WEST LOS ANGELES AREA PLANNING COMMISSION

200 N. Spring Street, Room 532, Los Angeles, California, 90012-4801, (213) 978-1300
www.lacity.org/PLN/index.htm

·· DEC 1 8 2015
Determination Letter mailing d a t e : - - - - - - - -

Case No.: DIR-2015-290-BSA-1A Location: 2716 S. Krim Drive,

CEQA: N/A 2723 Anchor Avenue
Council District: 11 - Bonin
Plan Area: West Los Angeles

Applicant: Mark Judaken

Representative: Ben Reznik, JMBM
Appellant: Carlyle Hall, Joanne Jackson, Los Angeles Neighbors in Action
Representative: Beverly Palmer

At its meeting on December 16, 2015, the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission failed to
reach a consensus. The Commission's failure to act results in the automatic denial of the appeal and
reaffirmation of the determination of the Director of Planning's Decision to deny an appeal that the
Department of Building and Safety erred or abused its discretion in the issuance of Permit No. 13010-
20000-01552 for the construction of a second single-family dwelling on a lot by applying (1) ZA
Memorandum No. 120 instead of Section 12.24-W,43 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; and (2)
approving a 5-foot setback instead of complying with Section 12.08-C, 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code.

The deadlock 2- 2 vote resulted in a failure to act by the Commission. The Commission's vote was as
follows:

Moved: Donovan
Seconded : Halper
Noes: Margulies, Merritt
Absent: Waltz-Morocco

Vote: 2-2

Fiscal Impact Statement: There is no General Fund Impact as administrative costs are recovered through
fees.

ms, Commission Executive Assistant II

les Area Planning Commission

Effective Date/Appeals: The determination of the West Los Angeles Area Planning Commission is final and not
further appealable.

If you seek judicial review of any decision of the City pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5, the petition
for writ of mandate pursuant to that section must be filed no later than the 9Q1h day following the date on which the City's
decision became final pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. There may be other time limits which
also affect your ability to seek judicial review.

Attachment: Director's Determination dated July 22, 2015

Zoning Administrator: Lourdes Green
 UNNK. WYAn
CHifF ZONING 1\DMINISlRATOR
CITY O F Los A NG E L ES DEPARTMENT OF
CITY PLANNING
CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS MICHAEL J. lOGRANDE
JACK CHIANG DIRfClOR
LOURDES GREEN
THEODORE L IRVING OFFICE OF
CHARLES t RAUSCH. JR. ZONING ADMINISTRATION
JIM TOKUNAGA 200 N. SPRING SnUH. 7'' fLOO•
FERNANDO TOVAR
DAVID S. WEJNTRAU B
RECEIVED l OS ANGElfl. (1\ 90012
(213) 9/8 -lJI B
MAYA E 2AITZEVSKY
ER IC G AR CET TI
MAYOF
.IUL 2 4 2015 FAX: (213 ) 978 -1334
www.pla nning.lacity.org

July 22, 2015

Mark Judaken (Owner)(Applicant) CASE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA)

2716 South Krim Drive BUILDING AND SAFETY APPEAL
Los Angeles , CA 90064 2716 South Krim Drive/2723 Anchor Avenue
West Los Angeles Planning Area
Carlyle Hall & Joanne Jackson Zone R1 -1-0
(Appellant)(R) D. M. : 126B165
Los Angeles Neighbors in Action C. D. : 5
2710 Krim Drive Legal Description: Lot 16, Tract 19015
Los Angeles, CA 90064

Robert L. Glushon (R)

Luna & Glushon
16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1016
Encino , CA 91436

Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.26-K of the Municipal Code, I hereby
DENY:

an appeal that the Department of Building and Safety erred or abused its discretion
in the issuance of Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the construction of a second
single-family dwelling on a lot by applying (1) ZA Memorandum No. 120 instead of
Section 12.24-:- W ,43 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code; and (2) approving a 5-foot
setback instead of complying with Section 12.08-C, 1 of the Los Angeles Municipal
Code.

I find that the Department of Building and Safety did not err or abuse its discretion
regarding the issuance of Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the construction of a
second dwelling unit and that it correctly determined that a minimum 5-front yard setback
was required.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the appeal, the information
provided by the Department of Building and Safety, the statements made at the public
hearing on April 23, 2015, all of which are by reference made a part hereof, as well as
knowledge of the property and surrounding district, I find as follows :

AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY- AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE2

BACKGROUND

The subject property is an 11,640 square-foot through located between Krim Drive and
Anchor Avenue in the Cheviot Hills area of West Los Angeles . The property is developed
with a single-family dwelling with an attached garage and swimming pool. Construction of
an 825 square-foot, second dwelling unit is underway along the Krim Drive frontage. The
property is zoned R1-1-0. The property's "0" conditions regulate the area's oil drilling
regulations. The property is located within the West Los Angeles Community Plan,
Neighborhood Conservation Interim Control Ordinance, and within the Baseline
Mansionization Ordinance.

The surrounding properties in the area are zoned R1-1-0, R1 - 1 and OS-1XL. The area is
improved with one- and multi-story single-family dwellings.

Anchor Avenue is a Local Street dedicated to a width of 50 feet and improved with
sidewalks, gutters, and curbs.

Krim Drive is a Local Street dedicated to a width of 35 feet and improved with a curb,
gutter. and sidewalk on one side of the street.

The West Los Angeles Community Plan designates the property for Low density residential
land uses with corresponding zones ofRE9, RS, R1 , RD6, RD5, and RU Height District No.
1.

The property is within the West Los Angeles Transportation Improvement and Mitigation
Specific Plan area.

Previous zoning related actions on the site include:

DBS-140112-DCP- On October 30, 2014, an appeal was filed with Los Angeles
Department of Building and Safety challenging the issuance of Building Permit No.
13010-20000-01552 with respect to permitting a second dwelling unit and allowing a
reduced front yard setback . On December 31, 2014, the Department of Building
and Safety issued a determination denying the appeal. Subsequently, on April22,
2015, the Department of Building and Safety issued a revision to a portion of the
report dealing with specific lot setback calculations which did not alter the
Department's original conclusion

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

permit to construct a new detached second dwelling unit with an attached garage.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF AUTHORITY

The provisions of the Los Angeles Municipal Code establishing authority in regard to this
appeal include the following :

Section 12.26-A of the Municipal Code addresses the functions of the Department
of Building and Safety and provides in part: "The Department shall have the power
and duty to enforce the zoning ordinances of the City."
 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE3

Section 12.26-K of the Municipal code provides in part," The Director of Planning
shall have the power and duty to investigate and make a decision upon appeals
from determinations of the Department of Building and Safety where it is alleged
there is error or abuse of discretion in any order, interpretation, requirement,
determination or action made by the Department of Building and Safety in the
enforcement or administration of Chapter 1 of this Code and other land use
ordinances in site specific cases ... "

ZONING CODE PROVISIONS

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

SECTION 12.03. Definitions:

FRONTAGE. All property fronting on one (1) side of a street between intersecting or
intercepting streets, or between a street and right-of-way, waterway, end of dead-
end street, or city boundary measured along the street line . An intercepting street
shall determine only the boundary of the frontage on the side of the street which it
intercepts.

LOT LINE, FRONT. In the case of an interior lot, the line separating the lot from the
street or place, and in the case of a corner lot, a line separating the narrowest street
frontage of the lot from the street, except in those cases where the latest tract deed
restrictions specify another line as the front lot line.

SECTIONS 12.07-C,1, 12.07.01-C,1, 12.07.1-C,112.08-C.1 and 12.09-C.1 (RA, RE, RS,

R1 and R2 Zones}

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

yard regulations for RA, RE, RS, R 1, and R2 zoned lots. The Zoning Code reads in
part" .. .that where all of the developed lots which have front yards that vary in depth
by not more than 10 feet comprised 40% or more of the frontage, the minimum front
yard depth shall be the average depth of the front yards of such lots. Where there
are two or more possible combinations of developed lots comprising 40% or more of
the frontage, each of which has front yards that vary in depth by not more than 10
feet, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average depth of the front yards of
that combination which has the shallowest average depth. In determining the
required front yard, buildings located on key lots, entirely on the rear half of lots, or
on lots in the C or M Zones, shall not be counted; provided, however that nothing
contained in this paragraph shall be deemed to require front yards which exceed 40
feet in depth."

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S INTERPRETATION [ZA 2001-0331(ZAI) issued on

February 7, 2001]: The ZAI addresses prevailing front yard setback requirements
applicable to certain single-family zones throughout the city, including those properties
within designated hillside areas and/or on designated hillside streets :
 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE4

" ... Consequently, it is determined that for properties within hillside areas, whether on
streets stamped hillside or not, the regulations calling for observance of the
prevailing setback shall apply on properties having a zoning classification which
contains the prevailing setback provisions, but in no event may the prevailing setback
result in less than a 5-foot setback being observed unless under an ICO or specific
discrete specific plan there is an express intent to supersede the prevailing setback
requirement in the zoning regulations ."

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

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

correspondence dated June 23, 2003 addressing implementation of Assembly Bill 1866
which allows the creation of second dwelling units to be considered ministerially, without
discretionary review.

ZA Memo No. 120 established that a second dwelling unit is permitted by right on a lot if it
meets the following nine specific AB 1866 standards.

1. The second unit is not intended for sale and may be rented ;
2. The lot is zoned for single-family or multi-family use ;
3. The lot contains an existing single-family dwelling;
4. The second unit is either located within the living area of the existing dwelling
(attached) or on the same Jot as the existing dwelling (detached);
5. The total area of the increased floor area of an attached second unit does
not exceed 30 percent of the existing floor area ;
6. The total area of the floor area for a detached second unit does not exceed
1 ,200 square feet;
7. The requirements relating to height, setback, lot coverage, architectural
review, site plan review , fees, charges , and other zoning requirements
generally applicable to residential construction in the zone in which the
property are met;
8. The local building code requirements which apply to dwellings, as
appropriate, are also met; and,
9. A minimum of one additional covered or uncovered off-street parking space
is provided. If not otherwise prohibited by the zoning ordinance or any other
land use regulation, tandem parking is allowed and the parking space may
· be located in a required yard .

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

DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING AND THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND
SAFETY

Correspondence issued by the Ch ief Zoning Administrator and the Zoning Engineer
instructing City Planning staff and Structural Plan Check Engineers and Building Inspectors
to allow second dwelling units by right it they meet all of the required conditions itemized in
Section 12.24-W,43 of the Municipal Code, a conditional use category to permit second
dwelling units subject to a discretionary procedure.
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGES

ACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFElY

On December 31, 2014, the Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) issued Report
No. DBS-14012-DCP , which responded to the appeal filed by Los Angeles Neighbors in
Action following the issuance of Building Permit No. 13010-20000-0152 for the construction
of a second single-family dwelling by applying ZA Memorandum No. 120 and approving a
5-foot setback instead of complying with Section 12.08-C, 1 of the Municipal Code.

The Department of Building and Safety appeal report follows . References to exhibits are to
those attached to the LADBS report located in the case file and are not included with this
decision letter.
 CASE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE6

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

REPORT ON APPEAL FROM LADBS DETERMINATION TO THE DIRECTOR OF

PLANNING PURSUANT TO LA.M.C . §12.26

REPORT NO. DBS-14012-DCP

JOB ADDRESS : 2716 South Krim Drive Date of Report: December 26, 2014
ZONE: R1-1 Effective Date of Determination: December 31 , 2014
C.D. : 5 (Councilmember: Paul Koretz) Deadline to Appeal to DCP: January 19, 2015
PLANNING AREA: West Los Angeles Appeal Fee: $500.00

APPEAL:

Determine that the Department of Building and Safety ("LADBS") erred or abused its
discretion in issuing Building Permit No.1301 0-20000-01552 for the construction of a
second Single Family Dwelling by applying (1) ZA Memorandum No. 120 (Exhibit B)
· instead of the 12.24W43 of the LAMC; and (2) approving a five foot setback instead of
complying with 12.08 C.1 of the LAMC .

EXHIBITS:

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

"Add New Detached 2nd Dwelling Unit with Covered Porch and
Attached One-Car Garage Per ZA Memorandum No. 120."

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

EXHIBIT C: Department of City Planning, Zoning Administrator's

Case No. 2001-0331 (ZAI)

EXHIBIT D: Department of City Planning ZIMAS Map

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

Front Yards , When Subject to the Prevailing Setback Regulations

EXHIBIT F: Prevailing setback calculation

EXHIBIT G: Zoning Administrator's ("ZA") 90-1439 (ZAI)

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

APPENDIX: Appeal package submitted by appellant

OVERVIEW:

The site is located within the West Los Angeles Community Plan and fronts on a
"Hillside" street stamped with a purple color in ZIMAS (Exhibit D) . The lot is a
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE?

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

Background

On September 23 , 2014, LADBS issued Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 to

construct a New Detached Second Dwelling with an Attached Garage .

On October 30, 2014, an appeal was filed challenging LADBS' issuance of Building
Permit No. 13010-20000-01552. The appeal is included in the Appendix of this
report.

The appellant claims that LADBS erred or abused its discretion in allowing the
construction of a second Single Family Dwelling pursuant to ZA Memorandum No.
120 (Exhibit B) and erred in the calculation of the required setback. As a result,
Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 should be revoked .

This appeal was filed pursuant to the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code ("LAMC")
Section 12.26K which gives the Director of Planning the power and duty to
investigate and make a decision upon appeals from determinations of LADBS
where it is alleged there is error or abuse of discretion in any order, interpretation,
requirement, determination or action made by LADBS in the enforcement or
administration of land use ordinances in site-specific cases.

Discussion:

The following are the issues identified in the petitioner's brief (Appendix), along with
the corresponding responses from LADBS:

Issue No. 1:

The appellant claims that LADBS erred by allowing a second dwelling unit with
attached garage pursuant to ZA Memorandum 120 (Exhibit B) and should have
instead used Section 12.24W43 of the LAMC which, among other provisions: (1)
limits the maximum floor area of second dwelling un its to 640 square feet, Section
12.24W43(a)(1 ); and (2) requires that second dwelling units, when viewed from the
street, to appear as if there is only one dwelling unit on the lot, Section 12.24W43(f).

LADBS Response to Issue No.. 1

We follow ZA Memorandum 120 issued by the Department of City Planning 's Office
of Zoning Administration to assist with implementing AB 1866. City Planning issued
ZA Memorandum 120 (Exhibit B) on May 6, 2010. ZA Memorandum 120 allows the
creation of a second dwelling unit on residentially zoned lots to be considered
ministerial, without a discretionary review or hearing . A second dwelling unit is
allowed "by right" if it meets all ZA Memorandum 120 standards . ZA Memorandum
120 limits the maximum floor area of second dwelling units to 1,200 square feet,
and does not contain any requirement that second dwelling units, when viewed from
the street, appear as if there is only one dwelling unit on the lot.
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 8

Building Permit No . 13010-20000-01552 provides for a floor area of 895 square feet
and does not take into consideration whether the proposed second dwelling unit,
when viewed from the street, appears as ifthere is only one dwelling unit on the lot.
ZA Memorandum 120 allows up to a maximum floor area to 1,200 square feet and
does not contain any requirement regarding appearance when viewed from the
street. Thus, Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 complies with ZA
Memorandum 120 and LADBS did not err in issuing the permit.

Issue No.2:

The appellant claims that the calculation of the front yard setback was erroneous
because it was not done in accordance with LAMC section 12.08.C1, which requires
the front yard setback to be equivalent to the prevailing front yard setback for the
block, or to 20% of the depth of the subject site lot.

LADBS Response to Issue No. 2

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

Department of City Planning's Office of Zoning Administration concerning the proper
application of the yard regulations in hillside districts affected by common problems.
ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) (Exhibit C) requires properties on hillside streets stamped with
a purple color in ZIMAS to maintain a 5 foot minimum front yard setback unless a
greater front yard is required by the prevailing setback. Pursuant to the zoning
codes applicable to front yard regulations for RA, RE, RS, R1 and R2 zoned lots, a
prevailing front yard setback only exists where 40% or more of the lots on one side
of a block have front yards that vary in depth by not more than 10 feet.

The proposed second dwelling unit fronts the east side of Krim Drive which is on a
hillside street stamped with a purple color in ZIMAS (Exhibit D) and is therefore
subject to ZAI 2001-0331. As explained below, no prevailing front yard setback
exists for that side of the relevant block of Krim Drive because there is no
combination of lots comprising 40% or more of the lots on that side of the street with
front yards that vary in depth by not more than 10 feet.

Additionally, Appellant's contention that in the absence of a prevailing setback,

LAMC section 12.08C1 requires a front yard setback of 20% of the depth of the lot,
and that such a setback must apply here, is incorrect. ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) does not
make LAMC's 12.08C 1's 20%-of-the-depth-of-the-lot provision applicable to
properties on Hillside streets identified with a purple color in ZIMAS . Therefore, the
required setback is a minimum of 5 feet.

Since at least 1950 the City's zoning code has authorized the Zoning Administrator
to adopt interpretations determining the proper application of yard regulations ,
including front yard setback regulations, to properties in hillside districts. ZA 2001 -
0331 (ZAI) is one in a line of several Zoning Administrator Interpretations concerning
the measurement of front yard setbacks in hillside districts. In 1950 the Zoning
Administrator issued ZAI 1270, which allowed a zero foot front yard setback in
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE9

hillside areas for the properties fronting a "Purple Street''. ZAI 1270 is attached as
(Exhibit H).

After 1950 the Zoning Administrator issued two subsequent ZAI's concerning the
calculation of a front yard setback in hillside areas for the properties fronting a
Purple Street: one in 1991, as clarified in 1994, and the second in 2001. ZA 90-
1439 (ZAI) rescinded the zero (0) foot setback authorized by ZAI 1270 and adopted
5 feet as the minimum front yard setback for lots in hillside districts fronting on a
Purple Street (Exhibit G) .

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

requires application of the prevailing setback in areas fronting on a Purple Street
where the prevailing setback is greater than 5 feet, in the interests of uniformity of
setback on a given block. It also requires .a minimum five foot front yard setback in
areas fronting on a Purple Street where the prevailing front yard setback is less than
5 feet. In all other respects, lA 2001 -0331 (ZAI) maintains the minimum 5-foot front
yard setback adopted in ZA 90-1439(ZAI).

"Prevailing setback" is a phrase used to define the front yard regulations for RA, RE,
RS, R1 and R2 zoned lots. LAMC Sections 12.07-C ,1, 12.07.01-C ,1, 12.07.1-C, 1,
12.08-C , 1 and 12.09-C,1 all define calculation of prevailing setback in the same
manner, as follows, " ... where all the developed lots which have front yards that vary
in depth by not more than 10' comprise 40% or more of the frontage, the minimum
front yard shall be the average depth of the front yard of such lots. Where there are
two or more possible combinations of developed lots comprising 40% or more of the
frontage, each of which has front yards that vary in depth by not more than 10', the
minimum front yard depth shall be the average depth of the frorrt yards of that
combination which has the shallowest average depth.''

The calculation of the prevailing setback for the subject site, prepared by LADBS, is
shown in (Exhibit F) . The calculation of prevailing setback includes Lots 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, and 17 of Tract 19015 and lot B of Tract PM 6337. The front yard
setback for Lot 12 is 56 feet; for Lot 13 is 38 feet; for Lot 14 is 75 feet; for Lot 15 is
89 feet; for Lot 17 is 63 feet and for Lot B is 2 feet. Lots 11 and 16 of Tract 19015
do not have a front yard setback, therefore, Lots 11 and 16 were included only for
the purpose of calculating the total frontage, but were excluded for purpose of
averaging the setbacks. (ZA Note: This parag raph was revised in an amended
report dated April22, 2015 ancl submitted at the April23, 2015 public hearing.
The revised language is itemized after the Conclusion)

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

established (Exhibit F) since there are no lots whose front yards vary by not more
than 10' which comprise 40% of the total frontage .

Information bulletin P/ZC 2002-015 (Exhibit E) further clarifies via an example of

how the calculation is to be done. Additionally , an automated prevailing setback
calculator is available on LADBS website at www.ladbs.org. This calculator is
programmed to run multiple iterations to yield the shallowest average depth.
CASE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE10

In conclusion, a 5 foot minimum front yard setback was required for lot 16 under
Building Permit No . 13010-20000-01552 . The plot plan shows that a front yard of 5
feet was provided, which meets the minimum required.

Conclusion

LADBS did not err or abuse its discretion in issuing Building Permit No. 13010-
20000-01552 .

APRIL 22, 2015 REVISION OF ONE PARAGRAPH OF BUILDING AND SAFETY

REPORT'S ORIGINAL REPORT

The following paragraph from the original Building and Safety action has been
revised in the April 22, 2015 report as shown in bold and cross-out.

"The calculation of the prevailing setback for the subject site, prepared by LADBS, is
shown in (Exhibit F). The calculation of prevailing setback includes lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, and 17 of Tract 19015 and lot B of Tract PM 6337. The front yard setback for Lot 12 is
56 feet; for Lot 13 is 38 feet; for Lot 14 is 7 5 feet; for Lot 15 is 89 feet; for Lot 17 is 63 feet
and for Lot B is 2 feet. Lot 11 of Tract 19015 is a "key lot" and pursuant to LAMC
12.08C1 is not required to be considered in the prevailing set back analysis. Lot 16
of Tract 19015 has been included and the prevailing set back is 5 feet minimum. bets
11 and 16 do not have a front yard setback, therefore, Lots 11 and 16 were included only
for the purpose of calculating the total frontage, but were excluded for purpose of
averaging the setbacks:''
 CASE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 11

. APPEAL TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

An appeal of the Department and Building and Safety's action was filed on behalf of The
Los Angeles Neighbors in Action and Carlyle Hall & Joanne Jackson on January 16, 2015
to the Director of Planning . The appeal requested , pursuant to LAMC Section 12.26-K, a
Director of Planning's determination as to whether LADBS erred or abused its discretion
issuing Building Permit No. 13010-20000-01552 for the construction of a second single-
family dwelling under ZA Memorandum 120, as well as determining that a 5-foot yard
setback was applicable.

APPELANTS' POINTS:

Second Dwelling Unit

The project fails to comply with LAMC Section 12.24 W 43 (Conditional Use for Second
Dwelling Units) by exceeding the maximum floor area of 640 square feet and being visible
from the street as not permitted by Section 12.24 W 43. Appellant claims that LADBS erred
by relying on ZA Memorandum 120 which establishes different standards from the
conditional use category. Appellant references original State legislation passed in 1981
which allows by local ordinance any local agency to provide for the creation of second
dwelling units in single-family zones. Appellant notes that without the adoption of an
ordinance governing second un its, a local agency would default to the State standards
which allowed a maximum floor area of 1,200 square feet and which did not include a
standard regarding visibility from the street.

Appellant identifies ordinance passed by City in 1985 establishing the conditional use
category for second dwelling units (LAMC Section 12.24 W 43) which established a floor
area cap (640 square feet) and the visibility standard for the creation of a second dwelling
unit as well as a number of other standards subject to discretionary review. Appellant cites
Assembly Bill 1866, passed in 2002, which required that applications for second units be
considered ministerially, without any discretionary review, but concludes that local second
unit ordinances did not need to be amended in order to comply with ministerial
requirements . Appellant again notes that Assembly 1866 'defaults to the application of
State standards for those localities without a second unit ordinance. Appellant claims that
the City of Los Angeles has a second unit ordinance.

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

Zoning Administrator in order to comply with Assembly Bill 1866 making the standards
identified in the conditional use category for second units ministerial and thus as a result
not subject to a conditional use permit.

Appellant challenges May, 2010 ZA Memorandum No. 120, issued by the Director of
Planning which supersedes the June 2003 correspondence and which requires that second
units must comply ("default") to the State standards to be considered ministerially.
Appellant claims that Director had no authority to issue such a change and that the
Memorandum is contrary to the City's Zoning Code and cannot form the basis for
approving the subject second dwelling unit.
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE12

Prevailing Setback

Appellant claims that the setback for the second dwelling needs to comply with LAMC
Section 12.08-C,1 which requires a setback of 20% of the depth of the lot not to exceed 20
feet or observance of prevailing setback calculations . Appellant challenges LADBS
reliance on ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI) issued by the Chief Zoning Administrator in 2001 which
states that properties within hillside areas, whether on streets stamped hillside or not, are
subject to applicable prevailing setback calculations but in no event may result in a front
yard setback of less than 5 feet when a prevailing setback cannot be established.
Appellant claims that the Chief Zoning Administrator has no authority to change standards
adopted by the City Council in LAMC Section 12.08-C. Appellant also claims that
prevailing setback was miscalculated because corner Lot 9 was not included.

PUBLIC HEARING

A public hearing was conducted on April 23, 2015 in West Los Angeles . In attendance
were the appellant, the property owner of the affected project, neighbors and a
representative of the Department of BUilding and Safety.

Testimony

Carlyle Hall -Appellant

Live two lots north of project site.

There are legal issues underlying appeal
Speaker submits binder with testimony, exhibits, declarations, and copies of
identified correspondence, ZA Memo and ZAI documents.
Speaker notes he is co-appellant with Los Angeles Neighbors in Action (LANA).
Speaker submits letter from the Cheviot Hills Home Owners' Association which
requests that ZA Memorandum 120 be set aside.
Subject property is a through lot with 11, 000 square feet.
Permits violate building ordinance.
Standards for permitted second dwelling unit allow a maximum size of 640 square
feet. The proposed second unit is 895 square feet.
Zoning ordinance states that second unit cannot be visible from street frontage.
Speaker shows Illustrations of what view would be.
Regarding prevailing setback, ordinance requires 20-foot setback.
There are peculiarities of the Building and Safety appeal process.
Appeal is considered first by LADBS , then appealed to the Director and then to
APC.
City's official position is that timelines are not binding.
It is problematic that the appeal is to the Director whose issuance of2010 ZA Memo
is being challenged .
ZA Memo asks LADBS to disregard ordinance and set out new standards.
Now appealing to Director's action which should be rescinded .
Director should have no role in this appeal or the process is an exercise in futility.
Builder is allowed to continue with construction .
 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 13

Submit photos of construction activities and impacts on street. Developer putting

equipment on street. Have complained about such storage on the street. Developer
is using more of street than what was permitted .
Tried to attack lawfulness of the second unit process before the building permit was
issued .
Referring to binder submitted at hearing , Exhibit 1 is a copy of ZA Memo 120. There
is no legal reason or planning process provided for change .
LADBS is expected to ignore process and follow memo's direction .
City Attorney has argued that Chief Zoning Administrator's standards were
preempted by State law in Assembly Bill 1866 and must default to standards when it
does not have its own standards.
Have had standards since 1985
State's default standards were written in a lenient manner to allow second dwelling
units.
Exhibit 9 of binder is June 23, 2003 correspondence which recognizes that second
dwelling units must be allowed ministerially.
City for 7 years did ministerially follow these second dwelling unit standards.
State's default standards were to encourage cities to adopt standards but Los
Angeles is diverse, so City normally customizes by neighborhood .
Director is applying a one-size fits all standard and not customizing .
Director has discretion to impose conditions and lower standards .
Other cities took different approach and adopted tighter standards after adoption of
AB 1866.
Los Angeles is only city that went in different direction .
LADBS feels it must follow memo rather than ordinance.
Memo was big change in process, should have been hearings, debates and
amendment of zoning ordinance.
Director commanded LADBS to follow standards.
With regards to prevailing setback, in prior action Chief Zoning Administrator Huber
Smutz considered hillside properties as ones that were difficult to build upon and
which represented an inequitable application of zoning regulations .
Have no issue with Lot 9 claim in appeal.

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

State says a locality has to adopt its own ordinance or follow State standards.
City Attorney had said follow State standards.
Even before ZA Memo 120, the City was following State's guidelines.
There was a prior Building and Safety appeal regarding the use of the 2003 Inter-
Departmental correspondence with regards to a permit for a second dwelling unit.
Matter went to the Citywide Planning Commission (CPC) . (ZA Note: Subsequent
review shows that matter went to Harbor Area Planning Commission not the
CPC .)
Commission granted the appeal to allow second dwelling unit based on State's
standards .
Since then , we have to approve same as State standards.
Zoning Code allows the authority to provide interpretation of zoning regulations .
With regards to prevailing setback, there have been various Zoning Administrators
Interpretations (ZAis)
 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 14

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

ZAI1270 (1950) established a zero-front yard for hillside properties abutting a street
stamped Hillside.
ZA 90-1439(ZAI) (February 15, 1991) established that a zero front yard was not
enough . It required a minimum 5-foot front yard setback on all Hillside stamped
streets unless there was an ICO or specific requirement by ordinance establishing a
different minimum setback. This ZAI repealed ZAI 1270.
ZA 2001-0331(ZAI) (February 7, 2001) established that prevailing setback
requirements applicable to certain single-family zones would apply to Hillside areas
and Hillside streets but that in no event would a prevailing setback result in a front
yard of less than five feet.
The Municipal Code (Section 12 .22-C, 19) also allows a second dwelling unit on a
through lot with a depth of 150 feet or more.
Since 2004, LADBS has processed approximately 100 second dwelling units
ministerially.
LADBS does not make a decision on the validity of a Zoning Administrator's
Interpretation (ZAI) . It is a published document which can be appealed .
LADBS treats ZAis and ZA Memos equally.
A plan checker has no discretion to disagree with the application of a ZAI or ZA
Memo .
LADBS does not stop construction unless we made an error. Cannot withhold a
permit because property owner has a right to build.
Lot B (owned by appellant Carlyle Hall) if built before 1990 it was allowed to have a
zero front yard setback.
Lot 9 is a reverse corner lot which is excluded in prevailing setback calculations.
Lot 11 is a key lot which is excluded but added for frontage calculation .

Mark Judaken- Owner of property ( 2327 Anchor/2716 Krim) which is subject of appeal.

Views submitted by appellant are distorted and taken from above the property.
His house is 10 feet above street with gabled roof and cannot be seen from Anchor
Avenue .
If appellant prevails on setback, then appellant's permit on his own property would
be nullified.

Len Judaken- Son of Owner of subject property under appeal.

Senior citizen who supports a "grandpa unit".

Plan to move in to the second unit and be close to assistance to help as needed
and to be close to grandchildren .
This permit has gone through more scrutiny and it took two years to be issued due
to appellant objecting to LADBS throughout process.
As a result, LADBS scrutinized more from plan checker to higher ups.
Ken Gill has answered many of the relevant points.
Assembly Bill 1866 overrides City's zoning codes.
Ordinance 159,599 (1985) adopted with regard to second dwelling units relied on
the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow a second dwelling unit.
Assembly Bill 1866 negated that ordinance as ~t was applicable only with the
conditions of the second units.
 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE15

The 2003 inter-departmental correspondence enforced the 1985 terms and was
followed at the time.
The City had more experience in its review of Assembly Bill 1866 between June
2003 and May, 2010 .
Department concluded that City's prior ordinance did not comply with State 65852.
Other cities passed their own ordinances with more restrictive standards.
The City of Los Angeles did not pass its own ordinance and in May, 2010 it had to
adopt the State's· parameters.
The City Council is in favor of second dwelling units.
Property is over 10,000 square feet.
Originally thought about subdividing it as an option . Could have built a 2,500
square-foot home.
Was not aware of LAMC Section 12.22 allowing a second dwelling unit on through
lot.
On August 6, 2003, the State's Department of Housing and Community
Development issued a Memorandum related to the second unit legislation.
Los Angeles does not have a second dwelling unit ordinance.
Chapter 1062 provided the governing regulations .
LADBS did not err. The permit is valid . The property could also be subdivided and
developed with two dwellings.

K. Kim - Neighbor on Krim Drive

Do not have knowledge of the legality of structure.

Have complaints regarding construction on Krim Drive and workers who park on
street.
There are four seniors living on this street and have concerns for their safety.

Sue Behrstock- Neighbor on Anchor Avenue

Live two houses south of subject property.

Cannot speak to ·legality.
There is no vehicle to express concerns.
Concerned with ramifications to integrity of community.
This can be financial incentive and create a domino effect on street.

I. Kim- Neighbor on Krim Drive

Speaking on behalf of parents.

Bought house 20 years ago, selling point is that there is no other property in front of
them.
Unit is apartment.
Fire hydrant is blocked by construction .

Joanne Jackson -Appellant

Request that building permit be rescinded.

The City has adopted regulations via LAMC Section 12.24-W.
Not in power of appeal to disregard officially adopted zoning statutes.
 CASE NO . DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 16

Not a matter of interpretation of law like other cases.

Adopted standards are clear as to size (640 square feet) and visibility from street.
LADBS can clearly see conflict and should not have issued permit.
Lot is through lot, should be flagged to Planning and not given a second dwelling
unit. Different from a conventional lot which has front and rear yard .
This action entitles others to build a second dwelling unit, seven new homes could
be built. Merits thorough review and public hearing .
Krim Drive is a purple street and what is not clear is that City's front yard is
ambiguous in Hillside Area.
Our house was built prior to Hillside ordinance when zero front yard allowed .
Ambiguity of through lot.
Shocked that project has been allowed to proceed.
Did meet with LADBS when plan check notice was provided .
Seeing .struct~Jre go forward .

Carlyle Hall - Rebuttal

Have not seen LADBS referral to a similar appeal.

Not familiar with LAMC Section 12.22 allowing a second dwelling unit.
1991 ZAI reduction to 5-foot front yard was temporary.
Can see structure from Anchor Avenue.
All Assembly Bill 1866 did was pull a process out of a discretionary conditional use
process.
It allowed standards to be pulled out of the conditional use process.

Len Judaken - Rebuttal

A ruling against appellant retains everyone's right to build a second dwelling unit.
Appellant did a subdivision on his own property. Appellant did what applicant can
still do.

Correspondence received after the Public Hearing

The record on the matter was maintained opened until April 27, 2015. The following
correspondence was received within the established deadline .

April 23, 2015- E-mail from Ken Gill of LADBS referencing citation in Municipal Code
regarding second dwelling unit on a through lot which he noted at hearing .

April 27, 2015 - Correspondence from Carlyle Hall on behalf of himself and of Los
Angeles Neighbors in Action . Submittal also includes a copy of the August 6, 2003
Memorandum issued by the State of California's Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) regarding implementation of Second-Unit Legislation effective
January 1, 2003 and July 1, 2003. Following points are made:

AB 1866 empowers localities to include additional local standards to protect

historical resources and does not diminish or preempt local second unit substantive
standards.
 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 17

AB 1866 enacts procedural change and deletes requirement for a conditional use
process with standards and instead requires second unit applications to be
considered ministerially without discretionary review or hearing .
AB 1866 allows procedural changes to be effectuated by operation of law without a
need to amend or adopt local ordinances for the creation of second units. Asserts
that local authorities could disregard their conditional use procedures.
Asserts that HCD does not preempt or nullify local governments prior second unit
ordinances which continue to be in effect and that a local government defaults to
State's standards only if a local city has not adopted its own standards in a local
ordinance.
Notes that local government still has flexibility in establishing substantive second
unit standards.
Asserts that the 2003 inter-departmental correspondence issued by Planning and
LADBS met intent of legislation by allowing the City to continu'e to use standards in
the conditional use process but not through a conditional use process but though a
ministerial process which was conducted for seven years.
Concludes that the 2010 ZA memo defaulting to State's standards cannot be
justified and that the CUP standards cannot be nullified due to said requiring a
discretionary process because HCD states that a locality does not need to take any
specific action to amend its local ordinances.
Notes that he is unaware of reference by LADBS representative at public hearing
on this matter to a prior administrative appeal which determined that the second
unit ordinance cannot be enforced and that the State's "default'' standards must
instead be enforced.
Notes that applicant did not apply for a second dwelling unit via the through lot
criteria in LAMC Section 12.22-C, 19 but that complying with that provision would
require redesigning structure and might encounter other problems.
Summarizes the evolution of the ZAis related to front yard setback in hillside area or
hillside street and concludes that these were to apply to "by right" projects and that
no evidence that such would apply to this type of project which he characterizes as
a "by right" waiver of a zoning requirement.

DISCUSSION

In the instant case, the action is restricted to considering whether the Department of
Building and Safety acted within the scope of its authority in issuing a building permit to 1)
allow the construction of a second dwelling unit by right in accordance with ZA
Memorandum No. 120 which was issued to assist in the ministerial implementation of
Assembly Bi111866; and, 2) determine that a 5-foot front yard setback was required .

Second Unit

In taking its action, the Department of Building and Safety considered the appellant's claim
that LAMC Section 12.24-W,43 should have been applied which would have limited the
size of the second unit to 640 square feet and which would not allow a second unit to be
visible from the street. LADBS follows standards identified in ZA Memorandum No. 120
with respect to the implementation of Assembly Bill 1866 as this pertains to second units.
The standards establish a maximum floor area of 1,200 square feet which the project does
not exceed. There is no standard addressing or limiting any visibility from the street of a
 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 18

second unit so noncompliance was not an issue. The standards in ZA Memorandum No.
120 represent the State's standards which are applicable to the creation of a second unit.
As such, Building and Safety determined that it complied with all the requirements for the
issuance of a building permit as the proposed second unit met all nine standa rds identified
in ZA Memorandum No. 120.

In acting ministerially on the matter, Building and Safety staff, including plan checkers,
were required to determine that all standards in the Memorandum were met before
proceeding to review the project for building code and other life and safety requirements .
The issue in this case is whether the Department's staff applied and complied with the ZA
Memo correctly. It would not be expected that a plan checker or other staff member would
refuse independently to issue a permit based on his/her own interpretation of an Assembly
Bill's implementation or based on a challenge to an officially issued ZA Memorandum ,
which is one of more. than 130 such ZA documents, dating back to the 1950s, that have
been issued to implement regulations and guide land use processes .

It is not the intent or purpose of the review of this appeal to render a decision on the
standing of ZA Memorandum No. 120. However some general observations are
noteworthy regarding such matter. At the public hearing on this matter, a representative of
the Department of Building and Safety referenced a prior Building and Safety appeal which
had dealt with the implementation of the State's standards and with the June 23, 2003
Inter-Departmental Correspondence based on the conditional use standards which the
appellant seeks to have as the guiding document. ZA Memorandum No. 120 superseded
the 2003 correspondence.

The prior Building and Safety appeal case noted (DIR 2007-0648 BSA) involved an appeal
of the revocation of a building permit to convert the accessory living quarters on a lot into a
second dwelling unit in the community of San Pedro. In this case LADBS issued the permit
for the second dwelling unit in 2005 and subsequently revoked the permit based on the
application of the standards identified in the June 23,2003 Correspondence, which in said
appeal report is referenced as a policy document. Under said action, LADBS determined
that the request was located in a Hillside Area and thus could not meet one of the
standards of the 2003 document so as to be eligible for a ministerial approval. The
applicant appealed to the Director of Planning and the matter was considered by a Zoning
Administrator on behalf of the Director.

The appeal contended that the 2003 document is in conflict with State law which has no
prohibition on development in Hillside Areas. It further stated that the City of Los Angeles
has not adopted an ordinance providing for ministerial approval of second dwelling units
and thus the applicable standards defaulted to those identified in Government Code
(65852 .2(b)(A) - (I). The appeal further contended that the City adopted a policy
memorandum instead of adopting an ordinance through its legislative process and
therefore the City is subject to the State's standards . It also set forth that even if the
standards in the policy memo were the result of a properly adopted ordinance , findings
would have been required to preclude certain development and none have been adopted .

The Zoning Administrator on behalf of the Director of Planning , denied the appeal. He
stated that LADBS exercised enforcement and administration of the Zon ing Code
consistent with the policy directives of the 2003 policy memo and that the matter was
 CASE NO _DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 19

specific to the use of one property. The Director's action was appealed to the Harbor Area
Planning Commission.

At the Harbor Area Planning Commission (APC) appeal hearing, the Zoning Administrator
explained that his action was not based on whether the 2003 policy memo complied with
the State but only on whether LADBS's action complied with the 2003 policy memo and
that it was not within his purview to determine if the policy memo was correct or not. The
APC asked the City Attorney present at the hearing his opinion regarding the 2003 policy
memo. The City Attorney stated that the 2003 policy memo did not comply with the State's
provisions of the Government Code. He added that the Government Code requires an
ordinance to be enacted and that this policy memo was not enacted through a legislative
process of the City. The APC considered whether the 2003 policy memo was used
incorrectly and determined that it should not have been used and that instead AB 1866
should have been applied ministerially. The·APC.granted the appeal and determined that
LADBS erred in using the 2003 policy memo as the deciding factor in revoking the permit
and found that the 2003 policy memo was inconsistent with the provisions of State
Assembly Bill1866 and Government Code Section 65852.2

Although the action of the Harbor APC ultimately did consider the validity of a policy memo,
there remains a consistency between the APC's action and the subject action . If as
determined by the APC, the 2003 policy memo was found to be inconsistent with Assembly
Bill1866, any claims that the standards in said 2003 document should be upheld lacks for
merit. While not privy to the history of why ZA Memorandum No. 120 was issued, it would
not be out of the ordinary to assume that it may have been in part an effort to correct the
lack of standing of the 2003 policy memo. While one could also challenge that ZA
Memorandum No. 120 has not been enacted through a legislative process and thus has no
standing, this seems irrelevant inasmuch as if in fact the City cannot point to a specific
ordinance passed which establishes a ministerial process for second units, then the State
standards apply regardless by default. LAMC Section 12.24 W 43 which remains part of
the Code does not provide for a ministerial process but rather for a discretionary process
subject to a hearing.

Therefore, there is no error or abuse of discretion in the Department of Building and

Safety's action to issue a building permit for a second dwelling unit.

Prevailing Setback

In determining a front yard setback, LADBS followed the provisions of ZA 2001-0331 (ZAI)
which requires that for properties within hillside areas, whether on streets stamped hillside
or not, the prevailing setback calculation can be used if required under the corresponding
zoning but that in no event shall a front yard of less than 5 feet be required . The subject
property fronts onto Krim Drive, a purple street stamped Hillside and thus this ZAI is
applicable. Nothing in this 2001 ZAI refers to these being interim regulations pending the
adoption of hillside provisions . In fact, this ZAI acknowledges that the hillside provisions
have been already in effect for 10 years. The 2001 ZAI specifically identifies properties
fronting onto a stamped hillside street as being subject to this ZAI. It does not default
solely to the provisions of LAMC Section 12.08-C, 1 regarding prevailing setback for such
properties.
 CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 20

The Municipal Code (LAMC Section 12.21 A 2) authorizes the Zoning Administrator to
adopt general interpretations determining the proper application of yard regulations as well
as the ability to interpret other zoning regulations . LADBS notes that since the 1950s,
there have been ZAis issued regarding front yard setbacks in hillside areas , including for
those properties fronting onto a purple street. These have been amended as necessary
throughout the years. LADBS applied the prevailing setback calculator and has included
the specific calculations in its revised report which did not affect the original report. The
calculations could not establish a prevailing setback based on the required criteria and
therefore a 5-foot front yard setback was required.

There is no evidence in the record that such calculations and applications of the front yard
setback requirements for a property fronting onto a stamped hillside street were applied
erroneously by the Department of Building and Safety.

There is no error or abuse of discretion in the Department of Building and Safety's action to
determine that a 5-foot front yard setback was required for the second unit.

In reviewing the information attached to the file, including information submitted by the
appellant, property owner and the Department of Building and Safety, as well as testimony
at the public hearing and subsequent correspondence, it is determined that the Department
of Building and Safety did not err or abuse its discretion in the issuance of a building permit
for a second dwelling and in its determination that a 5-foot front yard setback was required .
The Department carried out its duties based on statutory purposes and application of the
Municipal Code's provisions.

Citywide Impact

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 12.26-K of the Los Angeles Municipal Code, the
determination herein has no Citywide impact as the matter concerns only the use of the
specific property.

APPEAL PERIOD- EFFECTIVE DATE

The Zoning Administrator's determination in this matter will become effective after
AUGUST 6. 2015, unless an appeal therefrom is filed with the City Planning Department.
It is strongly advised that appeals be filed early during the appeal period and in person so
that imperfections/incompleteness may be corrected before the appeal period expires. Any
appeal must be filed on the prescribed forms, accompanied by the required fee , a copy of
the Zoning Administrator's action, and received and receipted at a public office of the
Department of City Planning on or before the above date or the appeal will not be
accepted. Forms are available on-line at http://citvplanning.lacitv.org. Public offices
are located at:

Figueroa Plaza Marvin Braude San Fernando

201 North Figueroa Street, Valley Constituent Service Center
4th Floor 6262 Van Nuys Boulevard, Room 251
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Van Nuys, CA 91401
(213) 482-7077 (818) 37 4-5050
CASE NO. DIR 2015-0290(BSA) PAGE 21

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

Inquiries regarding this matter shall be directed to Kellen Hoime, Project Planner for the
Office of Zoning Administration at (213) 473-9769 .

MICHAEL LOGRANDE
Director of Planning

LOURDES GREEN
Associate Zoning Administrator

LG :KH :Imc

cc: Councilmember Paul Koretz

Fifth District
Adjoining Property Owners