sr-042479-11eSanta Monica, California, April 18, 1979
TO: The Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Staff APR ~ ~ j~'Jg
SUBJECT: Proposed Appeals, 7 Condominium Conversions,
William McPeak
Introduction
This report transmits an appeal by William McPeak of 7 condo-
minium conversions approved by the City Planning Commission on
March 19, 1979.
Background
On March 19th the City Planning Commission approved 7 Tentative
Tract Maps for condominium purposes involving conversions of
existing apartment buildings to condominiums. William McPeak,
a tenant of one of the buildings involved has appealed these
approvals. It was believed that Mr. McPeak was appealing the
approval of only that building in which he resided, but it has
been subsequently clarified that he wishes to appeal all of the
approvals of March 19th.
tdr. McPeak's basis for appeal appears to be the failure of the
Planning Commission to discuss several questions raised in a
letter sent to the owner of his apartment building, a copy of
which was filed with the City Planning Department and distributed
to the Planning Commission prior to the March 19th meeting. The
questions raised in Mr. McPeak's letter involved proposed reno-
vations in the building, the asking price of his unit, the length
of time the conversions would take, whether an EIR had been filed,
APR 2 ~ t9~~
Mayor and City Council
- 2 - April 18, 1979
whether a coastal permit was necessary and whether the condo-
minium procedures were contrary to due process and equal protec-
tion laws. In subsequent letters and discussions with Mr.
McPeak the staff has endeavored to answer these questions inso-
far as possible.
Alternatives
Under the State Map Act an appeal by other than the subdivider
requires the City Council to first determine whether to grant
the appeal and set the matter for public hearing and if so set
the date for the hearing within 30 days. If the appeal is not
set for public hearing, it is denied.
A copy of the criteria which the Council may use to determine
whether the appeal should be granted and set for hearing is at-
tached.
Review of the criteria indicates that the issues raised by Mr.
McPeak do not appear to be sufficient to warrant rehearing of all
7 cases. The most important issues, those involving an EIR and
coastal permit have been subsequently answered. The questions
regarding the individual building in which he lives and the pro-
proposed alterations and costs have also been answered. With the
alterations proposed, the building would qualify for conversion
under the City's Conversion Ordinance and it is not required that
the structural changes be made prior to the Planning Commission's
decision.
Appeal, William McPeak
Mayor and City Council - 3 - Agril 18, 1979
Recommendation
In view of the absence of significant issues which would war-
rant additional public hearing and further consideration in
these cases, it is respectfully recommended that the appeal
be denied and the matter not set for .public hearing.
Prepared by: James Lansford
JL
Appeal, William McPeak