SR-402-001 (26)
.
-~
-~
Y"~ z .-- 001'
12.-Gr
SEP 271968
C/ED: PB: SF: SL
Council Mtg: September 27, 1988
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Consideration of Whether to Accept or Reject an Appeal
of a Planning commission Technical Denial of
Certification of Environmental Impact Report, EIA 849,
Katz Condominium Projects
Applicant: Oscar Katz Trust
Appellant: K & W Associates
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the Council consider a request for an
appeal of the Planning Commission 1 s technical denial of
Environmental
Impact
Report,
EIA
849,
which
examined
environmental impacts associated with the originally proposed
development of 96 condominium units on six separate sites within
Ocean Park. This request is simply to set a hearing date for an
appeal of the denial of the EIR. This request has been filed to
protect the party I s interests regarding one of the six Katz
condominium projects which is currently owned by the appellant.
Since the City Council will take action on EIA 849, that action
will make this appeal moot. Therefore, this request should be
denied.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a letter appealing the Planning Commission's
technical denial of Certification of the Environmental Impact
Report for the Katz Condominium Projects. The appellant is owner
'2-~
JEP 2 7 19BB
J 1
of one of the six sites (2222 Fifth street) which is examined in
the subject EIR (CUP 477, vesting TPM 45457).
As established by SMMC, section 9366 (b), when an interested
person other than the subdivider appeals an item, the Council
may, at its discretion, reject the matter or set the matter for
hearing. Although the appellant owns one of the six sites, Oscar
Katz Trust is the subdivider of record on the application for the
Environmental Impact Report. Therefore, the appellant, K & W
Associates, is considered an interested party in terms of
application of the pertinent code section regarding an appeal.
The appellant's application for CUP 477 and vesting TPM 18719 is
contingent on certification of the Environmental Impact Report.
The public hearing for this condominium application has been
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 5, 1988.
Therefore, if Council certifies the EIR prior to the October 5th
Planning Commission meeting, the above referenced case may be
heard at that meeting. Alternately, if Council denies
certification of the EIR, then the case will be deemed
technically denied.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the subject request for
appeal be rejected if, prior to consideration of this item,
Council has previously acted to certify the EIR, EIA 849. In
~
this case, the appellant's referenced condominium application may
be heard at the Planning Commission meeting of October 5, 1988.
Prepared by: Shari Laham, Associate Planner
Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Planning Division
community and Economic Development Department
SL
PC/KWappeal
09/l4/88
""
I- C::')lD'1UU
1> ICY:>
PAUL C DESANTIS'
ALSO "'EMBER OF NEW 'fORI< BAR
~@~O/
PAUL c. DESA~~f Kf~lT~ '~19~1~~
3002 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, SUITE C --I _
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 904.RA-2506
TELEPHONE (213) 453 18E@ SEP 13 p 3 :1 7
TELEcoprER
(213) 829.1476
September 13, 1988
kwOl
Mr. Paul Berlant
Director of Plannin~
City Planning DivisIon
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Re: 2222 Fifth Street. Tract Map 45458. Appeal of Non-Certification of EIA 849
Dear Mr. Berlant:
On behalf of our client, K & W Associates, we respectfully appeal the Planning
Commission's failure to certify on September 7, 1988, the Environmental Impact Report (EIA
849) covering, among other projects, our client's proposed nine~unit condommium project at
2222 Fifth Street.
..
The subject Environmental Impact Report, p'repared under the complete control of the
City of Santa Monica, adequately addresses and, If anything, overstates, the environmental
Impacts of our client's project. There is no valid basis for it not to be certified.
It is our understanding that the City Council will be able to hear this appeal at its
September 27, 1988, meeting. This is essential for our project, since certification of the EIR
on September 27 is necessary so that the Planning Commission may hold a public hearing and
act on our client's project within the legally required time period.
';;:;;;~ ~ .
Paul C. De~~
Enclosure: Appeal Fee of $100.00
cc: K & W Associates
II ........,;:
.J -.
~@-~O/
PAUL C, DESANTIS
A bP If) /.:)- (;
SEP 2 7 1988
..,.
PAUL C DESANTIS'
3002 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD. SUITE C
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90404.2506
TELEPHONE (213)45~1888
TElECOPIER
(213) 829-1476
'Al.SO "'''MIlER OF NJ;;W YORK eAR
September 27, 1988
,...
Mayor James P. Conn
Honorable Member of the City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90405
Re: Agenda Item 12-G, Appeal of Planning Commission Technical Denial of
CertIfIcation of ErR for 2222 Fifth Street. Santa MOllIca
I
Dear Jim:
Our client, K&W Associates, is the owner of 2222 Fifth Street, one of the SiX
projects analyzed in EnVIronmental Impact Report EIA 849. K&W Associates purchased
this SIte from the Oscar Katz Trust prior to the Planning CommiSSIOn hearings on the
remaining five Katz projects.
The Fifth Street project itself has yet to have a public hearIng before the
Planning CommIssIon. Our position is that this nine-unit project is independent from
the "Katz" Third Street projects and is, therefore, CategorIcally Exempt from CEQA.
Nevertheless, assuming arguendo the CIty'S positIOn that the project approval first
requires certIfIcation of EIA 849, the CouncIl should note the following pomts:
Unlike the Third Street projects, only the certification of the ErR IS before
you, not the project design. Council certIfication of the ErR at this time wIll
merely allow the Planmng Commission to conduct a public hearIng on thIS
project on October 5th.
This {>roJect has been redesIgned based on general comments made at the
Planmng CommIssion hearIngs on the Thud Street projects and by neighbors
of thIS project at a meeting coordinated by Kurt Hunter of the NeIghborhood
Services Center. The result IS a much Improved, neighborhood-compatIble
project on Fifth Street.
The ErR, prepared under the dIrection of City staff, is a comprehensIve,
complete document. Additional environmental research IS unhkely to proVIde
any substantIve new information that would impact the review of the project.
\Ve thus urge that the Council consider this situation and certIfy the EIR so that
the Planning CommIssion may conduct a public hearIng on thIS project If the ErR is
not certIfied, however, we reserve the nght to proceed independently from the Katz
projects as a Categoncally Exempt project.
ADIJ~. /cl-~
Very truly yours, SEP 2 7 1988
~4f~'
{ltr~ If1 ~FC9/
~ LI/
&q ~ CI/