SR-402-001 (40)
L!o'P ,00 I
/:2-A
OCT 2 8 198~
C/ED:RM:RAS:ljw
Council Meeting: October 28, 1986
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Set A Public Hearing Date to Consider
Appeal of Tentative Tract Map 4474l and Conditional Use
Permit 427 for Subdivision of Real Property at 927
Fifth street.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the Council set a public hearing date
to consider an appeal of Tentative Tract Map 44741 and
Conditional Use Permit 427 for subdivision of real property at
927 Fifth Street.
Further, it recommends that the Council
schedule the matter for a public hearing at the Council meeting
of November ll, 1986.
BACKGROUND
On Wednesday, October 15, 1986 Marilyn Spivey, an interested
party I filed an appeal of the Planning Commission' 5 October 6,
1986, decision to approve Conditional Use Permit 427 and
Tentative Tract Map 4474l, with conditions, for a six-unit
condominium to be located at 927 Fifth street.
Pursuant to Section 9148C of the Municipal Code, any aggrieved
party may appeal a Planning Commission decision on a conditional
use permit to the city Council within 20 days. However, under
the provisions of the Municipal Code pertaining to tentative
tract map appeals (Section 9366), if an interested party appeals
1:< -LJ
OCT 2 8 ~g~
- 1 -
a tentative tract map, within ten (10) days, or the next regular
city council meeting following the filing of the appeal, the
Council may, at its discretion, reject the appeal or vote to set
the matter for pUblic hearing. If the Council decides to accept
the appeal, a public hearing on the matter must be held within
thirty (30) days after the complaint has been filed.
The appeal was filed by an interested party on behalf of the
residents of 523 Fifth street. The language in the appeal letter
(Attachment A) indicates that she is appealing the Planning
Commission decision to approve "the project." Staff interprets
that to mean she is appealing both the conditional use permit and
the tentative tract map. In that the appellant has the right to
appeal the decision on the conditional use permit pertaining to
this application, staff believes it would be appropriate to
accept the appeal on the tentative tract map as well.
The appeal of the tentative tract map is now before the Council
to be accepted or rejected. Should the Council vote to accept
the appeal and set the matter for public hearing, the matter must
be scheduled for the November 11, 1986 Council agenda in order to
meet the Hunicipal Code requirement to hear the appeal within
thirty (30) days.
FISCAL/BUDGET IMPACT
The recommendation of this report will have no fiscal or
budgetary impact.
- 2 -
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that Council accept the appeal and
set the matter for public hearing at the Council meeting of
November 11, 1986.
Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
Richard Mills, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: Attachment A - Appeal letter
cc44741
10/16/86
- 3 -
ATTACHMENT A
. I ..- I ...., ... . I'
C-uF' "'2.7
10 . ,,5 . 86
E 10 11'2...0 ~
AS
. .
October 15, 1986
TO:
SANTA MONICA CITY PLN~NING COMl~ISSION
FROM:
THE TENANTS AT 923 FIFTH STREET
RE:
6-UNIT CONDOHINIUH PROJECT APPROVED FOR 927 FIFTH STREET
...
We, as residents of 923 Fifth Street, Santa Monica, California,
the building directly to the north of the proposed project, hereby
appeal your decision to approve the project, as proposed.
'This proposed use will exacerbate traffic and parking problems
that already exist in this area. As it is now, before the 6-unit
condominium being built at 9ll Fifth Street is completed, visitors
of the residences along the 900 block of Fifth Street are usually
forced to park several blocks away and to walk. This presents a
special problem at night because Fifth Street has no street lights.
We feel that this situation is already a threat to the public
safety of our neighborhood.
It is felt by all of us that these problems must be alleviated
before further building, which will inevitably lead to further de-
mand for parking. The projects at 9ll, 927 and eventually 957
Fifth Street, all within the same block between Idaho and Washington,
will, without question, compound parking and traffic problems that
already exist. All three of these condominium projects will replace
single family dwellings in the same block. It should be clear,
from the foregoing, that Fifth Street was never designed and is not
now capable of handling the parking for all of these new, higher-
density developments.
We feel that a building moratorium is in order until the City
studies the parking and traffic problems, with the goal of pro-
viding a plan to mitigate these problems before more high-density
construction is approved.
We feel that this project, as approved, will have a significant
and adverse effect on the environment and will interfere with our
rights, as residents, to free enjoyment of our residences.
(Re~ectfull submitted,
~~~s a 23 Fifth Street
Marilyn ivey, Representative
;,/?;~ tJt8-~9(J c; ~1'-85"fB