NElGIIBORHOOD SUPPORT lOR TIlE or - Los Angelesclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-0375_misc_4-7-11.pdf2. the Senior CityPlanner states that, "approving a "Q" clarification ••

NElGIIBORHOOD SUPPORT lOR TIlECITY PLANNING RULING or JANUARY 21. lOU

COUNCIL PILE NO. 11...,'

Dear Cbsirman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Plannina and Land Use Manaaement Committee:

We support the decision of tile Director in disapproviDa the requested clarification of the "Q" Condition.

In response to the Applicant's reqUCllt, Senior City PImner. JImToIcunaaa issued a ~n basedin pert on the followina:

1. "The strict interpretatioD oftbe 32-foot hoi.aht limit does DOt allow for additional height toaccommodate underground pIIlfdns. access ramps or more deai.rable ceilina height reprdJess of whetherthe additional heiaht is necessary due to site conditions, personal preference or 1wdaIUp."

2. "The heiaht limit was established by the City Council to protect the nejpborhood from outof scale structures. TIle Applicant's building code requirements and buiJdiDg deslan COIIlIidmtions arenot special circnm&talwe5 that require a clarificalion of the "Q" Condition to approve an additional fivefeet inbeiaJtt. ..

3. "The adjacent building to the south is a IiDale story office buildina not exc4llOdingthe 32 footheight limit and to the north is a single story gas station. The only buildins exceed!", the 32 foot heightlimit (approximately 60 feet south from the project site) was ~ prior to the estabUsbment of the"Q" Condition. While every project bas its own set of circumstances, tberv is no ambipity to theexisting 32-foot heipt limit, which WIll the purpoIe of the "Q" Condition and the intent oftbe orisinalordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area. ..

There is widespread neiPbomooo support that this detenninat.ion oot be overturned, and that the appealis denied. The neighborhood previously submitted IpplOximately SOletters in opposition to the projectlIS proposed; a petition with 81 signatures, and numerous emails and phone caUs voicina our eoeeems.

TIle eaeIoHCI 040 _owly .. bmltted ....... are froID ...... bon dIndIy -,aeted. ad are Ollly ItamaD _pie of tile eDmIIlt .., eodDuecllUppOl't for dle I'IIIIq IUde by tile SeiUor CityP..... r. We respeotet'dy nqUlt drat tile AppIIcut', appeal_ DEND:D.

It is our understandina. that this is a first challenge by a commercial buildinc to the "Q" Condition in ourarea. We feel that ifaranted. the clarification sets a precedent that would be deIrimeataI to ourneighborhood, as wen as other affected areas in the City ofLoo Anaeles.We thaak you for your c:ousidendion.

Youra ttuly.

Macth 29, 2011

ROBERTA M. YANGATTORNEY AT LAW

11681 Bellagio ROM, #3Los Angeles, CA 00049

Planning and land Use rv'hilnagOO"lentCommitteeAttention: Michael Espin@fl#l, legilll!lIItivS Aelli!i$~ntCity of Los Angeles200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: R@qUMIt to Deny AppliCilnfs APPillliiBel Air Bar 8. Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-201O-3217-ClQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 002 N. Sepu!VOO!llBlvd., los Angeles, CA 90049

Dear Chairmliln Reyoo Iilnd Honorable Members of the Pl!lInning and lSlnd UseManagement Committee:

Ijoin with my neighbors in our re$p$ctful request to you that you uphold theDetermination issuoo by the Director of PISlnning on January 28, 2011,diNI:JlI:Jli'ovlnu the SlppliC<llI'lt'srequest for a building that would be five feet higherthan that which is aliowoo by code. We support the City's determination in thismatter and request that we have finality at this point.

We live directly aCI'@fI#l ~ street from the Iooaoon of the proposeddevelopment, and while we do not on the whole now object to the prindple ofallowing the development to go forward at this pOint, we do wholeheartooly objectto the last remaining issue that the developer seeks, that of exceeding the heightrestriction. OUf neighborhood is residential except for the one block where thedevelopment will occur. Exceeding the height rINtnetion w@uld greatly aBt@rthe ehamc.r @four ooighboriwod in IIImIII!!'IOOi'~t !& !!'lot n~1'Y for thede"'$lopmefi1t to move i'ol'Wai'd.

Originally, we did object to the over breadth of the propc:med development, havewritten letters, signed petitions, made telephone C<lIlls,sent emaiis, and attendedmeetings and hearings voicing our opposition to the project as proposed (citingtraffic and parking problems that would result from an over-In-height project thatis not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood). In the ZoningAdministrator's Determination issued January 28,2011, the following activity wasnoted: "Approximately 50 letters in opposition, ss wei! as a petition in oppositionwith 81 signatures wes received." Thirty-ooo conditions were attachOO to the

Conditional Use Pel'lflit for the S<;l!eof alcoholic beverages at the site. Mol, theMitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-2010-2201-MND, was upheld in its entirety.

The Senior City Planner, in his expert opinion, detel'lflined that the request for aheight greater than that anowed by code was not necessary due to "siteconstraints, personal preference, or a IlI.rash!p" and "whiie the height limit maynot allow for the proposed buiiding height as designed, thelNl 181'lI0IiImbiguity inthe height limit or th\!! intlllilt."

Our neighborhood appmciates that both the Zoning Administrator and the SeniorCity Planner made the determinations based on what was best fur theneighborhood. Again, ! respectfully request that you uphold the Determination bythe Director of Planning and deny the appliC1!lnt'sappeal.

YOl.lm truly,

R~E&!:;J1' 0/

2

LEE FREEDMAN11823BeUagioRoad Los Angeles CA 90049 Tel. 310-471-5080 Fax. 310-472-0736

email: :[email protected]

, Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los AngelesAttention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant200 N. Spring Street City Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012

Appeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd.

Dear Chairman Ed Reyes, Councilman Jose Huizar, Councilman PaulKrekorian, Councilman Paul Koretz, and Honorable Members of thePlanning And Land Use Management Committee (PLUM)

REQUEST TO DENY APPEALREQUEST TO SUPPORT OF THE RULING BY THE CITY PLANNING OFFICE

I have been a homeowner in Bel Air for over 20 years and reside one block from theproposed project. I have also spent over 50 years involved in developing over 5 millionsqJeet of retail stores and property.

The applicant's listed reasons for appealing the Determination by the City PlanningDepartment of January 28, 2010 is without merit. The Determination is clear and conciseleaving no ambiguities or need for clarification;

"The strict interpretation of the 32-foot height limit does not allow for additional height to accommodateunderground parking, access ramps, or more desirable ceiling heights, as presently designed. While the heightlimit may not allow for the proposed building height as designed, there is no ambiguity in the heightlimit or its intent The "Q" condition specifically limits the height to not exceed a height 0132 feetmeasured from the natural grade at the midpoint of the lot width to the highest point of the buildingor structure. The condition does not allow for any other height above the 32 feet regardless ofwhether the additional height is necessary due to site constraints, personal preference, or ahardship"

" ... approving a "Q" clarification to increase the proposed project by an additional five feet when there is noambiguity to the existing 32-foot height limit defeats the purpose of the "Q" condition and the intent of theoriginal ordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area."

Andie Adams the applicant's representative made the following comments at the ZoningHearing on November 17, 2010 in support of the height request stated that without theapproval of the 5 feet height increase the proposed office space would be limited in ceilingheight from 8' verses 10'6" (which they want) for premier office space. The ceiling height isreflected in the Case No ZA-201 0-2200-CUB Conditional Use. In the Appeal the applicantnow prcposes that the ceiling height would be limited to 7' 8" verses 10'2" which calls intoquestion the validity of their submission of actual height available. As reported in theDetermination, ceiling heights are not a criteria for a requested height increase.

The Be.!Air Association sent a letter to the Council stating that it represented its 2000members in approving the project. I have been a long time member of the BAA, however theydo not speak for me in this matter nor do not support the project as proposed. As individualmembers, we did not have an opportunity to vote in this matter.

The proposed project is precedent setting, The "Q" condition was originally put in place tokeep the current building heights under 32 feet in order to protect our neighborhood from

.exactly this type of overbuilding, This is reflected in the Determination;

"The height limit was established to protect out of scale structures from the predominantlyneighborhood serving commercial district and the residential neighborhood, Based on theinformation submitted by the applicant and the public testimony received, building coderequirements and building design considerations are not special circumstances that require aclarification of the "Q" condition to approve an additional five feet in height. With a potentialredesign of the proposed building it is possible to reduce the height to 32 feet for the 29 percent ofthe building that is 37 feet in height."

We support the extensive review of the project by the City and commend the fair andextensive review and ruling, There is no compelling reason that the applicant cannotproceed with the remodel of the restaurant and the addition of a commercially viable officespace with a-foot ceilings,

To be noted, thirty-one conditions were attached to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale ofalcoholic beverages and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-2010-2201-MND, wasupheld in its entirety,

The planning department should be commended for its thorouqn review of the Project and itsfair and appropriate ruling,

I respectfully encourage the Committee to uphold the rulings and deny the applicant'sappeal. ,

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely

~

-----------------

Mark W. Hancock850 Moraga Driv@

los Angeles, CA90049

March 25, 2011

Planning and land Use Management CommitteeCity of los Ang@l@s200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395los Angeles, CA90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, legislativ@Assistant

Re; Request to rumx Applicant's AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal case No. DIR-2010-3217-ClQ-1ACouncil File No.; 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., los Ang@les

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planning and land UseManagement Committee:

I have lived at 850 Moraga Drive for approximately 38 years and have therefore had theopportunity to observe our community over the years. The residential area, mixed with"neighborhood" commercial land use is part of the area's charm. I have also had officesat 824 Moraga Drive for the past 15 years.

I respectfully request that you uphold the Determination issued by the Director ofPlanning, January 28, 2011, DENYthe applicant's request for a building that would befive feet higher than that which is allowed by code.

My main concerns Include, but are not limited to the following:

1. there is no reasonable reason to grant the exception to the HQ" condition;

2. the Senior City Planner states that, "approving a "Q" clarification •• defeatsthe purpose of the "9" condition and the intent of the original ordinancefor all properties in the ordinance area;"

3. approving a "0:' qualification for this project would set a precedent thatwould encourage other developers to seek exemptions and would almostcertainly change the natu re of the entire local area;

4. create an effective increase in the density of the local area which isdetrimental since it is clear that people do not like to park underground; and

Miriam F. Tasini, M.D.1081 Moraga Drive

Los Angels, California 90049

Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los Angeles200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

March 25, 2011

Re: Request to Deny Applicant's AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planningand Land Use Management Committee:

I respectfully request that you uphold the Determinationissued by the Director of Planning, January 28, 2011,disapproving the applicant's request for a building thatwould be five feet higher than that which is allowed bycode.

We, who actually live in the neighborhood and are propertyowners, have written letters, signed petitions, madetelephone calls, sent emails, attended meetings andhearings voicing our opposition to the project as proposed(citing traffic and parking problems that would result froman over-in-height project that is not in keeping with thecharacter of the neighborhood). In the ZoningAdministrator's Determination issued January 28, 2011, thefollowing activity was noted: ~Approximate1y 50 letters inopposition, as well as a petition in opposition with 81signatures was received". Thirty-one conditions wereattached to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale ofalcoholic beverages at the site. And, the Mitigated

Negative Declaration, ENV-20l0-2201-MND, was upheld in itsentirety.

The Senior City Planner, in his expert opinion, determinedthat the request for a height greater than that allowed bycode was not necessary due to "site constraints, personalpreference, or a hardship" and "while the height limit maynot allow for the proposed building height as deililiqued,there is no ambiguity in the height limit or the intent".

Our neighborhood appreciates that both the ZoningAdministrator and the Senior City Planner made adetermination based on what was best for the neighborhood.Again, I respectfully request that you uphold theDetermination by the Director of Planning and deny theapplicant's appeal.

Yours trUlY~

I~Miriam F. Tasini

AlblllRCempten, M.D.!IIS1 Moraga Drive

Los Angeles, Califomia 901149

March 25,2011


Re: Request to Deny AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles

Deaf Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planning and Land UseManagement Committee:

I am writing in support of the Determination issued by the Director of Planning denyingthe request for a height increase at the proposed project. I believe the Senior CityPlanner, after careful review of all the facts, correctly determined that there was nocompelling reason to allow a building height greater than that allowed by code.

The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial use. While the remodel of the existingrestaurant is not in question, the expansion and over-sized nature of the project is not inkeeping with the character of the area and greatly impacts those of us who actually livehere. Downsizing the project, by not allowing the five-foot variance, will at least help todeter a precedent that our small commercial area cannot support.

The height limit was established to protect our neighborhood from overbuilding. Istrongly urge the Committee to uphold the ruling and deny the applicant's appeal.

Y_ttW~~

Allan Compton 7

Katherine BardPost Office Box 491056

Los Angeles, California 90049

March 24, 2011

Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los Angeles200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, California 90012

Re: Bel Air Bar and Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No: 11-0375Site Address: 662 No. Sepulveda Blvd.

Request to deny appeal

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee:

I am writing as a long term owner of an apartment building across the street from the proposed projectat 622 No. Sepulveda Blvd. I also lived in my building for 30 years.

In response to the letter dated March 14, 2011 sent to you by the Bel Air Association, I would like you toknow that their land use committee did not notify all of the neighbors of any meetings nor did theymeet with all of the neighbors who would be impacted by the project. We found out about the meetingof the Bel Air Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council through word of mouth. We were given minimal timeto prepare and to voice our concerns. They were given as much time as they needed. It appeared to methat the council had already made their decision in favor of the project before the meeting.

Neighbors impacted by the project do have concerns about the traffic as there is currently more thanAcanto Street can safely handle. Our bigger concern is about the added height. This project, ascurrently planned, does not fit with the character of the neighborhood as the facing structures onAcanto Street are all 1940's and 1950's two story apartment buildings. The other issue is the precedentsetting of a taller structure. There are other older commercial buildings on that side of the street thatare ripe for redevelopment.

The residential side of the street was down zoned from R 4 to R 1.5 to reduce density. The commercialside of the street was also down zoned by attaching the "Q" conditions and "D" limitations for the samereason. This was strongly supported by the Bel Air Association. It has impacted my property to where Iam unable to replace what I already have even in case of fire or earthquake. What is different now forthe Bel Air Association to support this?

There is only one restaurant on the street now but the vacant building at 640 No. Sepulveda Blvd. isover 32,000 feet. It has the capacity of three potential restaurants along with retail and office space and

it will reopen at some time. Clearly, the density on our street will be greatly increased when that centeris up and running.

I also want to advise you about the credibility of all the petitions favoring the project. There is a petitionin the restaurant for people to sign. Many of them are not residents nor are they involved in theneighborhood in any way other than eating at the Bel Air Bar and Grill. Also, my tenants informed methat a long time renter in the neighborhood who is an officer in the Bel Air Association came aroundwith a petition. They were asked to sign to " keep the restaurant".

Pleaseunderstand that I am not opposed to the project, only the increased size. It is not in keeping withthe character of the neighborhood both in appearance and scale.

Your "no" vote on this appeal would be greatly appreciate.

Thank you very much for your time.

1//"'/1./~

Katherine Bard

March 25, 2011

Janie Peet-11iomyson11687 'Be£raaio 1Waa #15'BeCJ\ir, CaCifornia 90049

Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los Angeles200 N. Spring Street, City Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

Re: Request to Deny AOD!!I

Bel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planning and Land UseManagement Committee:

I am the owner of a condominium across the street from the proposed project and a realestate professional working in Bel Air and the surrounding areas for many years. I amopposed to the project as proposed.

I am writing in support of the Determination issued by the Director of PlgDDingdenyingthe request for a height increase. I believe the Senior City Planner, after careful review ofall the facts, correctly determined that there was no compelling reason to allow a buildingheight greater than that allowed by code.

The Mitilmted Nelmtive Declaration. EN)'-201 0-220 I-MND. was upheld in its entiretyand Thirty-one conditions were attached to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale ofalcoholic beverages at the site. We sUJWortthe City'S ruling in this case.

The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial use. The expansion and over-sizednature of the project is not in keeping with the character of the area and greatly impactsthose of ns who actually live here. Down sizing the project, so as not violate the intent ofthe Q condition, will at least help to deter a precedent that our small commercial areacannot sustain.


Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los AngelesAttention: ~~~Assistant200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012

Reference: Bel Air Bar and Grill and Office Development ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd.

Subject: Deny Applicant's Appeal, Support the City Planning Office

Dear Chairman Ed Reyes, Councilman Jose Huizar,and Councilman Paul Krekorian, Honorable Membersof the Planning And Land Use Management Committee (PLUM)

WERESPECTFULl Y ASK THAT YOU DENY THE APPEAL Drought forwaro oy theapplicant. =_ ~~:~WE SUPPORT THE CITY PLANNING OFFICE ruling of January 28, 2011 by Senior CityPlanner Jim Tokunaga: "Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.32H, I herebydisapprove the requested Clarification of "Q" Condition No, 1 of Ordinance 165,958, effectiveMay 30,1990"

11'. We are longtime neighbors and among those property owners directly affected by theproposed project. We ask that you uphold the city's decision to disapprove the requestedheight increase and deny the appeal.

We are part of a widespread neighborhood opposition for the project as proposed, and wouldrespectfully encourage the Committee to consider the great number of opposition letters andpetition signatures, phone calls and neighborhood attendees at the project's public hearingsto date. ,;;::; ~_."" ""'- ,,,,,,~ ~~itm~~ ",.,......- _

The "Q" condition was originally put in place to limit building heights to 32 feet in order toprotect our neighborhood from exactly this type of overbuilding as noted in the ruling.

From January 28,2011 ruling by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga: " ... approving a "Q"clarification to increase the proposed project by an additional five feet when there is noambiguity to the existing 32-foot height limit defeats the purpose of the "Q" condition and theintent of the original ordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area."

For us and countless other homeowners in the area, we ask that you uphold the CityPlanning Office's ruling so that our neighborhood will not be further compromised.

I '1(

27th• March, 2011


Re: Request to Deny Applicanfs AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles


I respectfully request that you uphold the Determination issued by the Director ofPlanning, January 28, 2011, disapproving the applicant's request for a building thatwould be five feet higher than that which is allowed by code.

We, who actually live in the neighborhood and are property owners, have written letters,signed petitions, made telephone calls, sent emails, attended meetings and hearingsvoicing our opposition to the project as proposed (citing traffic and parking problemsthat would result from an over-in-height project that is not in keeping with the characterof the neighborhood). In the Zoning Administrator's Determination issued January 28,2011, the following activity was noted: "Approximately 50 letters in opposition, as well asa petition in opposition with 81 signatures was received". Thirty-one conditions wereattached to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale of alcoholic beverages at the site.And, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-2010-2201-MND, was upheld in itsentirety.

The Senior City Planner, in his expert opinion, determined that the request for a heightgreater than that allowed by code was not necessary due to "site constraints, personalpreference, or a hardship" and ·while the height limit may not allow for the proposedbuilding height as designed, there is no ambiguity in the height limit or the intent".

Our neighborhood appreciates that both the Zoning Administrator and the Senior CityPlanner made a determination based on what was best for the !neighborhood. Again, Irespectfully request that you uphold the Determination by the [)irector of Planning anddeny the applicant's appeal. .

Yours truly,

~ .>~-~~.;--7 '. ~

Mojgan ManavlOwner: 11782 Bellagio Rd.Los Angeles, CA 90049

March 28, 2011

Planning and Land Use Management Committee. City of Los Angeles200 N. Spring Street. City Hall, Room 395 Los Angeles. CA 90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

ReqUNt to Deny Appal

Appeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles


We are property owners In close proximity (across the street) to the proposed projectand request that you deny the appeal brought forward by the applicant.

Please uphold the Determination Issued by the Director of Planning denying therequest for II height InCT6lsse for the propl:JtHld proltJet

Speciffcafly: The current proposal height runs counter to the cumrut"{ow-proffle" develqpmeat pattern In this neighborhood and otCQUWL.. adds more needs(and inadlilQllste solutions) toe parking. traffle, etc. There needs to be some room forpeople, for trees, and for green spaces, not just concrete additions. The newdevelopment should be limited to the cutrent height limit of 32 feet.

We are not opposed to the neighborhood being improved with weI! thoughtthrough and well-planned newer buildings, and better services and facilities. However,absent serious attention to vel)f rest concerns with our current huge problems withtrafflc, congestion and parking, lIIeely to get much worse with the current plan forexcessive and overly large expansion of the 8xisting referenced restauranf and additionof new office space, the proposed development is likely to be IIdetriment, rather than animprovement.

The anticipated economic benefits of this, Of any, development need to b<;. W6igh6dagainst the economic costs which may also resun, such as even less available parking,increased trafflc congestion and the costs of deterioration in traffle flow on people andbUSiness. loss In property values, and reduced quality of life for residents. The needs ofdeyelQQment and develQQerti must be weighed fairly against the I1ffIds otresjdB(lfvoters.

Thank you for your anticipated attention to these issues. and thank you In advance forconveying these concerns to the PLUM Committee.

R~itmore/ Clivi1.=:11 7Bellaglo Road 13Bel Air, CA

Sharon Fadem1082 Moraga Drive

Los Angeles, California 90049

March 27, 2011

Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los AngelesAttention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012

Reference: Bel Air Bar and Grill and Office Development ProjectAppeal Case No. DiR-2010-3217-CLO-IACouncil File No: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd.



WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE APPEAL brought forward by theapplicant.

WE SUPPORT THE CITY PLANNING OFFiCE ruling of January 28, 2011 by Senior CityPlanner Jim Tokunaga: "Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.32H, I herebydisapprove the requested Clarification of "0" Condition No, 1 of Ordinance 165,958, effectiveMay 30,1990"

We are longtime neighbors and among those property owners directly affected by theproposed project. We ask that you uphold the city's decision to disapprove the requestedheight increase and deny the appeal.

We are part of a widespread neighborhood opposition for the project as proposed, and wouldrespectfully encourage the Committee to consider the great number of opposition letters andpetition signatures, phone calls and neighborhood attendees at the project's public hearingsto date.

The "0" condition was originally put in place to limit building heights to 32 feet in order toprotect our neighborhood from exactly this type of overbuilding as noted in the ruling.

From January 28, 2011 ruling by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga: • ... approving a "Q"clarification to increase the proposed project by an additional five feet when there is no

ambiguity 10the existing 32-foo! height limit defeats the purpose 0'1 the "0" condition and theintent of tne original ordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area."


With our sincere tha ks,

~.I~

Sharon Fadem

March 25. 2011

Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los Angeles200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles. CA 90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

Res Request to Deny Applicant's AppealBel Ai. Bar & Grm ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-ZOIo-3217oCLQ-IACouacll File No" 11-037.5Site Address, 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd .• Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planning and Land lise ManagementCommittee:

Irespectfully request that you uphold the Determination issued by the Director of Planning.January 28.2011. diMpproving the applicant's request for a building that would be five feet higherthan that wh ich is allowed by code.

We. who actually live in the neighborhood and are property owners. have written letters. signedpetitions. made telephone calls. sent emails, attended meetings and hearings voicing our oppositionto the project as proposed (citing traffic and parking problems that would result from an over-in-height project that is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood). In the ZoningAdministrator's Determination issued January 28. 2011. the following activity was noted:"Approximately 50 letters in opposition, as well as a petition in opposition with 81 signatures wasreceived". Thirty-one conditions were attached to the Conditional lise Permit for the sale ofalcoholic beverages at the site. And. the Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-201Q..2201·MND,was upheld in its entirety.

The Senior Ciry Planner, in his expert opinion, determined that the request for a height greaterthan that allowed by code was not necessary due to "site constraints. personal preference. or ahardship" and "while the height limit may not allow for the proposed building height as designed,there u. no ambiguiry in the height limit or the ineent".

Our neighborhood appreciates that both the Zoning Administrator and the Senior City Plannermade a determination based on what was best for the neighborhood. Again. I respectfully requestthat you uphold the determination by the Director of Planning and deny the applicant's appeal.

Yours truly.

. )'lA (~llJ1

Lpis and Suzanne Brenner11687 Bellagio Road #16Los Angeles. California 90049


Reference: Bel Air Bar and Grill and Office Development ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-ClO-fACouncil File No: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd.


Dear Chairman Ed Reyes, Councilman Jose Huizar,and Councilman Paul Krekorian, Honorable Membersof the Planning And land Use Management Committee (PLUM)


WE SUPPORT THE CITY PLANNING OFFICE ruling of January 28, 2011 by Senior CityPlanner Jim Tokunaga: "Pursuant to los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.32H, I herebydisapprove the requested Clarification of "Q" Condition No, 1 of Ordinance 165,958, effectiveMay 30, 1990"




From January 28, 2011 ruling by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga: "" .approving a "Q"clarification to increase the proposed project by an additional five feet when there is noambiguity to the existing 32-foot height limit defeats the purpose of the "0" condition and theintent of the original ordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area."

For us and countless other homeowners in the area, we ask that you uphold the CityPlanning Office's ruling so that our neighborhood will no! be further compromised.

/CJr6 /JtOMGH7{~;Y9

March 26, 2011

Planning and Land Use Management Committee, City of Los Angeles200 N. Spring Street, City Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

Request to Deny Appeal

Appeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles


Iam a property owner most affected by the proposed project. Ihave investedmuch in the update and upkeep of my property, and join wittI many otherneighbors who oppose this project as proposed.

The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial use. The expansion and over-sized nature of the project is not in keeping with the character of the area. 11.rurtonly negatively Impacts those of us who live 80 close. but lifO puts theenUre neighborhood at risk. Downsizing the project, by not allowing the five-foot variance, will at least help to deter a precedent that our small commercialarea cannot support.

Please uphold the Determination issued by the Director of Planning denying therequest for a height increase for the proposed project. Ibelieve the Senior CityPlanner, after careful review of all the facts, correctly determined that there wasno compelling reason to allow a building height greater than that allowed bycode. The height limit was established to protect our neighborhood fromoverbuilding.

Istrongly urge the Committee to uphold the ruling and deny the applicant'sappeal.

Yours truly,

Daksh Sahni11687 Bellagio Road Number 1Bel Air, California 90049

March 27, 2011

Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los Angeles200 North Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, Ca. 90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

.,. '"

Re: Bel Air Bar and Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-201O-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 622 No. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable members of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee:

We request that you deny the applicant's appeal and uphold the Determination issued by the Directorof Planning on January 28, 2011 for five feet higher over the code allowance.

As residents of Acanto Street we strongly oppose the project as it is currently proposed. The increasedheight is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood of small two story old apartmentbuildings and one and two story buildings on the commercial side of the street. It will set a precedentfor the other small buildings that will be redeveloped at some time. The traffic and parking is alreadyterrible and dangerous.

Again we respectfully request that you deny the appeal and uphold the Determination by the Directorof Planning.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

~~wJ~Matt Catanese and Annabelle Cone

----- -----------

Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los AngelesAttention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeies, CA 90012

AlillfillHl CilH N«II. DIR=20:1!.@-:JU7oCLq..IAiC«lllIIIlI1IeU'11. N«II2 U=O:J:11Il!il~ Md~g Nl2 N, ~DVGd. ~.


Dear Chairman Ed Reyes, Councilman Jose Huizar, and Councilman Paulxrekorten, and Honorable Members of the Planning And Land Use ManagementCommittee (PLUM)

I RESPECTFULLYASK THAT YOU DENY THE APPEAL brought forward by theapplicant.

I SUPPORT THE CITY PLANNING OFFICE RULING OF JANUARY 28, 2011 by theSenior City Planner disapproving the requested Clarification of "Q" Condition No,1 of Ordinance 165,958, effective May 30,1990

Property Owners Most Affected:I am a longtime resident (20 years) and among those property owners directlyimpacted by the proposed project as I am located in the building directly acrossthe street on Bellagio Road. The proposed variance to allow a height increasewould have an adverse effect on my property value and the quaUty of my life. Iask that you uphold the city's decision to disapprove the requested heightincrease and deny the appeal.

Protect Us from Overbuilding:The intent of the "Q" condition was originally instituted to keep the currentbuilding heights under 32 feet in order to protect our residences from exactly thistype of overbuilding. For us and countless other homeowners in the area, I wouldask that you uphold the expert determination by the Director of Planning anddeny the applicant's appeal.

Thank you for your constceratton,r

({C(~{Jl.?tW_ ((/{.?U~·-Marianne Brenner11687 Bellagio Road :#:2los Angeles, California 90049

March 28, 2011





We, who actually live on Acanto Street, want to voice ouropposition to the project as proposed (citing traffic andparking problems that would result from an over-in-heightproject that is not in keeping with the character of theneighborhood). In the Zoning Administrator's Determinationissued January 28, 2011, the following activity was noted:"Approximately 50 letters in opposition, as well as apetition in opposition with 81 signatures was received".Thirty-one conditions were attached to the Conditional UsePermit for the sale of alcoholic beverages at the site.And, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-2010-2201-MND,was upheld in its entirety.

The Senior City Planner, in his expert opinion, determinedthat the request for a height greater than that allowed bycode was not necessary due to "site constraints, personalpreference, or a hardship" and "while the height limit maynot allow for the proposed building height as designed,there is no ambiguity in the height limit or the intent".

Our neighborhood appreciates that both the ZoningAdministrator and the Senior City Planner made adetermination based on what was best for the neighborhood.Again, I respectfully request that you uphold the

Determination by the Dire9tor of Planning and deny theapplicant's appeal.

Yours truly,

~~Ted Shieh

Simon AbeI.lmal8k

March 26, 2011

Planning and Land Use Management Committee, City of los Angeles200 N. Spring Street, City Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant


Appeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., los Angeles


Iam a developer and also a property owner in close proximity to the proposed project. Ijoin with many other neighbors who oppose this project as proposed.

Please uphold the Determination issued by the Director of Planning denying therequest for a height Increase for the proposed project. I believe the Senior CityPlanner, after careful review of all the facts, correctly determined that there was nocompelling reason to allow a building height greater than that allowed by code.

The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial use. The expansion and over-sizednature of the project is not in keeping with the character of the area. Downsizing theproject, by not allowing the five-foot variance, will at least help to deter a precedentthat our small commercial area cannot support.

Istrongly urge the Committee to uphold the fuling and deny the applicant's appeal.

Simon Abdelmalak11687 Bellagio Road 12Bel Air, CA 90049

March 27,2011






WE SUPPORT THE CITY PLANNING OFFICE ruling of January 28, 2011 by Senior CityPlanner Jim Tokunaga: "Pursuant to Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.32H, I herebydisapprove the requested Clarification of "Q" Condition No, 1 of Ordinance 165,958, effectiveMay 30,1990"

We are longtime neighbors directly affected by the proposed project. We ask that you upholdthe city's decision to disapprove the requested height increase and deny the appeal.



From January 28, 2011 ruling by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga: " ... approving a "Q"clarification to increase the proposed project by an additional five feet when there is noambiguity to the existing 32-foot height limit defeats the purpose of the "Q" condition and theintent of the original ordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area."


With our sincere thanks,

........... 1IIId Land UN ~ ComMlttMcttr of Los AnIle' ••AU... tlon: MIe I" , ~III ....... tIiIIt200 H•• P...... 1I t, City H Itoom .1Loa AnI •••• , CA tt0012

Appell' C No. DI.·20100:S217-CLG-IACOUtlCH, HOI 11..oa" •.... AddNse: .. H. hputv.a alvei.

Do., Ch.lrmlln lid ReyIN, ancl Hono....... I'll........ of tIM ",_ .... AndLand UN .an ••• 1IMIftt Com..... (PLUM)

I am a longtime NIlIdent and a property Mmor 1M", across tho street onlIo'Iq" IItoad and among tho.. mo.t Impacted by the propoMd proJcJct.

w. U,.8 JOu to IlUpport the .... 10' city PI....... , in hi. dl•• pprova' of thoraqu •• tod Clel'ltlcatlon of "Q- Condition Ho, .. of Ordinance 1•• ,.",afI'octive Ma, 30,1",

We ba..e.1II the ........ City PI....... , afte, careful review of an the "till,cornet.., determined that theN wa. 1'10 compelling .... eon to Illiow III

build'.,. "ellht ...... 1'then ttIat .110__ by eocItt.

In addition, thirty oondltlon. wo attaclMd to ttl. CondltlOMlI Use"ermlt for the of IIIIlcOholioMV and the Mltlflated ..... ttveDecllmlltlon, INY-2010·U01-MHD, wa. uphelellftlts .ntlrety '.1' the llood ofthe I La..... ..1'01" u. ami ooume... other hom.owners 1ft the w. DfJlIt that Jouuphold tINt O' lnlItIon by the Director or P ", and clclnJ the.ppllc ....... ' 1.

Thank you for,...,~.~Q,i~

.. Ii"."'110l1'li11.. 7 ROIld ..a.1 AI" CA ...

March 25, 20 II


Re: Request til> Deny AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-20IO-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles





~IWJI'li1!I'I~@OOL@i1©lU~ MWJi1~®I'OOmC©mmittooCity C¥f tes ~Attmtion: Mimwi ~$IIlii1ON1,l~i~ ~i$t!llm200 N. Sprin~ St!MtCity Hail, Room ~5l@sAngOlJIM, CA 00012

ROlJf®l'OlJOOOlJ:I3elllir Bar aM Grill aM Offloo De\fOlJl~m ~~I ~ No. DiR-201(').3211-ClQ-1A.Council FileNo: 11-0315SiteAdd~: 652N.&!puive©la Blvc!.

Subject: Deny AppIioom's Aweal, SUll'POrt the City P1ililflrli~ Offioo

Dear Chairman Ed ROlJy", Councilmllln Jose Huizar,aM Couoolmllin Pm! KmkMllln, HOOOI'IlIbIe M@mbei'3of tOO Plllinning And l!llM Uoo M!lln~@m Committoo (PlUM)

WE RESPECTFUllY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE ~ ~ht f©lWli!M by thaapplicant

WE SUPPORT THE CITY PlANNING OFFICE ruling of JllI.IltlliIry 28, 2011 by Senior CityPlanner Jim Tokuneg@: ·Pur!Ilullirn te loo ~eIeI\l MuniclPIII' Code Sedion 12.321-1,I herebydiHpprO\f@ the req~ed Clal'ffi~on C¥f "Q" ~ No, 1 C¥f OMiMOOOlJ165,95f3, effec!iveMay 301,1900'

WOlJ<lIfI~longtime ~hOOre <lIOOtIlmOO{lJthose ~ ~ dimctly aff~ by tOO~ pr~. We I!I$kthm yoo uphold the city's decision to diYpprove the req~haight in~ aM deny the IlIPPIII!ll1.

We IlIre PIIIrt of <Jl ~ ~hoomood oppooitioo for the projsd I!I$~, and wouldmspootfully mcoorlilg@ tOO Committoo to oomlider tOO gmm number of oppooition ~ aMPIIItitioll signatures, phOO$ callilllilOO ~hoorhood ~ m the ~'s public hN!ri~1!Itod_.

ThE!"Q" ooooilion _iii originally put in ~ to limit bl.!ildi~ haights to 32 feet in order toprotect oor Mighborhood fmm @xadly this tlfPIII of overbl.!ildi~ I!I$noted in tOO ruling.

FfOO'lJal'lulliry 28, 2011 ruli~ by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunegs: •... tIlPfjroving III "Q"ciIIIl'ffiootion to in~ tOO pr~ project by IlIn additional five f®<llt whEm there l$ noambiguity to tha elOOti~ 32·foot halght limit defeats tha purpooe C¥f tha "a" condition and theintent of thE! originllli ordinance for all tha propertlM in tha mi~ ama."

For UI!I and coo~ other ~ in tOO area, we _ thm lfOU uphold the CityPlllll'lni~ OIfiOO'll ruling 00 thm our ~hoomood will not bill furth®!' oompr©mised.

March 25, 2011


Re: Request to Deny App~icant's Appea~Bel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles



We, who actually live in the neighborhood have writtenletters, made telephone calls, attended meetings andhearings voicing our opposition to the project as proposed(citing traffic and parking problems that would result froman over-in-height project that is not in keeping with thecharacter of the neighborhood). In the ZoningAdministrator's Determination issued January 28, 2011, thefollowing activity was noted: "Approximately 50 letters inopposition, as well as a petition in opposition with 81signatures was received", Thirty-one conditions wereattached to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale ofalcoholic beverages at the site. And, the MitigatedNegative Declaration, ENV-2010-2201-MND, was upheld in itsentirety.

The Senior City Planner, in his expert opinion, determinedthat the request for a height greater than that allowed bycode was not necessary due to "site constraints, personalpreference, or a hardship" and "while the height limit maynot allow for the proposed building height as designed,there is no ambiguity in the height limit or the intent".

Our neighborhood appreciates that both the ZoningAdministrator and the Senior City Planner made a

determination based on what was best for the neighborhood.Again, I respectfully request that you uphold theDetermination by the Director of Planning and deny theapplicant's appeal.

Yours truly,

Lynn Givens608 Acanto Street

March 25, 2011


Re: Request to Deny AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles





Yours truly,

~~'-~"

\C) S'V

'-t,~

~~

'i\\,~~~10-.. ~.~ C\.~\JI-\~

JANE AND DAVID WYLER989 MORAGA DRIVE

LOS ANGELES, CA [email protected]@wylers.net

March 25, 2011

Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los Angeles200 N.Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

Re: Request to Deny AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. D1R-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd, Los Angeles


I am writing in support of the Determination issued by the Director of Planningdenying the request for a height increase at the proposed project. I believe theSenior City Planner, after careful review of all the facts, correctly determined thatthere was no compelling reason to allow a building height greater than that allowedby code.

The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial use. While the remodel of theexisting restaurant is not in question, the expansion and over-sized nature of theproject is not in keeping with the character of the area and greatly impacts those ofus who actually live here. Downsizing the project, by not allowing the five-footvariance, will at least help to deter a precedent that our small commercial areacannot support.


Yours truly,/-

}pJvtl

-----------~----."

March 25,2011


Re: Request to Deny Appeal

Bel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles


We respectfully request that you uphold the Determination issued by the Director ofPlanning, January 28,2011, disapproving the applicant's request for the additionalheight for the proposed project.

We believe the Senior City Planner, after careful review of all the facts, correctlydetermined that there was no compelling reason to allow a building height greater thanthat allowed by code.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV -201 0-2201-MND, was upheld in its entiretyand thirty-one conditions were attached to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale ofalcoholic beverages at the site.

We support the City's rulings and strongly urge the Committee to consider theprecedence, and deny the applicant's appeal.

y~\:~L,~:Arlene and Chuck Posen11687 Bellagio Road #8Bel Air, California 90049

JANE AND DAVID WYLER989 MORAGA DRIVE

LOS ANGELES, CA 90049jal'[email protected]'[email protected]'le-r

March 25, 2011

Planningand Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los Angeles200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative Assistant

Re: Request to Deny Applicant's AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-201O-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planningand Land UseManagement Committee:

I respectfully request that you uphold the Determination issued by theDirector of Planning, January 28, 2011, disapproving the applicant's requestfor a building that would be five feet higher than that which is allowed bycode.

We, who actually live in the neighborhood and are property owners, havewritten letters, signed petitions, made telephone calls, sent emails, attendedmeetings and hearings voicing our opposition to the project as proposed(citing traffic and parking problems that would result from an over-in-heightproject that is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood). Inthe Zoning Administrator's Determination issued January 28,2011, thefollowing activity was noted: "Approximately 50 letters in opposition, as wellas a petition in opposition with 81 signatures was received". Thirty-oneconditions were attached to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale of

alcoholic beverages at the site. And, the Mitigated Negative Declaration,ENV-2010-2201-MND, was upheld in its entirety.

The Senior City Planner, in his expert opinion, determined that the requestfor a height greater than that allowed by code was not necessary due to"site constraints, personal preference, or a hardship" and "while the heightlimit may not allow for the proposed building height as designed, there is noambiguity in the height limit or the intent".

Our neighborhood appreciates that both the Zoning Administrator and theSenior City Planner made a determination based on what was best for theneighborhood. Again, r respectfully request that you uphold theDetermination by the Director of Planningand deny the applicant's appeal.

Yours truly,

~ //J';// /~-'7'''''./I IV--<-(/, ,'v'

March 25,2011


Re: Request to Deny AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles





March 25, 2011


Re: Request to Deny Appea!Bel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DlR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles





Planning and Land Use Management CommitteeCity of Los Angeles .Attention: Michael Espinosa, Legislative·Assistant200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall, Room 395Los Angeles, CA 90012







We are part of a widespread neighborhood opposition for the project as proposed, and wouldrespectfully encourage the Committee to consider the great number of OPPOSitionletters andpetition signatures, phone calls and neighborhood attendees at the project's public hearingsto date.


From January 28, 2011 ruling by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga: •... approving a "Q"clarification to increase the proposed project by an additional five feet when there is noambiguity to the existing 32-foot height limit defeats the purpose of the "Q" condition and theintent of the original ordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area."


With our sincere thank , ,7'i:

Martin Fockens

Constance Somerfeld

1245 Casiano Road

Los Angeles, CA 90049

March 25, 2011




We respectfully request that you uphold the Determination issued by theDirector of Planning, January 28, 2011, disapproving the applicant's request fora building that would be five feet higher than that which is allowed by code.

We, who actually live in the neighborhood and are property owners, have writtenletters, signed petitions, made telephone.calls, sent emails voicing our oppositionto the project as proposed (citing traffic and parking problems that would resultfrom an over-in-height project that is not in keeping with the character of theneighborhood). In the Zoning Administrator's Determination issued January 28,2011, the following activity was noted: "Approximately 50 letters in opposition, aswell as a petition in opposition with 81 signatures was received". Thirty-oneconditions were attached to the Conditional Use Permit for the sale of alcoholicbeverages at the site. And, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-2010-2201-MND, was upheld in its entirety.

The Senior City Planner, in his expert opinion, determined that the request for aheight greater than that allowed by code was not necessary due to "siteconstraints, personal preference, or a hardship" and "while the height limit maynot allow for the proposed building height as designed, there is no ambiguity inthe height limit or the intent".

Our neighborhood appreciates that both the Zoning Administrator and the SeniorCity Planner made a determination based on what was best for theneighborhood. Again, I respectfully request that you uphold the Determinationby the Director of Planning and deny the applicant's appeal.

Yours truly,

Constance Somerfeld

/11 fL-<..'L-~-j .~-=-1'~

Martin J. Fockens

March 25, 2011


Re: Request to Deny AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-lACouncil File No.: J J -0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd .. Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planning and Land UseManagement Cornmi ttee:

J am writing in support of the Determination issued by the Director of Planning denyingthe request for a height increase at the proposed project. I believe the Senior CityPlanner, after careful review of all the facts, correctly determined that there was nocompelling reason to allow a building height greater than that allowed by code.

The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial use. While the remodel of the existingrestaurant is not in question, the expansion and over-sized nature of the project is not inkeeping with the character of the area and greatly impacts those of us who actually livehere. Downsizing the project. by not allowing the five-foot variance. will at least help todeter a precedent that our small commercial area cannot support.

The height limit was established to protect OUr neighborhood from overbuilding. Istrongly urge the Committee to uphold the ruling and deny the applicant's appeal.

I

March 25, 2011


Re: Request to Deny AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-201O-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles


I deny the request for a height increase at the proposed project and support theDetermination issued by the Director of Planning denying the request for a heightincrease at the proposed project. Although I am not opposed to the expansion there wasno compelling reason to allow a building height greater than that allowed by code.

The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial use The expansion and over-sized natureof the project is not in keeping with the character of the area and greatly impacts those ofus who actually live here. Downsizing the project, by not allowing the five-foot variance,will at least help to deter a precedent that our small commercial area cannot support.


Yours truly,

Denise Wong _=--1061 Moraga Dr.Los Angeles, Ca 90049

March 25,2011


Re: Request to Deny AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepnlveda Blvd., Los Angeles



The area is zoned for neighborhood commercial use. While the remodel of the existingrestaurant is not in question, the expansion and over-sized nature ofthe project is not inkeeping with the character of the area and greatly impacts those of us who actually livehere. Downsizing the project, by not allowing the five-foot variance, will at least help todeter a precedent that our small commercial area cannot support.











From January 28, 2011 ruling by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga: "... approving a "Q"clarification to increase the proposed project by an additional five feet when there is noambiguity to the existing 32-foot height limit defeats the purpose of the "Q" condition and theintent of the original ordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area."


With our sincere thanks,

~r!w6 1?d~kJ--, 100 MGJI-CLdC( DHlJe--

uPs Art~c/&> J Clf- 76JCJCjq

March 25, 2011


Re: Request to Deny Applicant's AppealBel Air Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil FileNo.: 11-0375Site Address: 662N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planning and Land Use ManagementCommittee:

I respectfully request that you uphold the Determination issued by the Director of Planning,January 28, 2011, disapproving-the applicant's request for a building that would be five feethigher than that which is allowed by code.

We, who actually live in the neighborhood and are property owners, have written letters, signedpetitions, made telephone calls, sent emails, attended meetings and hearings voicing ouropposition to the project as proposed (citing traffic and parking problems that would result froman over-in-height project that is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood). In theZoning Administrator's Determination issued January 28, 2011, the following activity wasnoted: "Approximately 50 letters in opposition, as well as a petition in opposition with 81signatures was received". Thirty-one conditions were attached to the Conditional Use Permit forthe sale of alcoholic beverages at the site. And, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-2010-2201-MND, was upheld in its entirety.

The Senior City Planner, in his expert opinion, determined that the request for a height greaterthan that allowed by code was not necessary due to "site constraints, personal preference, or ahardship" and "while the height limit may not allow for the proposed building height asdesigned, there is no ambiguity in the height limit or the intent".

Our neighborhood appreciates that both the Zoning Administrator and the Senior City Plannermade a determination based on what was best for the neighborhood. Again, I respectfullyrequest that you uphold the Determination by the Director of Planning and deny the applicant'sappeal.

Yours truly,








We are part of a widespread neighborhood opposition for the project as proposed, and wouldrespectfully encourage the Committee to consider the great number of opposition letters andpetition Signatures, phone calls and neighborhood attendees at the project's public hearingsto date.


From January 28,2011 ruling by Senior City Planner Jim Tokunaga: "... approving a "Q"clarification to increase the proposed project by an additional five feet when there is noambiguity to the existing 32-foot height limit defeats the purpose of the "Q" condition and theintent of the original ordinance for all the properties in the ordinance area."


March 25, 2011

Planning and land Use Management CommitteeCity of los Angeles200 N. Spring StreetCity Holl, Room 395los Angeles, CA 90012

Attention: Michael Espinosa, legislative Assistant

Re: Request to Deny Applicant's Appeal

Appeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-ClQ-1ACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of the Planningand land Use Management Committee:


Our neighborhood appreciates that both the ZoningAdministrator and the Senior City Planner mode adetermination based on what was best for the neighborhood,as they made their decisions. Again, I respectfully requestthat you uphold the Determination by the Director ofPlanning and deny the applicant's appeal.

~o.urt.ha~nks,. _

(I ~ ....."

'#Ictfl ~ ..Dr linda Garro11687 Bellagio Rood 13Bel Air, Co 90049

March 29. 2011

Planning and Land Use Mamlgement CommitteeCity of Los Angeles200 N. Spring StreetCity Hall. Room 395Los Angeles. CA 90012

Attention: Michael Espinosa. Legislative AssisllIllt

Re: Bel Ail' Bar & Grill ProjectAppeal Case No. DIR-2010-3217-CLQ-IACouncil File No.: 11-0375Site Address: 662 N. Sepulveda Blvd.• Los Angeles

Dear Chairman Reyes and Honorable Members of me Planning and Land Use M~ent Committee:

Re: REQESTTO DENY APPUCANT'SAPPEAL

With residences diftetlyfacingthe project, we join other propeny owners in the neigbborhood and respectfullyrequest that you uphold the Determination issued by the Director of Planning. Jannnry 28. 2011. d!slippro-ving theapplicant's request for a building that would be five feet bigber than that which is ulIowed by code.

The Senior City Planner. in his expert opinion, determined that the request for a beight greater than that allowed bycode was not necessary due to "site constraints, personal preference. or ahardship" and "while the bei8ht limit maynot allow for the proposed building hei8ht as des4Jned, there is no ambiguity in me height limit or the intent." Itwas also determined. "based on the plans submitted the clarification is not necessary to carry out the intent of theCity when adoptingthe ordinance.-

It was the Senior City Planning Office who also stated "with a potential redesign of the proposed buildingit is possible to reduce me height to 32 feet for me 29 percent of me building mat is 37 feet in height." Werespectfully encourage the applicant to elect to limit the ceiling heights to 8-foot and remain within thecode.

There is widespread neigbborhood opposition to the project as proposed as evidenced by the outpouring of'leners,signed petitions. telephone calls. emails, attendance at meetings and hearings to date (citing issues that would resultfrom an over-in-height project that is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood). Granting this appealwould set a precedent that would encourage other developers to seek exemptions.

Another 49 letters In the Zoning Administrator's Determination issued Jannnry 28, 20 I 1. the following activity wasnoted: •Approximately 50 letters in opposition, as well as a petition in opposition with 81 signatures was received".Thirty-one conditions were attached to the Conditional Use Permit ror the sale of alcoholic beverages ar the sire.And, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, ENV-20 10-220 I-MND, was upheld in its entirety.

Our neighborhood supports and appreciates the extensive work done by me Zoning Administr1ltnr and the SeniorCity Planner to review the facts in me case and render a decision. We respeetfully request that YOIluphold meDetermination by me Director of Planning and deny the applicant's appeal.

~F~Linda Freedman11687 BeUop. Road 117Los Angeles, CA 90049

Documents

NElGIIBORHOOD SUPPORT lOR TIlE or - Los Angelesclkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2011/11-0375_misc_4-7-11.pdf2. the Senior CityPlanner states that, "approving a "Q" clarification ••