Park ~ Los '

CAfE ~ElA ABOUT THE VENUE lOCAl~O~

CONTACT

ABOUT Ou VENUE

Cafe NELA is Northeast LA's home for music. We feature Punk, Hard Rock,

Jazz, Blues, Heavy Metal , Experimental , Psychedelic, and Ethnic Music.

We are open Thursday through Saturday nights from 8pm to Midnight. Sundays

we have variable hours so please check the upcoming shows to find out this

weeks hours.

ADDITIO AL I FO

http://www.cafenela.net/about-the-venue.html 8/17/2015

CafeNELA Page 1 of 1

Live House and Beer Garden 1906 cypress Avenue, Cypress Park, Los 1

CAFE NELA

CAFE NELA

<

http://www .cafenela.net/ cafe-nela.html

ABOUT THE VE UE lOCAT~O~

CONTACT

LOCATION+ HOURS

8/17/2015

California ABC - License Query S~ , · ~m - Data Summary

California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control

License Query System Summary as of 811612015

!License Information !License Number: 197906 !Primary Owner: TORRES, JORGE

!ABC Office of AJ:!J:!Iication: 04 - LA/METRO !Business Name !Doing Business As: LOS CANDILES NIGHT CLUB !Business Address !Address: 2100 CYPRESS AVE Census Tract: 1864.04 jcity: LOS ANGELES County: LOS ANGELES

~tate: CA Zip Code: 90065

!Licensee Information !Licensee: TORRES, JORGE

!License T~~es 1~ License T~(!e: 58- CATERER PERMIT

License T~(!e Status: ACTIVE Status Date: 16-NOV-1995 Term: 12 Month{s} Original Issue Date: 30-JUN-2010 Expiration Date: 30-JUN-2016 Master: N Du(!licate: 1 Fee Code: P40

2) License Ty(!e: 48 - ON-SALE GENERAL PUBLIC PREMISES

License T~(!e Status: ACTIVE Status Date: 27-FEB-1987 Term: 12 Month(s) Original Issue Date: 27-FEB-1987 Ex(!iration Date: 30-JUN-2016 Master: Y Du(!Iicate: 0 Fee Code: P40

!Current Disci(!linarr Action [ .. No Active DiscipJinary Action found. 0 0

!Disciplinary History

I Reg. Number: 92026593 !Hold Information [ 0 0 No Active Holds [jmnd 0 0 0

!Escrow [ 0 0 No Escrow f!!und 0 0 0

---End of Report---

https://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSdata.asp?ID= 19278418

Page 1 of2

I

8/17/2015

· RADIUS MAP ·

...

. ~.

-·.

/ /

/ /

/~~

~·

1.£AW.; POll ~ LDT 2. - t5, SU80MSIDN ~ Tl£ HUHTER ~ vtE.W TRIICT, II.R. 4-570

NEW T.S.

ZONE VARIANCE PNJf. 594

GRID G4/H4

c.o. I - CEOILLO CAD GIW'IDCS BY C.T. 1852.03

~JPL Zoning Services P.A. l«ll!MAST LOS NIGW:S 6257 Van Nuys Bl, #101 Van Nuys, CA 91401 (818)781-0016

CASE NO:

DATE: 09-09-2015 DRAWN BY: JPL ZONING SERVICES 0.11. OR CAD: 148 SA215 147A2!5,

SCAI.£: 1"-100' 1508213

USES: AELD

CONTACT PERSON: II£ COO£ SOOI1QI

PHONE NO: 213-537-0158

NET ACRES

~.627 Acres

JPL-7433RM

- --· ~ .... .. . . ...... . ..

PLOT PLANS AND/OR . .

. OTHERMAPS ...

'·

./

Go gle Addrt. _ _, 1845 N San Fernando Rd Los Angeles, CA 90065

r----~ --·- ··-------:-v··-··--·-··--1 ~ I '?-<' I ~-1 -?~ I ~0:

0 -90'

4 Google

· ~ Rio DeLos Angeles

srate Parl<

VICINllY MAP 1845 W . SAN FERNANDO RD. LOS ANGELES, CA 90065

Los A11geles La Puerta Abierta •A•

Foursquare ·Church

tsat;;: l Dr

Division S\

Cyp ess .

_ Map data ~~!&· i

701

ZIMAS INTRANET

I Address: 1844 W CYPRESS AVE

0 APN: 5442004011

--.,PIN#: 148-5A215 107

0 .. Tract: SUBDIVISION OF THE HUNTER HIGHLAND VIEW TRACT

Block: None General Plan: Limited Manufacturing

Lot: PT IRRIGABLE L T 2

Arb: 15

City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning

~

f \11~~ 1£ 'f' .

' Streets Copyright (c) Thomas Brothers Maps, Inc .

1845 SAN FERNANDO- 1AD, LOS ~NG£l£S, CA 9~ "6S (LA PARlY SALON)

Aerial photo~rCAph + Inotex Na~ -

~- - ..

~~

• . tl' _,,. . . .

9/10/2015 1845 N San Fernando Rd - Google Maps

Google Maps 1 845 N San Fernando Rd

httn~·/1\Nww {1(YY"'IIt=~ r.nm/m~nc:/rJ-::~rc/1AAl;+f\I+C:::~n+l:'orn~nrft-..+Orl •I r'ti!C--LAnnol~ •f""' 11...&..0/'V'\C.t: I&;'\ "JA "tv\'>f"\CI "-to 'l'lt='l~t=A ArA- I.J_._ _ _ .,.. __ ..... - "'.a ... ,...,,... . .. , .. ,., ..................... , ..................... - . ..... -- ·

9/10/2015

Go ogle iVi aps

Los Angeles, California

Street View - Jul 2015

'{; ~c

'?. ~

110' ~

w\~

~ ~

Cj

N San Fernando Rd

'\ ~

'L ~

~

N San Fernando Rd- Google Maps

hltrn:d/www.n(l()(JIP. r.nm/m<~n.<:/(ri)~ OQQQ??'l-11R ?'l">?nnd ~" ;1Q ;1" ~?7 Mh AA Q~lhbl<>:l':lml:;l1o11':1mAI1.,..,1n~~')lro.-nA .. Dtl:~~• •~~"'"-"'"'; <'>'><'"IIO:c"""'"- ••• -•"'-'---

·'· - .;;

Image capture: Jul 2015 © 2015 Google

9/10/2015 N San Fernando Rd- Google Maps

httnc:"i/www . o()()(liA .r.nm/m;lns/fil)~ 1()()170? -11R ?~<;.1?11 ~" 7~" ~1 <;<;h R'\ ?.11/n::ab:l'lmAI1c11'lmLI.11eL<I=Drlr.r'lol D_V7oD~nvr-IM.Ini')NII7;1'l'>1'>IO; aat:aoa-•••~•->o..o-~-

1845 West San Fernando Road

500-foot Radius Aerial Photograph of Subject Property. Detailed Aerial Photograph of Subject Property.

ZA 2014-·0708{ZV)

-c ro 0 a:: 0 -c c ro c ~

Q) u... c ro

V')

.f-1 Vl Q)

~ Lf) ¢ 00 M

a. Q) Q) .......... roa.. ..... ro -c . a. 0 Q) Q) 0 "' V")LL.:::>

. Q) -~

.~ 1/)

N C() ("".)

0 ' '<t

c i'"'·J

<S' N

"'0 ro 0

ex: 0

"'0 c ro c :;·

f'J !a- ;xs· Q) r--.

L.1.. 0 I

c rl 0

ro V')

0J <(

+-' Vl Q)

$ L/') q-00 M

r ~-'

"'C ro

. V) Q)

0 a:: ·-+-'

!.... Q)

0 a. 0

"'C c ro

!....

a. 0.0 c c

~

Q) LL

8~ co 0 r--0

c .J --· ro N

V') •:(

"'' +J Vl Q)

$ Lfl ¢ 00 M

-c ro .

V)

0 Q)

0::: ~

0 Q) a. -c 0 I.... c a.

ro b.O c c > !....... N

Q) c co 0 0 u. f"-.. •-. 0

"'0 I

o::t c ro '""' ro 0 ..c N V') +-'

:::J N ~ 0 Vl V)

Q) 4-

$ 0

~ L/") I Q) ·-q- > 00 ~

-c ro .

Vl Q)

0 ex:: ·-0 t

Q) a. 0

-c c:

~-"'-

> a. t:!.-tlO 00 0 c " 0

ro

c I

'<".I'

c:

·-rl 0 0

L-Q) u.. c:

<( N

ro V') ......, (/)

Q)

$ 1./')

~ 00 M

-c ro 0 a:: 0

-c c:: ro c:: '-Q)

LL.

c:: ro

(/')

+-' V')

Q)

$ a.n q-00 M

. Vl 0 +-' 0

..c a.. L..

0 "i:: Q) +-' c

"> ~..J --00 c I' 0

I •<j· ,-\ 0 r--1

-c ro 0 a: 0 -c c: ro c: '-Q) u.. c: ro

V')

+-J Vl Q)

~ Lf') ¢ 00 M

<( hi

Subject property.

ZA 2014-708 ENV 2014-709

Entrance to the Rio State Park, across from Macon Street.

ZA 2014-708 ENV 2014-709

Looking south on Cypress Park Avenue.

ZA 2014-708 ENV 2014-709

Subject property.

Subject property.

Looking north along cypress Park Avenue.

ZA 2014-708 ENV 2014-709

0 0:::

0 0 z <(

z 0::: UJ u..

z <( (f)

~ ~

~

,......

E SO AL

5'-0"

"' ,:_ .. (E)DRIVEWAY ,: ..

t

L

TENANT IMPROVEMENT 1845 W. SAN FERNANDO LOS ANGELES, CA 90065

.. (E!DRIVEWAY ~ ..

9'-0" 9'-0" q•.n• •r.n• q•.n·

221'-1 "

49'-

(E) BLDG."A" (7,350 SQ. FT.)

0

("

't.

___________,

"' "'

--

UJ

> <(

(f)

(f)

UJ 0::: a.. >(.)

SITE PLAN " "' 1

J---=L=::EG::!:'A"'-L I,_,N,_,FO:.:,:R'-"'MA"-'T_:,:IO:.:_:N _______ -t_Z=::O:.:.:N::.:.:INc::,G.::_IN:.:...FO~R:::.M=AT.:..:.IO~N::.__ ______ -f-_,_P~RO,_,J'-"'EC,_,T_,IN"-'F-"0'-"RM,A,_,_,Tic::,ON"----------+-=::=I~=~~"-:,~G"'=p!==~':'::~:-;:::::c,~::C~:::-:ILD::::IN-;:::G-::-:"A-:-:" 7:-::,

3-:::50

-::-SO"".F;::::T.-+ ---f---':~'=':~:~H~=~=~~=~::='EX:...__ ________ ___,l._~CINIT_! _"!!~.!' · --;-,..-,--. - ---- - ----~----~ ADDRESS: ~~; :~:~E~E~~~~~~ ROAD ZONING: (0) MR1-1-CDO PROJECT DESCRIPTION: !~NB~r:;~~::~:~~~~;VATE CLUB BUILDING "B" S,B59 SQ.FT.= T-1_0 TITLE SHEET

PIN NUMBER:

LOT AREA:

TRACT:

APN:

MAP REFERANCE:

BLOCK:

LOT:

148-SA215107

27,322.3 SO.FT.

SUBDIVISION OF THE HUNTER HIGHLAND VIEW TRACT

5442004011

M B 4-570

NONE

PT IRRIGABLE L T 2

1-"'B=UI=LO=IN.:..::Gc..:;IN=F-=.O=RM:::..A:..o.;TI:..::.O'-'-N ---------1 PROJECT AREA: 5,253 SQ.FT.

EXISTING BUILDING USE: OFFICE & MANUFACTURE NUMBER OF STORY: 1-STORY

CONSTRUCTION TYPE: Ill. 111-A OCCUPANT GROUP: A2

BUILDING AREA: 6,859 SQ.FT. (E) TO REMAIN OCCUPANT LOAD: 304 (MAX.)

NUMBER OF STORY: 1-STORY CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B

14,209 SO,FT,/500(ENTERPRISE ZONE) A-1.0 NEW FLOOR PLAN 28.41 REQUIRED PARKING 1--':'C-:"ON'=:Tc:-AC=-=Tc'-'-L~IST::=.::.:..:..:..::::..::.:.... ______ --;-'

EXISTING PROVIDED PARKING: 27 STALLS ARCHITECTURE: URBAN PLANNING CONCEPT i< -~ ~ 672 S. LAFAYETIE PARK PL. UNIT# 42 ; ; ~ NEW PROVIDED PARKING: 30 STALLS

NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS

STANDARD 25

COMPACT

HANDICAP

TOTAL 30

PROJECl' AREA PARKING ANALYSIS: REQUIRED PARKING : 5,253 SO.FT./500=11 STALLS

LOS ANGELES, CA 90057 ! ~· f TEL. 213.531.6531

OWNER JAMES SONG 1845 SAN FERNANDO RD. LOS ANGELES, CA 90065

i ..

f - - ' ..

. ·' '" ··-,,_ --- -""--

~ G> ~ u ~

c: ~ 0 u .§ I "' c: ~ ,g c

~ § il c: { ..

c. ·~r~ c: -~!] '1 .. .3 -e CICICJ

:> ~ ·E ~

0 ::J

l u ~ a: ~ a_ ·~

D.. !1l ~ J .e j @

o::J ~ ~ VJ

~ ~ ~

It) IQ 0 0 en ct 0

1-u) w

z ..J w w (!)

:E z ct

w en

> 0 ..J

0 ci 0:: 0:::

0 a. c :E z

ct - z 1- 0:::

w z u.. <( z

ct z en

il w It) ...,. 1- 00 ....

JOB NUMBER

LICENSE STAMP

TITLE SHEET

T·1.0

(N) DINING AREA #1 (1 408 sa FT 1 o L =96)

(E) ELECTRICAL ROOM (75 SO.FT.! O.l.=1 )

(E) OFFICE (382 SO.FT .I O.l.=4 )

+---+------""(E)HAL~CW" ~ ~ 0 ~ (N) DANCING AREA

(338 SO.FT.I O.L."'68)

0 (N) DININGAREA#2 ~ o;v ~ ~

~ ~~ (E) HALLWAY v

109'·3"

PROJECT AREA

NEW FLOOR PLAN

LEGEND

1====4 EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN

11!1 EXHAUST FAN (5·AIR CHANGE PER HR.)

OCCUPANT LOAD

USE

(N)DINING AREA #1

(N)DINING AREA #2

(N)MUSIC STAGE AREA

(N)DANCING AREA

(E)STOR.AGE #1

(E)STOR.AGE #2

(E)FOOD SERVICE AREA

(E)ELECTRICAL ROOM

(E)OFFICE

NET AREA TOTAL

(E)WOMEN'S RESTROOM

(E)MEN'S RESTROOM

(E) HALLWAY

GROSS AREA TOTAL

KEYNOTES

[!] 3-COMPARTMENl SINK

IT} HANC SINK

I}) MOPSJNK

0 SHELVES

fii 3X5 ADA T ACTllE EXIT SIGN

AREA LOAD OCCUPANT (SO .FT.) FACTOR LOAD

1,408 15 96

1,624 15 108

160 7 23

338 68

168 300

20 300

343 200

75 300

382 100

4,518

159

159

417

5,253 304

II] EXIT SIGN ABOVE WI 24HR. ILLUMINATION PERMANENTLY WIRED WrBATIERY BACK UP

0 {E)PANIC HAROWAAE ON EXISTING 3"~7' EXIT DOOR

[!} DINING CHAIR

[2] DINING TABLE (5'..()'"~)

E£1 HONOR TABLE (8'·0"x3'.0")

{!!] HONOR CHAIR

PLUMBING FIXTURE CALCULATION

OCCUPANT LOAD TOTAL: 304 MEN'S: 152 OCCUPANT WOMEN'S: 152 OCCUPANT

REQUIRED PLUMBING FIXTURE

MEN'S

WATER CLOSET

URINAL

LAVATORY

PROVIDED PLUMBING FIXTURE

MEN'S

WATER CLOSET

URINAL

LAVATORY

WOMEN'S

WOMEN'S

Q. ., [;; u

s:: § 0 u

j ~ "' s:: "E ~ il ~ ~ .§ ~~ g

o;

~j .~~~ ! C'O ~ ~~!: .c Ill Cll a...!!1 .3 :S m rt m m~

~ ;g

0 ::> a u ~ i a: ~ -~ a.

11 ~ . t; ~ ~.,.

if~~

D:J ~~~ ~ ~ ~

~~1 REvtSlON

10 ~ Q Q 0)

<( 0

1- rn w z ....I w w (.')

:iii z <(

w II)

> 0 ....I

0 ci ~ 0::

0.. 0 0

:iii z <( z

1- 0:: w z u..

<( z <( z II)

il w 10 ..,. 1- co ....

~

LICENSE STAMP

~

NEW FLOOR PLAN

A·1.0

. .

CORP~SPONDENCES

_,

.

...

. '·

GREATER CYPRESS PARK NEIGHBOHOOD COUNCIL OFFICERS

ALEJANDRA CORTEZ CHAIR

OMAR MEJORADO VICE-CHAIR

RORY OLSEN TREASURER

DAVID JUAREZ SECRETARY

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

CALIFORNIA GREATER CYPRESS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL

929 CYPRESS AVE.

LOS ANGELES, CA 90065

E-mail: [email protected]

GREATER CYPRESS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL

To Whom it May Concern

On May 12, 2015, The Greater Cypress Park Neighborhood Council passed the motion to support Mr. Yun Hyo Song' s Zone Variance #ZA 2014-0708 (ZV) concerning the Banquet Hall located at 1845 West San Fernando Road, Los Angeles, CA 90065. The motion was passed on the conditions that hall continues to control and monitor the parking in order to not cause an inconvenience to residents. If any questions arise, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or at 323.250.3397

Thank you,

Alejandra Cortez Chair Greater Cypress Park Neighborhood Council

east los angeles planning commission

Documents