Los! Angeles City PlanriÎng Commission 200 North Spring Street, Room 532, City Hall, Los Angeles, CA (213)

Transcription

1 Los! Angeles City PlanriÎng Commission 200 North Spring Street, Room 532, City Hall, Los Angeles, CA (213) APPEAL TRANSMITTAL Date: January 12, 2007 City Council Room 395, City Hall APPEAL REQUEST: An appeal on the entire City Planning Commission determination for: CASE NO: LOCATION: TENTATIVE TRACT NO A Wilshire Blvd. COUNCIL DISTRICT: 5 (1) APPELLANT: Lorraine Gray/La Salle Apartments Tenants Group & Daniel Kavanaugh APPELLANT REPRESENTATIVE: PROJECT APPLICANT: Richard D. Agay, Esq. DK Partners Final date to Appeal: Januarv COMMISSION DETERMINATION: At its meeting of August 10, 2006, the City Planning Commission took the following action: 1. Granted the appeals in part. 2. Sustained in part, the Advisory Agency approval of the subject Tract Map, composed on one lot for a maximum 60-unit residential condotminium subdivision. 3. Approved modified Conditions of ApprovaL. 4. Adopted Findings 5. Adopted ENV MND. i!lams, Commission Executive Assistant II City Planning Commission Attachments: (1) Appeal, Determination letter, File

2 eii?, Gî IUl '-, CITY OF LOS ANGELES PLANNING DEPARTMENT page 1 si MASTER APPEAL FORM APPEAL TO THE: ('; +-y ('("111H'i L of Toos Angeles REGARDING CASE NO.: ~'entative Tract No A and ENV MND This application is to be used for any authorized appeals of discretionary actions administered by the Planning Department. Appeals must be delivered in person with the following information filled out and be in accordance with the Municipal Code. A copy.of the action being appealed must be included. If the appellant is the original applicant, a copy of the receipt must also be included. APPELLANT INFORMATION: PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Lorraine Gray. Name La Salle Apartments Tenants Group (1) & Daniel Kavanaugh (2 ~ Los Anqeles, CA ~p: Mailing Address Wilshire Boulevard # 12 (l) and # 16 (20: Work Phone: (ll ) Home Phone: (??ID) Lf 7 D - ~ Llb L( a) Are you or do you repres~e original applicant? (Circle One) YES V b) Are you filing to support t~ginal applicant's position? (Circle One) YES. ~ c) Are you filing~ni ~Lar on.if of other parties, an organization or company? (Circle One) SELF OTHE d) If "other" please state the name of the person(s), organization or company (print clearly or type) La Salle ~PQrrmpnr~ ~p.nanbs Group 610- L/7D- 3 '1 b ~ REPRESENTATIVE Name Richard D. Agay. Esq..) LltlJof(e:,l2()!'ey MailingAddress 8665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suitè'210 Beverly HIlls. CA Work Phone: (310) Home Phone: ( T l-! N Zip t ò::ii- 'J9d-1 ) APPEAL INFORMATION A complete copy of the decision letter is necessary to determine the final date to appeal, under what authorizing legislation, and what, if any, additional materials are needed to file the appeal. Appeals to the City Council from a determination on a Tentative Tract (TT or VTT) by the City (Area) Planning Commission must be filed within 10 days of the written determination of the Commission. Final Date to Appeal: J A- ~ 9-CJÒf

3 REASONS FOR APPEALING page 2 - Are you appealing the entire decision or parts of it? g) Entire o Part Indicate: 1) How you are aggrieved by the decision; and 2) Why do you believe the decision-maker erred or abused their discretion? If you are not appealing the whole determination, please explain and specifically identify which part of the determination you are appealing. Attach additional sheets if necessary, 1) Appellants are tenants and residents of the buildinqs about to be demolòil~8hed in order to build the condominia for whichthe tentative tract map is souqht, and therefore are persons who wi II be displaced by the action approved by the City Planning Commission. 2 ) Reasons--see attached paqes ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.. Original receipt required to calculate 85% filng fee from original applicants,. Original applicants must pay mailing fees to BTC and submit copy of receipt.. Any additional information or materials required for fiing an appeal must be provided in accordanc.e with the LAMC regulations as specified in the original determination letter. A copý of the determination/decision letter is required... Acceptance of a complete and timely appeal is based upon successful completion and examination of all the required information.. Seven copies and t e original appeal are required. i certify that the statem ÅAppeliant d ''~Tccd; Geô'f' OFFICIAL)JSE ONLY Receipt No, g,.. 45 Ù Amount 'I 7.3. d 0 Date OL /ozll 7 Application Received J L~ to ~. Application Deemed Complete ~ Copies provided: ~mination 0 Receipt (original applicant only) Determination Authority Notified (if necessary) ~ CP-7769 (09/19/06)

4 \./ /' -', \.,; REASONS FOR APPEALING Appellants appeal the entire determination of the City Planing Commission in sustaining in part the Advisory Agency approval of tentative tract no , in approving the attached MN for each of the following reasons both individually and collectively: 1 INTRODUCTION The proposed project would remove 32 moderate income rental housing units from the market and displace the tenants of these 32 units whose lives center around the area in which they now live. At a time when the City is doing everyhing in its power to promote housing and working in the same area such as by adopting zoning provisions that give special benefits to those who create mixed uses, it is inconsistent not to live up to the letter of the law in requiring this project to meet the legal requirements imposed for this demolition and construction of a condominium building. Before the lives of the tenants, many of whom are long-time residents, are uplifted and damaged - if not perhaps even destroyed - any approval should be scrutinized carefully and gone over with a fine-tooth comb, the result of which endeavor wil be to sustain this appeal. 2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP The reasons for appealing the sustaining in part of the Advisory Agency approval of the tentative tract map no , the conditions thereto, and the Findings in support thereof are each and all of the following, both individually and collectively: Conditions of Approval as modified, in adopting the attached Findings, and in adopting ENV- -1-

5 /A_", I \. / 2.1 There is a Scrivener Error in the Recital of what the Commission Adopted. The Determination as set forth in writing is inconsistent with and contrary to the motion as orally made and adopted at the hearing before the City Planning Commission on August 10, 2006 in the following respects: Attention is directed to site specific condition No. 18 appearing on page 12 of Determination which reads as follows: the "CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS "Prior to the issuance of Demolition Permit, applicant shall submit Plan to the Wilshire/Westwood Scenic Corridor Specific Plan Design Review Board (DRB) for review and approval" Of course, there is no such thing as the Wilshire/Westwood Scenic Corridor Specific Plan Design Review Board. The only design review board in whose jurisdiction this project falls is known as the Westwood Community Design Review Board. There is no separate DRB for the Corridor Plan. Obviously, that goof is not overwhelming, but it does demonstrate that goofs did take place in the preparation of the Determination. The more significant error is the omission of that which should have followed what is quoted above. That there indeed was material omitted is quickly demonstrated by the fact that the punctuation shows that there is no period at the end of the supposed sentence. That is because it is an incomplete sentence. In fact, the Commission decided that approval of the Design Review Board process must be final before a demolition permit can be issued and before tenants be given notice of eviction. To place the matter in appropriate context we quote from statements made by the commissioners. First, President Usher in part stated: "So, Emily (referring to Emily Gable-Luddy, of the Deputy Advisory Agency)... I would be inclined to sustain the decision of the Advisory Agency with the -2-

6 /-'\ ~ ~'-",! exception of this notion that Design Review Board approval must be completed and finalized prior to obtaining a demolition permit." Commissioner Kezios then explained his purpose in the following statement: "I'm concerned about people being dispossessed of their apartments unnecessarily and I don't know what the mechanism is, but it would appear to me that perhaps demolition and building permits should be issued concurrently, ifthats possible, so that we don't have someone demolishing a building and then two years later they go for a building permit. I don't know what the legal mechanics of that is to make it work. But I would hate to see these people moved out of their apartments and (then a substantial delay occurs.)" It was in this context that the motion ultimately adopted required the final approval of the Design Review Board process, prior to the issuance of any demolition permit. Unfortunately, the scrivener for the Commission simply stopped writing before completing the language that would correctly record the motion as adopted. The unfinished sentence in Condition 18 needs to be completed, and that which would accomplish Commissioner Kezio's purpose, and that of substantially as follows (below underscored), also correcting the name of entirety the sentence reads: President Usher, would be to add words the DRB, so that in its "CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS "Prior to the issuance of Demolition Permit, applicant shall submit Plan to the Westwood Community Design Review Board for review and approval and that approval must be completed before such issuance. and no notice of eviction to any tenant of the building which would prompt a requirement for relocation assistance shall be given prior to such completion." -3-

7 /, r""", ". j \ / We emphasize that in this respect, Appellants are not seeking to reverse that which the Planning Commission adopted, but rather to have what the Planning Commission adopted be put into the Determination (which was incorrectly written by someone other than the commissioners ). If nothing else, the City Council should revise Condition 18 to be consistent with the foregoing language. 2.2 A Full Environmental Impact Report is Required. The absence of a full environmental impact report and the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration are in error for the reasons set out below and no action on a tentative tract map can take place without proper environmental clearance. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE Appellants appeal the adoption ofenv mnd and instead contend that a full environmental impact report should be prepared for each of the following reasons both individually and collectively: 3.1 Not All Impacts are Addressed or Mitii!ated. On page 18 of the determination, 13 different potential negative impacts are set out, including ambient air pollution levels, noise from the site, and loss of rental units. The determination continues with the assertion that: "The potential impacts identified above are mitigated to less than a significant level through implementation of Condition Nos. 16, 17, and C-4 of the Tract's approval." An examination of demonstrates that not all of those conditions and comparison to the identified impacts the impacts are even addressed; much less do those Findings -4-

8 , r"---, '. / demonstrate that all of the negative impacts "are mitigated to a less than significant level." That being so, the adoption of MND should not be sustained and a full EIR should be directed. 3.2 Major Impact of Lan!e Project Directlv Across the Street is not Addressed. Omitted in the listing of potential negative impacts is the fact that directly across the street, another project of approximately 18 stories is under construction, and yet there is no condition requiring deferral of this pending project until completion of the project now under construction, that which Section 4 of the Corridor Plan refers to as "phasing." The impacts from having both projects proceed concurrently are enormous and yet such simultaneous construction is not addressed. Health and safety are impacted by having construction take place simultaneously on both sides of Wilshire Boulevard. The simultaneous development wil double the truck traffic. Each project is mid-block, and therefore all trucks wil have to enter and exit from and onto Wilshire Boulevard - a major urban artery. This block already sustains major traffic congestion throughout the day, and simultaneous construction projects wil multiply traffic problems. The mere fact that the congestion may be in part restricted to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. is of little comfort. This is within a block of the commencement of four of the worst level of service of intersections in the City (Wilshire and Glendon, Wilshire and Westwood, Wilshire and Gayley, and Wilshire and Veteran). The noise pollution wil double. While the Determination states that construction activities are to be scheduled to avoid several pieces of equipment simultaneously which cause high noise levels, there is nothing within the Determination (because there could not be) which addresses the activities immediately across the street so there is no way to avoid the "doubling" or even greater multiple of noise pollution. Pollutants, dust levels, and toxins wil be doubled as well. Ignoring the impact from simultaneous construction causes the adoption of the MN to be in error. Of course, that could quite easily be cured by adding a condition that no demolition permit shall be issued until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the new building at Wilshire Boulevard, immediately across the street. -5-

9 ,.-~\, / 3.3 Commission Assurance is not a Cure. On page 19, the Determination recites that "the City Planning Commission has assured that the above identified mitigation measures wil be implemented by requiring reporting and monitoring..." First, the City Planning Commission is not a police agency and has no abilty to assure anything. Noteworthy i~ the absence of any remedy to anyone by reason of violation of such assurance. Second, an examination of the transcript reveals no such assurance by the Planning Commission during the hearing. Once again, this statement appears to be made out of whole cloth; it was simply made up by the scrivener. 4 OTHER REASONS FOR APPEAL Appellants repeat all other points raised as reasons for objection to the action of Advisory Agency as set forth in the appeal thereof to the Planning Commission, a copy of which is affixed to this appeal, and by this reference incorporated as reasons for this appeal as though again set out in full for a second time. the 5 CONCLUSION Appellants do not need to be correct on each and every one of the points above. Anyone of them compels at a minimum the insertion of further conditions. The MND was improvidently adopted, and without environmental clearance, the tentative tract map cannot be approved. -6-