SR-12-B (13)
!/tJz,- tf)~ r
/~-B
MMl 1 'l \~
~
"
C/ED:PZ:PJS:ca
Councl1 Meeting: March 12, 1985
Santa Monica, Callfornla
TO: Mayor and Clty Councl1
FROM: C~ty Staff
SUBJECT: Request for Determination of whether to Hear Appeal of
Plannlng ComffilSSlon Declsion Approvlng a Tentative Par-
cel Map for 2618 Montana Avenue
-
Introduction
ThlS report recommends that the Clty Council conslder whether to
schedule a public hearing for March 26, 1985 to hear an appeal
flIed by Counell Member Epsteln on a proposed condomlnlum proJect
at 2618 Montana.
Background
On March 4, 1984 the Planning Commlss~on approved a Development
Revlew Permlt, Condltional Use Permlt, Varlance and Tentatlve
Parcel Map for a three-unlt condominium proJect at 2618 Montana
Avenue.
On the adVlce of the Director of Planning and Deputy
Clty Attorney the Commlssion required that one unit be affordable
to lrn~ and moderate lncorne persons as required by Program 12 of
the Clty'S Houslng Element.
During the publlC hearing there was
discussion about whether Program 12 applled In thlS partlcular
case and about whether the appllcant may have received confllct-
lng inforrnatlon from the Planning and Zonlng Dlvlslon about
whether the requlrement applled.
On March 5th Council Member Epstein flIed a timely appeal of the
Plannlng Commlsslon deeisl.on (see Attachment A).
Because the
appeal inel udes a Tentatl. ve Parcel Map, Santa Monl.ca Municl.pal
- 1 -
/,2--B
MAR 1 2 t9fi
---=r---- - ------.....--..-.
.. ,
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
(
(
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMO
March 5. 1985
Paul Sllvern, Dlrector of P1annlng
Councll Member David Epsteln ~~
Appeal of Plannlng Commlssion Actlon on Tentative Parcel
Map 16767, CUP375, ZA4839-y, 2618 Montana Avenue
I wish to apoeal the declsion of the P1annlng Comm1ss1on
in th,S matter,
The appeal is based on two grounds:
1. There are ser10US al1egatlOns by the developer that
prlor to making a financial commitment to this project he
was advised by plannlng staff that there were no lnclusionary
requirements. I belleve that thlS clfcumstance, if true.
creates a potent1al legal exposure for the C1ty. and further-
more, may result 1n fundamental unfalrness lndependently
of the legal risks.
2. The lnterpretatlon of our Houslng Element by the
Clty staff 1n this lnstance, leads to an economlcally absurd
result. If other interpretations are possible that are more
economically realistic, they should be followed. If no such
1nterpretation is posslble, the Council ought to be aware of
the absurd result and initlate modiflcatlon of the policy as
soon as possible,
It 1S requested that the staff report specifically respond to
the appllcant's allegatlons regarding the adv1ce glven to h1m
by staff, and if the clalms of the applicant are not conceded
by staff, that all staff members who have a knowledge of this
project be present at the hearings to testify under oath, if
necessary.
,"
. ...