SR-040996-10A-withdrawnfatty\muni\strpts\mtt\nab.5
City Council Meeting 3-19-96
TO: Mayor and City Council
~Y
Ri
i
APR - g-#.99fi
Santa Monica, California
FROM: Nuisance Abatement Board
Shannon Yauchzee, Acting Building Official
SUBJECT: Public Hearing Regarding Adoption of a Resolution of
Confirmation Regarding The Costs of Abating a Public
Nuisance at 1725 The Promenade, Santa Monica,
California.
INTRODUCTION
Fallowing numerous hearings before the Nuisance Abatement Berard
("NAB"),' the City, pursuant to an order of NAB, abated the public
nuisance located at the Sea Castle Apartments, 1725 The Promenade,
Santa Monica, California {"subject premises" or "Sea Castle"). In
order to recover the cost of the abatement, a public hearing must be
held before the City Council. The NAB hereby requests that the City
Council hold a public hearing to hear protests or objections, if
any, by the property owner of Sea Castle, regarr3ing the placement of
a special assessment on the subject premises. Following the public
hearing, it is requested that the City Council adapt the attached
Resolutian of Canfirmation affirming the special assessment on the
1 Hearings were held before the Nuisance Abatement Board on a
number of occasions, including February 1i, 1994, February 24,
1994, March 3, 1994, March 10, 1994, March 17, 1994, March 24, 1994
and May 11, 1994 M~IR 2 ~ ~~96
1 MAR ~ 9 ~~
APR - s ~sfi
;. w
--- ~ -
2~
subject property for the cost of the abatement.
BACKGROUND
The Sea Castle Apartments suffered extensive damage as a result
of the January 17, 1994 earthquake and its aftershocks. Following
inspections by City engineers, the subject premises was given a "Red
Tag" or "No Entry" damage assessment designation. The owner of Sea
Castle was notified by the City of Santa Monica that an emergency
existed at the subject premises in the form of a danger to any
unauthorized individual in the building and also to the health and
safety of the residents and occupants on the adjacent properties.
A series of hearings before the NAB were held in order to determine
the extent of the damage and to give the owner the opportunity to
present a plan to abate the public nuisance.
In the Nuisance Abatement Board hearings, the owner or his
representative disputed bath the need for, and scope of, the
abatement. Throughout February and March of 1994, the owner or his
representative failed to take any action to resolve or alleviate the
public nuisance at the Sea Castle. Therefore on March 24, 1994, the
Nuisance Abatement Board resolved that the subject premises
constituted an extreme danger to the life, health, property or
safety of the public and of the residents and occupants of the
subject premises. The Nuisance Abatement Board found that the
building suffered such extensive damage to its structural integrity;
that it was structurally unsafe; and posed a danger to human life.
2
s~ ep _ ~ ~
The penthouse of the building had been significantly damaged and its
lateral capacity had been diminished. The elevator shaft of the
building had been severely damaged and three sides of the tower,
which were constructed with concrete frames, were cracked; and the
fourth wall consisted of unreinforced masonry which suffered
separation, collapse and spilling from the main frame. Falling
debris from the partial collapse of the tower caused the collapse of
a portion of the lower roof.
The Board's order was taken to reduce the health and fire
hazards to the public and adjacent property owners and residents and
make the structure less of an attractive nuisance. Among the
actions needed to reduce the fire danger was effectively securing
the building from unauthorized entries and decreasing the amount of
flammable materials in the building by permitting residents to
retrieve personal belongings. This latter action was necessary to
remove the temptation far former residents and unauthorized
individuals to enter the building in its dangerous condition. In
order to accpmplish these goals, two important actions were needed.
First, the building needed to be shored sa that farmer residents
could enter t3xe structure, under the supervision of public safety
personnel, to retrieve their personal property. ~ Second, after
x Due to the "Red Tag " status of the building, residents had
not been afforded an opportunity to retrieve their property.
Residents were trying to enter the building surreptitiously to
retrieve their property, thereby endangering their awn laves in
addition to those of Police and Fire personnel in the event of a
building collapse during the unauthorized presence of one or more
3
~~ ZJ
residents removed their personnel property, the structure needed to
be effectively locked or barricaded to prevent entry by unauthorized
persons.
Since the owner failed to comply with the Nuisance Abatement
Board resolution, City staff was directed to commence the temporary
shoring of the subject premises. The temporary shoring of the
subject premises was only for the purpose of permitting entry into
the subject premises by authorized persons under the escort and
superv~s~on of the Santa Monica Fire Department or other safety and
emergency personnel and for such limited time and manner as
determined and authorized by the Building and Safety Division and
Fire Department. The property owner was ordered to bear the cost of
abating the public emergency and public nuisance at the subject
premises, including, but not limited to the cast of the private
guard at the subject premises, evaluating the safety of the subject
premises and the shoring of the subject premises.
From late March, 1994 through late April, City staff commenced
the process of preparing plans and soliciting proposals from
contractors for the work. However negotiations with the owner of
Sea Castle delayed the start of the work until summer, 1994. The
shoring project was completed during the week of September 12, 1994.
tenants. The retrieval program was devised to allow former tenants
supervised and controlled entry into the building in order to
permit them to remove combustible personal property from the
structure.
4
~ '~
The Fire Department conducted a twelve-day property retrieval
program for the residents which began on September 19 and concluded
on October 1, 1994. The building was secured against unauthorized
entry through the boarding of accessible openings after the
conclusion of the retrieval program. The failure of the owner of
Sea Castle Apartments to maintain the structure in a secure manner
was subject of more recent proceedings before the Nuisance Abatement
Board and will be brought before the City Council at a later date.
Due to the scope of the abatement action; the pending
litigation challenging the NAB action which was filed in February,
1995; and the pendency of a foreclosure action on the property in
the later part of 1995, this hearing has been delayed until the
status of the property's ownership is clarified. The February 1,
199b fire at the Sea Castle has necessitated further NAB action
which will be brought to the City Council separately. This hearing
only covers the abatement process which culminated in reduction of
flammable materials in the building by assisting farmer tenants in
the removal of their personal property from the building.
In order to abate the public nuisance at the Sea Castle
Apartments, the City had to incur the following costs:
1. E.Z. Glass Company
$ 11,754.15
(Board Up Costs}
2. Gerald Lehmer Associates $ 25,966.01
5
"t ~ - ~ 7
(Structural Engineer Consultant)
3. Driver Eddy Construction Co. $131,266.48
(Construction contractor)
4. 5terndahl Ent. Inc.
$ 5,ooo.oa
{Replaced striping at 1700 Appian Way)
5. Bel Air Patrol $ 66,825.00
(Providing 24 hour security at building)
6. Browning Fire Protection $ 500.00
(Repair of sprinkler system)
7. So. Calif. Edison Co. $ 239.98
(Provision of electrical service during
abatement and property retrieval)
TOTAL .............................................$241,x1]..62
~n March 5, 1996, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 8.12.130, the Nuisance Abatement Board caused notice of the
cast of abatement to be given. The notice set fozth the day, hour
and place of this hearing on this staff repor} regarding thG cost of
the abatement and informing the owner of his right to raise any
objections or protests at the hearing. If the assessment is not
paid within 10 days of the City Council s confirmation of this staff
report and adoption of the accompanying resolution, it shall
constitute a special assessment against that parcel of property and
a Notice of Lien can be filed with the County Recorder. After the
Notice of Lien is filed, the City has the option of either: (1)
6
'~ '~
~•
judicially foreclosing on the lien; ar (2} deliver the Notice of
Lien to the Los Angeles County Auditor for entry in the County
Assessment Book opposite the description of the particular property.
The assessment is then collected together with all other taxes
levied against the property.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Funds for abatement of the property were appropriated from the
Earthquake Recovery Fund. Revenue from this special assessment will
be credited to Revenue account number 13-130-224-00000-0558-1x000.
Budgeted revenue in this account will be increased by $241,511.62 to
reflect anticipated receipt of funds.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:
1. Hold a public hearing regarding the special assessment of
cost on the property located at 1725 The Promenade, Santa Monica,
California;
2. Following the public hearing, adopt the attached resolution
of Confirmation which affirms the action of the Nuisance Abatement
Board with regard to the property located at 1725 The Promenade,
Santa Monica, California;
7
as C.
3. Authorize the filing of the Notice of Lien with the Los
Angeles County Recorder and have the Notice of Lien delivered to the
Los Angeles County Auditor for entry in the County Assessment Book
opposite the description of the particular property' for collection
of the special assessment together with all other taxes on the
property; and
4. Increase budgeted revenue in Account Number 13-130-224-
OOOOQ-0558-10040.
Prepared by: Shannon Yauchzee, Acting Building Officer
Martin Tachiki, Deputy City Attorney
Attachment: Resolution of Confirmation
8
~~ _ 2~~
f.atty~muni\laws~mtt~nab.doc
City Council Meeting 3'19-96 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION N0. (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF THE
NUISANCE ABATEMENT BDARD AND AUTHORIZING THE
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT COSTS
UPON CERTAIN PROFERTY WITHIN THE CITY
WHEREAS, the Nuisance Abatement Board adopted a Resolution on
March 24, 1994 declaring the Sea Castle Apartments, lr~cated at 1725
The Promenade, Santa Monica, California ("subject property'!) to be
a public nuisance and authorizing City personnel to abate the public
nuisance by shoring and securing the structure;
WHEREAS, the owner of the Sea Castle Apartments failed to abate
the public nuisance after being given ample opportunity by the
Nuisance Abatement Board;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authorization of the Nuisance
Abatement Board, the City has abated the public nuisance to the
extent possible and necessary to ameliorate the most dangerous
aspects of the public nuisance and incurred costs in abating the
public nuisance;
WHEREAS, the Nuisance Abatement Board caused to be served upon
the owner of the subject property a Notice of Cost of Abatement
1
~4
setting forth the amount of the proposed assessment and the date,
time and place of the hearing on this Resolution,
WHEREAS, the Nuisance Abatement Board, concurrently with the
submittal of this resolution, has submitted its report regarding the
abatement of the public nuisance on the subject property;
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Santa Monica has held
a public hearing regarding the special assessment of costs for the
abatement of the public nuisance on the subject property,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The report of the Nuisance Abatement Board
regarding the public nuisance at the Sea Castle Apartments, 1725 The
Promenade, Santa Monica, California is confirmed.
SECTION 2. City personnel are authorized, if payment of the
nuisance abatement casts, as set Earth in the accompanying staff
report or as modified by the City Council, are not paid within 1D
days of this confirmation of the Nuisance Abatement Hoard's report
and adoption of this Resolution, to place a special assessment
against the subject property and cause the assessment to be
collected by judicial foreclosure on the lien yr by the County of
Los Angeles on the subject property when it collects all other taxes
for the subject premises.
2
h ~,
3 v
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution and thenceforth and thereafter the same sha11 be in full
force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
B ~ -,~~'~.E~
Y ~ G~-4-
MARSHA JONES ` Z+ilaIFTRI E
City Attorney
3
3~
.~
U
TO: CITY STAFF/ SUZANNE FRICK 12/13/95
NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD
FROM THE SOUTH BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH
RE- THE SEA CASTLE
THE MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH
GROUP UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO FILE THE FOLLOWING FORMAL
COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA CONCERNING THE
SEA CASTLE AND URGE THE NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD TO USE
ITS DISCRETIONARY POWERS TO RAZE THE BUILDING.
THE SEA CASTLE IS THE VERY DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS'
1 IT IS A RED TAGGED BUILDING THAT IS A DANGER TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. NEITHER FIRE, POLICE NOR COUNTY HEALTH
OFFICIALS MAY ENTER THE BUILDING, YET [T [S ROUT[NELY
OCCUPIED BY TRANSIENTS
2 IT IS A PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD ACCORDING MAGUIRE THOMAS
AUTHORITIES WHO RECENTLY INSPECTED THE PREMISES
3 SIX ARRESTS WERE RECENTLY MADE AT THE SITE IT [S A HAZARD
TO POLICE, AND CAUSES A CONTINUAL DRAIN ON POLICE
RESOURCES.
4. IT IS A MAGNATE FOR HOMELESS YOUTH.
5. IN ITS DILAPIDATED STATE, THE SEA CASTLE IS AN EYESORE TO
THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS THE MAJOf~ CONTRIBUTOR TO THE
BLIGHTED AND NEGLECTED STATE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ITS
PRESENCE IS NEGATIVELY AFFECTING PROPERTY VALUES AND OUR
QUALITY OF LIFE.
IN ONF MONTH , WE WILL BE ENTERING OUR THIRD YEAR SINCE THE
EART#-IQUAKE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS THIS BLIGHTED, RED
TAGGED, VERMIN INFESTED, HEALTH HAZARD, GUTTED AND
TRASHED BUILDING LEVELED AND REMOVED
ATTACHED IS THE LISTS OF MEMBERS OF THE SOUTH BEACH
NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH WHO VOTED FOR FILING THIS COMPLAINT.
S
3~
0
Sequence of Events of the Destruction of the Sea Castle
1}Years of Problems between Landlord, Dr Braun, and his tenants in 1991 Braun is required to
+r~stall an approx $31,'000 spunkier system
2} 1974 Earthquake h+ts, bu+idrng +s red tagged Bu+ld+ng is evacuated -- no one is allowed to gel
the+r belongings because the burlcS+ng rs deemed unsafe to enter
3) Nrne months pass before bwldrng +s shored up at c+ty expense, bu+Id+ng is yellow tagged, arxt
tenants are able to retrieve therr belongs Meanwh+le foodstuffs spat, rare enters burld+ng, vermin
thrive and grow
4} On or before 1995 squatters, runaway youth, homeless, and cr+mmals begin to occupy the
bu+ldmg
5} Crime +ncreases +n the South Beach Area Complaints to the pol+ce about the budding are
constant Dr Braun does not take steps to truly secure h+s bu+Id+ng
fi} South Beach Neighborhood watch submit #ormal written complaint to the Nuisance Abatement
Board rn November 1995 At least 7 arrests have made at the site and many calls to service, as
weN We request the budding to be demolished or secured because it is a public nuisance
7} The Nursanc~ Abatement Board orders building secured Strit the criminals +n the bu+ld+rig
change the locks sa that they may enter with ease Police re€use to enter the budding
Neighborhood is !eft completely vulnerable
8} December 1995, at follow up meeting o€ the Nuisance Abatement Board. Dr Braun +s given 1
month to repair sprinkler system
9) Police are notified of people entering building trough gaping hole on Appian Way entrance and
delay immediate correction of the problem
10} Ne+ghbors pose for photographs in front of the Sea Castle and declare the+r fear to news
repoters that the arpartment house will burn down The newspaper article appears the day
before the Sea Castle catches on fire The Nuisance Abatement Board never determines that the
Sea Castle +s a nuisance prior to the f+re Feb 1, 1997 The cause of the fire has never been
determined and is still under pohoe +nvestigation to this day
11 j Nuisance Abatement Board reconvenes in order the grant demolition permit for Sea Castle
12} Between Jan 8, 1994 and February 1,199& no plans are ever submitted to the C+ty to
rehabilitate the Sea Castle
13} In April 1996, Maguire Thomas Partners enter into an escrow agreement to purchase the
property and build a current code 3 story luxury apartment house at the site Maguire Thomas
Partners foots the bd1 #or the demolition Escrow deal falls through in December 1996
14j On the last day, at the last hour that the earthquake entitlement ac# was in effect plans are
submitted to replace the Sea Castle
~ a~ ~e~.r1 Qs ~~f-Chzy~l49ti~- P~'"~r~
~ Do C v rv~c.in, ~ s k °'w -1-~•c~- r7 ~~ r c d :.
i ~, d. ~C L ct r e.ct ~ V r S ~. ri ~ c - b ~ ~ re m cz t rt s 4-n ~b.~~ d -t- ~ i
fib, I } 15 ~ G .
.. .
~ :~ - ~~ •~
U
SEA CASTLE ACTIONS -- N[TISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD
The property located at 1725 The Promenade, irnawn as the Sea Castle Apartments,
suffered extensive damage as a result of the January 17, 1994 earthquake and its aftershocks.
Following ~nspectlons by City engineers, the Premises was given a "Red Tag" ar "No Entry"
damage assessment designation and the owner of the propert}' was nogfied by the City of Santa
Monica that there existed an emergency at the property Fn the form of a danger to the public
heath and safety and a danger to the health and safety of the residents and occupants.
One month after the earthquake, the property owner had taken _no action to abate the
hazardous cond~uan of the property. Therefore, the City scheduled a review of the property
before the Nuisance Abatement Board (NAB). The first Nuisance Abatement Board hearing on
this matter was held February 17, 1994, with the Iegal counsel of the owner, Attorney Sherman
Stacey, present. This action was necessary because of the lack of progress in mittgaung the
dangers at the budding. It was also apparent that 24-hour security was necessary at the Premises
as persons were gaining entry :IIegally. After extensive discussions with Attorney Stacey, the
Nuisance Abatement Board moved to declaze the property a public nuisance, took Jurisdiction
over the property and moved to require the property owner submit plans to the Board for the
short-term shoring of the building {Attachment A}. These plans were to be submitted by
February 24, 1994 The Board's action was meant to reduce the hazards to the public and to
residents by allowing for the retrieval of personal belongings after temporary shoring in a
controlled manner. Due to the "Red Tag "status of the building, residents had not been afforded
an opportunity to retrieve their property. Residents were continually trying to enter the building
surreptitiously to retrieve their property, thereby endangering their own lives in addition to those
of Police and Fire personnel in the event of a building collapse during the unauthorized presence
of one or more tenants_
The Nuisance Abatement Board considered the matter of the Sea Castle again on
February ?4, 1994 before a hearing with Attorney Stacey representing the owner. Mr. Stacey
did not provide the Board with the plan as regwred; instead, he provided the $oard with a
memorandum outlining the owner's intentions. Mr Stacey also indicated that the owner was
securing bids on the shonng and would be prepazed to submit a shoring plan by Thursday,
March 3, 1994 Based upon the testimony from the owner's representative, the Board voted to
require that the shoring plans be submitted to the Building and Safety Djvision by March 2,
1994 and that a funding plan for the work to be performed be returned to the Board at their
meeting of March 3, 1994.
On March 3, 1994, the Nuisance Abatement Board met to consider the progress of the
shoring plans for the Sea Castle. The property owner, Dr. Robert Braun, and Attorney Stacey
attended the heanng. Attorney Stacey updated the Board with respect to the status of the
funding possibilities for the protect and the shoring work itself_ Neither a funding nor a shoring
plan were presented for consideration by the Board. At the heanng, Fire Department staff
testified that approximately ~0 to 75 calls per day were being received to inquire about the
EXHIBIT 5 .. 3.,
retrieval of tenants' personal belongings from the Sea Castle building, Further, Chief Col]Ier of
the Fire Department testified that the building was an Imminent danger to the safety of Fire
Department personnel and to those persons who were gaining Illegal entry to the premises.
Police Department staff testified that police resources could no longer prevlde 24-hour security
to the building, but that 24-hour security was necessary as people were gaining illegal access to
the 6ullding. Clung the continued nuisance of illegal entry by tenants to secure their belongings,
the Board moved that a shoring plan be submitted to the Building and Safety Division by March
9, 1994, that the 24-hour security remain at the building, and that the property owner be present
for a Mazch 1Q, 1994 heanng date before the Boazd.
h~
At the Nuisance Abatement Board hearing of lVlarch 1Q, 3994, the Board heazd testimony
from Attorney Stacey that the property owner was awaiting a pmpvsal for the shoring wvrlc fmm
a general contractor. The property owner was granted a continuance of one week whereupon the
scheduling, funding and timing of the shoring plan would be discussed. The Bvazd ordered the
property owner and his counsel to attend personally the hearing before the Board on March 17,
1994.
Both the property owner and counsel waived their appearance at the March 17, 1994
hearing before the Board. Absent new Information oz updates on the progress of the shoring
work, the property owner was ordered by the Board to commence the tempoiary shoring of the
Premises by March 23, 1994 per plans and speclficatlons to be approved by the Building and
Safety Division and to appear at the Emergency Hearing before the Boazd on March 24, 1994.
The Board directed Clty staff to secure such evaluations and proposals as may be necessary to
permit the City of Santa Monica to abate the public nuisance by the temporary shoring of the
Premises The property owner and counsel were ordered to appear at an Emergency Hearing of
the Board on March 24, 1994.
The property owner voluntarily waived his appearance and counsel notified the Board that
an emergency matter prevented his attendance at the Board hearing of March 24, 1994. Collnsei
gave his consent to the Board for hearing the matter In 1nls absence and asked that the Board's
counsel serve him with a copy of the Board's resolution.
On March 24, 1994, the Nuisance Abatement Board resolved that the Premises
constituted an extreme danger to the life, health, property or safety of the public arld of the
residents and occupants of the Premises. At this hearing, the Board found that the building
suffered such extensive damage to Its structural Integrity, that It Is structurally unsafe and poses
a danger to human life. The Penthouse of the building had significant damage and Its lateral
capacity has been diminished. The elevator shaft of the building had been severely damaged and
three sides of the tower were constructed with concrete frames which were cracked; the fourth
wail consisted of unreinforced masonry which suffered separation, collapse and spoiling from
the main frame. Falling debris from the partial collapse of the tower caused the collapse of a
portion of the lower roof.
~, - 3
Following the evacuation of the building, the Board noted that the Fire Department had
attempted to secure the property from entry by residents, occupants and unauthorized persons.
Those efforts proved unsuccessful as bamcades and locks were repeatedly broken and the
Premises entered illegally. I^ spite of the 24 hour guard on the Premises to protect the property
and safety of the residents and occupants and to prevent illegal entry, the Premises continued
to be entered illegally. The Board found that this constitutes a danger to the property of the
residents and occupants and a danger to the life and safety of the public and of safety and
emergency personnel who aze obligated to enter the Premises to remove or rescue any persons
inside. The Premises was found and declared by the Boazd to be an unsafe building and a public
nuisance pursuant to Uniform Building Code Section 203, which is incorporated into the Santa
Monica Municipal Code as Section 8.44.044.
~_
The Nuisance Abatement Board, at the March 24th hearing, also declared the Premises
a dangerous building in violation of Section 302 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings in that its structural strength or integrity was materially less than that whicli
previously existed prior to the earthquake of 3anuary 17, 1994. The Board found that these
conditions acid defects exist to the extent that the life, health, property or safety of the public and
of the residents and occupants of the Premises arc endangered. The Premises was found and
declared, therefore, to be a public nuisance pursuant to Section 2Q2 of the Uniform Cade for the
Abatement of Dangerous Buildings.
The Boazd found that to abate the public emergency and public nuisance at the Premises,
it would be necessary to shore the building to allow for temporary access to the lawful residents
and occupants, under escort of safety and emergency personnel. This would allow these persons
to remove personal effects and property in order to ameliorate if not fully abate the public
emergency and public nuisance at the Premises by reducing the incentive for persons to illegally
enter the building. Furthermore, the shoring would improve the structural strength and integrity
of the Premises to reduce the danger to life, health, properly or safety of the public, the
residents or occupants of the Premises and City safety anti emergency personnel. The Board had
ordered the property owner on March 17, 1994 to commence the temporary shoring of the
Premises by March 24, 1994. The property owner failed to commence the project by the
appointed date and the Board moved, at their hearing of Mardi 24, 1994, to abate the public
emergency and public nuisance at the Premises, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 8.12. i 10.
The Nuisance Abatement Board directed City staff to contract for and to commence the
temporary shonng of the Premises per plans and specifications as may be approved by the
Building and Safety Division The temporary shonng of the Premises shall be only for the
purpose or permitting entry into the Premises by authorized persons under the escort and
supervision of the Santa Monica Fire Department or other safety and emergency personnel, for
such limited time and manner as determined and authorized by the Building and Safety Division
and Fire Department.
3
~ -~ ~ 3 ~
The property owner was ordered to bear the cost of abating the public emergency and
public nuisance at the Premises, including, but not limited to the cost of the private guard at the
Premises, evaluating the safety of the Premises and the sharing of the Premises.
K_
David Hammond, structural engineer and James A. Hill & Associates, a structural
engineering firm under contract to the City to pmvide consulting serntxs on historically
significant structures, were contacted to oversee the protect. Gerald Lehmer Associates, a
structural engineering firm with experience in historic structures, was also contacted. The City
chase Lehmer Associates for the project based upon their experience and their timely
availability.
Qn March 24, 1994, City staff accompanied Lehmer Associates through the Premises for
Feld inspection and measurements for preparation of a demolition, shoring and bracutg plan to
allow for temporary access tv the Premises. During the first week of April, Lehmer Associates
forwarded to the City a list of recommended contractors that could be contacted for ginpasals
for demolition, shoring, bracing and related work to be conducted on the Premises to allow for
temporary access, along with a preliminary plan for the necessary demolition, shoring and
bracing.
On April 27, 1994 the City reviewed work proposals for the demolition, shoring, and
bracing per the I.ehmer Associates plan and related work to be conducted on the Premises to
allow for temporary access. Proposals from five companies were evaluated and Dever-Eddy
Construction Company was chosen to perform the necessary work.
Negotiations between the City and the owner of the property to allow the City to
undertake the protect continued through May and June and an agreement was reached at the
beginning of July. Final contract language between the City and Gerald Lehmer Associates and
the City and Driver-Eddy Construction Company was completed at the end of July. Contracts
were signed and protect work began during the first week of August.
The slionng project was completed during the week of September 12 through September
16, 1994 The Fire Department conducted a tvwelve-day property retrieval program for the
residents which began vn September 19 and concluded on October 1, 1994 The building has
been secured against unauthorized entry through ttie boarding of accessible openings.
On November 30, 1994, the Nuisance Abatement Boazd found that attempts had been
made to enter the building after all accessible openings were previously baincaded and secured,
and that the exterior stucco of the facade had deteriorated since the bracing and had fallen onto
the sidewalk on Appian Way In order to abate these nuisances and further secure the building,
the Nuisance Abatement Board ordered the City to erect flashing bamcades across the sidewalk
on Appian Way to warn passersby of the falling hazard, and to confer with the owner to
determine a long term method of blocking access to the sidewalk adjacent to the Premises. In
addition, the Nuisance Abatement Board ordered the owner of the building to erect a chain sink
fence across the east entrance alcove facing Appian Way and across the west entrance alcove
4
~ ~ r n
~`
facing the Promenade by December 7, 1994.
On December 13, 1994 a Notice of Emergency Conditions and Notice to Abate Public
Nuisance was sent by the City's Building Official a*denng• the property owner to immediately
re-bamcade all breached openings into the premises, monitor the premises on a daily basis far
breached openings or bamcades, and re-secure the Fremises according to the Standard Method
for Securing Openings in Vacant Buildings. It was reported to the City that the bamcades
securing the building were further breached on December 8 1994 and December 12, 1994. In
addition, the awner was ordered to appear at a hearing and meeting of the Nuisance Abatement
Board in December, 1994.
On December 24, 1994 the Nuisance Abatement Board held a heanng and meeting and
found numerous violations of the budding, after the alcoves were fenced per the I+7ovember 30,
1994 Nuisance Abatement Board action. The west alcove fence had a gap of approximately one
and one-half feet in width which allowed continued access to the building. On December $,
1994, the wrought iron bars barricading several of the east ground floor windows facing Appian
Way had been peed loose or broken off, while the ground floor windows were observed to have
first been opened, then closed the same day. Both observations would permit access into the
premises. On December 12, 1994 the east ground floor windows were again found to be pried
open, and the wooden bamcade across the west Promenade entrance was found to have been
removed. On December 14, 1994, additional wrought iron bars were found broken off, a
window opened, and a bicycle leaning against the building under an open window. The owner
entered the premises on December 13, 1994 in order to clean the premises and found a person,
not a tenant, who had gained unauthorized access to the building, and told the awner that he had
been occupying the building for several. weeks. In order to abate these continued nuisances, the
Board direcsed the Owner to extend the fence across the west alcove and to repair the west
wooden bamcade by December 22, 1994. The Owner was also ordered to monitor the premises
daily, and to repair or replace any bamcades or security measures which have been damaged
or breached.
On July ?4, 1995, based upon numerous instances of requests for securing the building
from the City to the property owner, the City Building Official ordered the Owner to properly
board and secure all opening to the Premises and to contact the City Police and Fire
Departments to coordinate the removal of unauthorized individuals from the structure and to
ensure that the boarding and securing of the structure occurs at the proper locations. In July,
1995 there was continued evidence that individuals were entering and residing in the structure
despite its dangerous condition and previous Nuisance Abatement Board orders to board, fence
and monitor the premises. The boarding had been breached in several locations and was not
providing and effective bonier to the unauthorized entry of the building New boarding was
placed on the building by the property owner.
On November 3, 1995 Santa Monica Police arrested six persons with the property owner
present who had accessed the building without authorization The structure was re-secured by
the owner.
~ ~ _ '~ n
On December 14, 1995 the City received a complaint from the South Beach
Neighborhood Watch Group requesting that the Sea Castle be demolished due to its red tagged
status, it$ occupation by unauthorized persons, and Its major contribution t+t1 th8 blight and
neglect of the Immediate neighborhood.
Y~
On December 19, 1995 the City Building Official sent a First Notice to Abate Public
Nuisance to the property owner based upon reports of unauthorized access. and the owner not
appeanng at previously scheduled meetings with representative of the City Felice and Fire
Departments at their request at the building site to discuss the issue. The Notice ordered the
property owner to properly board and secure alI openings to the structure, meet with
representatives of the Police and Fire Departments, and specifically close two of the three garage
openings as directed by the Fire Department ail within 10 days of the Notice. In addition, it was
ordered that the Owner post a guard on the premises 2~ lioiirs a day until the above corrective
measures are taken and approved by the Chairperson of t~Ie Nuisance Abatement Board.
On December 2$, 1995 Santa Monica Police discovered an opening on the r~cr Side of
the building and informed the property owner to board and secure the building.
As of December 31, 1995 approximately 42 calls for service to the City Police
Department had been received for the buildings address during the 1995 calendar year.
On January 3, 1996 the City Police and Frye Departments., along with the property
owner, cleared the building of all unauthorized persons. The building was re-boarded and
secured by the property owner
The Ciry Fire Department mailed a letter on January 4, 1996 to the owner of the property
stating that all previous attempts to secure the parking garage gates have failed, as evidenced by
the removal of a Fire Department Lock from the Southeast parking garage gate. A lock and
chain was apparently installed by a transient residing within the structire. Duniig a January 3,
1996 Police/Fire Department sweep of the building, which included the removal of two
transienu, the owner was verbally ordered to immediately attach steel plates to the garage gates
by a certified welder per specifications outlined in the letter to prohibit unauthorized access.
On January 17, 1996 the City Police Department received information regarding
unauthorized entry into the building. The property owner was notified to re-board and secure
the budding.
On January 22, 1996 the City Police Department received a phone call from the Harbor
Patrol about unauthorized entry Into the building The Police Department called the property
owner to inform him of the situation. The property owner indicated that his fencing contractor
had fixed some areas of the building security the previous week. The owner was told to re-
board and secure the building.
5
as ~ ~ ~
On January 23, 1995, a lawsuit was filed by the City with the Los Angeles Supenor
Court (Case no. BS 032 530} against the Property owner aslang that the Court force the property
owner to maintain the fire extinguishing and detection system, remove and maintain the building
free of combustible or ha?anlous materials, and keep the building securely locked or barricaded
to prevent entry by unauthorized persons. The lawsuit also requests that the Court order the
property owner to pay to the City all delinquent utility fees, taxes and other monies,
On January 23, 1996 a Fire Inspector for the City of Santa Monica spoke with the
property owner to advise lum that he lied observed opening in the structure. The owner was
ordered to re-secure the building and to maintain the fire sprinkler system in asi operational
condition at all times. The owner advised the Fire Inspector that a fence company had been
contacted to re-secure the building and that he was taking all steps to secure the building.
On January 26, 1995 a Second Nonce to Abate Public Nuisance was sent by the City
Building Offciai to the property owner stating that a nuisance continued at the site due to
continued unauthorized access to the building as observed by City Police and Fire personnel, and
the Owner not meeting with representatives of the Police and Fire Departments at previously
scheduled meetings. The owner was advised that this was a second notice of conditions outlined
in the first notice sent December l9, 1995, and that all orders of that notice were still in effect_
Ttie owner was else ordered to appear before a meeting of the Nuisance Abatement Board on
February 7, 1996.
On January 29, 1995 the City reported evidence of unauthorized access to the building
and reported it to the property owner. The property owner was told to re-board and secure the
building_
On January 30, 1996, a City Fire Inspector left a message on the property owner's phone
advising him that the property was still unsecured, and requested permission and his presence
to enter the building to evaluate the condition of the fire spnnlder system.
f: lppolsharel seacastllseadsr
7
Y,
i~ ~S
CITY OF SANTA ~iONICA
NIIISANCL ABATEMENT BOARD
NDTIC$ OF RESOLIITION AND ORDER
DATE OF HEARINGS March 17, 1994
TIME OF HEARING: 2:00 g.m.
REGARDINQ THE PREMISES DESCRIBED A8:
'~J
LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
1725 The Promenade Lots: 1,2,3,4 & 5
Santa Manica, CA 90401 Tract: 542
RECORD OANER: Sea Castle Apartments, Ltd.
c/o Rabert Braun
ADDRESS: 11704 Wilshire Boulevard, No. 208
Los Angeles, California 90025
APPEARING FOR RESPONDENT: Appearance Waived
FINDINGS
1. Upon receipt and consideration of the evidence and
testimony given before it, the Nuisance Abatement Board ("the
Board") makes the following findings of fact concerning the
presence of a public emergency and a public nuisance at 1725 The
Promenade Santa Monica, California variously known as 1725 Ocean
Front, 1725 Ocean Front walk, and the Sea Castle (hereinafter, "the
Premises"}.
2. The owner and Respondent (hereinafter, "the owner") was
duly noticed pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Cade Section
8.].2.120 of the existence of an emergency at the above-described
property. The Owner and/or his counsel, Mr. Sherman Stacey
appeared personally at the Emergency Hearings of the Board of
February 24, 1994, March 3, 1994, and March 10, 1994. On March 10,
1994, both the Owner and Mr. Stacey were ordered to be personally
present at the E3onergency Hearing of the Board of March 17, 1994.
On ]March 17, 1994, neither the Owner nor Mr. Stacey were personally
present. The Board finds that the Owner failed to appear and
1
~•~ - Q
voluntarily waived his appearance at the Emergency Hearing of March
17, 1994.
3. The findings of the Board contained in all prior
Resolutions related to the existence of a public emergency and
public nuisance at the Premises as a result of the .January 17, 1994
Northridge Earthquake and its subsequent aftershocks are
incorporated herein.
RESOLUTION
It is hereby moved and resolved:
3. The Premises constitutes an extreme hazard to the
public safety These conditions constitute a public emergency and
a public nuisance pursuant to Santa_Monica Municipal Cade Article
VIII, Chapter 8.12.
2. The Owner is ordered to commence by no later than
5:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 23, 1994 the temporary shoring of the
Premises per plans and specifications which have been approved by
the Building and Safety Division. The temporary shoring of the
Premises shall be effected for the purpose of permitting entry into
t'he Premises by authorized persons under escort and under the
supervision of the Santa Monica Fire Department, for such limited
time and manner as determined and authorized by the Building and
Safety Division and the Fire Department.
3. City Staff is directed to secure such evaluations and
proposals as may be necessary to permit the City of Santa Monica to
abate the public nuisance by the temporary sharing of the Premises
with City Forces and as required in paragraph "2" of this
Resolution and Order, above.
4. The Nuisance Abatement Board shall maintain
continuing jurisdiction over the Premises to abate the public
emergency and the public nuisance at the Premises.
This is a final decision of the Nuisance Abatement Board
not subject to further appeal. The time within which judicial
review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by this
City pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
2
~~~ - Q.'
I hereby certify this Notice of Resolution and order is a
Statement of Official Action and accurately reflects the final
determination of the Nuisance Abatement Board of the City of Santa
Monica.
DATED : ~ ~ Z' + 1 ~~~ '
SUZANNE ICI
Chairperson
Nuisance Abatement Board
3
~w - ~4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7~
8
9
10
11
.!
12'
13!
E
14'
15
16
17
18
19
20~
21
22
23;
24
25
25
.~.~
f E, s~.v ~, w`4~ ~ ~'.~ ~a
f
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE ~A~ ~ ~ ~O~g~
City Attorney
JOSEPH LAWRENCE ~ ~ r (~ ; ~, '~ "~ ~ T~ ~
Assistant City Attorney ~ ~ ~'~'' ' a1 ~ ~.~s~ 1.2 ~.-~
MARTxh T. TACHIKI, (State Bar No. 83044) E ,~~~-...al~~~.•.~L L,~~~.. vb~~ ,
Deputy City Attorney
1685 Main Street, Room 310
Santa Monica, California 9040?
(310) 458-8335
Attorneys far Cross-Complainants
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
and the CITY OF SANTA MONICA
SIIPERIOR GOIIRT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COIIRT
FOR THE COIINTY OF LOS ANGELES
SEA CASTLE APARTMENTS, LTD., a
California limited
partnership,
Petitioner
vs.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a
Municipal Corporation, and
Does 1 through 10, Inclusive,
Respondents.
CASE NO. BS 032 530
CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR PAYMENT OF
DELINQUENT UTILITY FEES,
PENALTIES, INTEREST, OPEN BOOK
ACCOUNT, BREACH OF CONTRACT,
ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC
NUISANCE, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY
RELIEF
J
PEOPL£ OF THE STATE OF )
CALIFORNIA by and through )
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE, City )
Attorney and the CITY OF SANTA )
MONICA, a Municipal )
Corporation, )
Cross-complainants, )
vs.
SEA CASTLE APARTMENTS, LTp.,
S.M. MORGAN, INC, and ROBERT
BRAUN, ROES 1 through 99,
inclusive,
27g Cross-defendants,
281
1
~`~ - ~J
1~.
2'
3
4
5'I
6
The PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ("People") by and
through MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE, City Attorney of the City of Santa
Monica, and the CITY OF SANTA MONICA ("City"} are informed and
believe and upon such information and belief allege:
INTRODIICTION
7
8j 1. This action arises from the failure of cross-defendants
9i~ SEA CASTLE APARTMENTS, LTD., its general partner, S.M. MORGAN, INC.
10 and it chief operating officer, ROBERT BRAUN {hereinafter "Sea
11: Castle" or cross-defendants), to comply with the Santa Monica
12~ Municipal Cade with respect to cross-defendants' operation of its
i
13.E residential rental business located at 1725 The Promenade
14' (sometimes referred to as 1725 Ocean Front Walk), Santa Monica,
15~ California ("subject premises"). Specifically, Sea Castle has
1611 failed to timely pay fees to the City of Santa Monica far water,
17' refuse and sewer service {hereinafter "utilities service") and
18i failed to pay its utility users tax. Though the Sea Castle cross-
19;'` defendants have been requested to cure their delinquencies, they
201' have refused and failed to do so.
21
22
23
24
25~
26
27
28
2. Cross-complainants People of the State of California and
the City of Santa Monica also bring this action for abatement of a
public nuisance created and maintained by the Sea Castle cross-
defendants in violation of Civil Code Section 3479 and the Santa
Monica Municipal Code ("SMMC"). Sea Castle violated provisions of
the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, which are
incorporated by reference at SMMC Sections 8.12.014 et seq. As set
2 ~~
1~ forth below, injunctive relief is necessary to abate the harm to
2 the general public and specifically to those who occupy the
3 adjoining properties as the result of cross-defendants' failure to
4 comply with the standards set forth in the SMMC.
5
5 3. Such conduct is prejudicial to the safety and
7 comfortable enjoyment of the life or property, at the same time, of
8 an entire neighborhood or of a considerable number of people in the
9i City. The Sea Castle building is a badly damaged structure which
10° was shored to abate the most immediate dangers. However, it
11~ remains in a dangerous condition. In particular, Sea Castle's
12' failure to pay its City utility account in a timely manner could
13 render the building's automatic fire extinguishing and detection
14 system inoperative causing loss of life and substantial damage not
15~ only to the Sea Castle structure, but to other adjoining
16~ properties. Also, Sea Castle has not secured the structures and
17i r:aintained it free of flammable materials as required by the
18! Uniform Fire Code provisions for vacant buildings.
19~
20 THE PARTIES
21
22 4. Marsha Janes Moutrie, City Attorney of the City of Santa
23 Monica, brings this suit in the public interest in the name of the
24 People of the State of California pursuant to Civil Code Sections
25 3491 and 3494 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 731 and on behalf
26 of the City of Santa Monica, a municipal corporation created and
27 , existing under a Charter granted under the Constitution and laws of
28 the state of California, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code
1 Section 1.08.010. Crass-complainants seek to enjoin and abate the
2 public nuisance created and maintained by cross-defendants in the
3 City.
4
5 5. Cross-complainants are informed and believes and on that
6 basis allege that crass-defendant 5EA CASTLE APARTMENTS, LTD. is a
7~ California limited partnership, whose general partner is cross-
8 defendant S.M. MORGAN, INC. and whose chief operating officer is
9' cross-defendant ROBERT BRAUN, and at all times herein mentioned Sea
10` Castle was in possession of, and maintained its principal place of
11 business at the subject premises.
12
13I 6. The claims, demands and rights of crass-camplainants
14; against cross-defendants in this action are not subject to the
15. provisions of the Rees-Levering Act, Califarnia Civil Code Sections
16~ 2981 et seq. or the Unruh Act, California Civil Code Sections 1801
17 et seq.
18'
I
19i 7. The true names ar capacities, whether individual,
20 corporate, associate, or otherwise, of cross-defendants Roes 1 to
21 99 are unknown to cross-complainants, and cross-complainants sue
22 such cross-defendants by such fictitious names, and will amend this
23I cross-complaint to show their true names and capacities when
24 ascertained. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and
25 thereon allege that each of the crass-defendants designated as a
26~ Rae is responsible in some manner for the failure to pay the
27 utility fees, utility taxes, and for the public nuisance herein
2$
4 :~ ~ _ A ~,
1 referred to and thereby proximately caused injuries and damages to
2 the crass-complainants as herein alleged.
3
4 8. Cross-complainants are informed and believe and thereon
5 allege that at all times herein mentioned each of the cross-
b defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining
7 cross-defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were
8j acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment.
gl
14 FACTIIAL ALLEGATIONS
11
12 9. The subject premises was severely damaged in the January
13 14, 1994 earthquake. Due to the danger it posed and the failure of
14I crass-defendants to voluntarily abate the resulting public
I
15 nuisance, the City abated the most immediate danger to the general
16:` public, including repairing the automatic fire extinguishing and
17~I detection system for the structure.
18
19~ 10. Though the fire extinguishing and detection systems have
20° been repaired, cross-defendants are seriously in arrears in their
21 utility payments far waste service.
i
22~
23~ 11. Cross-defendants have jeopardized the safety of the
24 occupants of adjoining properties and individuals, including any
25 public safety personnel who may have to enter the Sea Castle
26 building, by deliberately creating a situation where the fire
27 extinguishing and detection systems could be rendered ineffective
28~i due to termination of water service.
5 ~ L. _ ~
1
12. Cross-defendants have been notified on numerous occasions
2
~ that the Sea Castle building is not secured or barricaded in a
3
manner that prevents unauthorized entry by individuals. Both the
4
Police Department and the Fire Department have responded to the
5
building on numerous occasions due to calls about unauthorized
6
occupants in the building and the use of open fires in the building
7
by those individuals for cooking and heating.
8
gl
13. On December 19, 1995, the Police Department was called to
10:'
the Sea Castle building regarding shots heard coming from the tap
11
of the building. Twa males were seen climbing the fire escape on
12i
the east szde of the building, but eluded the police officers who
13~
responded to the call for assistance.
14
15I _
14. On December 19, 1995, the Building Officer of the City of
16~
Santa Monica along with the Nuisance Abatement Board served cross-
17'
defendants with a "Notice to Abate Public Nuisance". The notice
18'
ordered cross-defendants to meet with personnel of the Police and
19
Fire Departments; secure the building, including closing two of the
za
three garage openings and locking the third securely; and posting
2 ].
a security guard on the property twenty-four {24} hours a day until
22
the cross-defendants had met the conditions set forth in the Notice
23
to Abate Public Nuisance.
24
25
15. on January 4, 1996, personnel from both the Police
26
Department and the Fire Department conducted a joint operation at
27
the Sea Castle building and removed two individuals and a dog from
28
6
r„w - ~J
1 the building. wzth the agreement of the cross-defendants, all
2 unauthorized locks were removed and several other people were
3 ordered out of the building. Cross-defendant Robert Sraun was
4 ordered to secure the garage entrances by welding metal plates onto
5 the garages. This was confirmed by a written order from the Fire
6~ Department sent on January 4, 1996.
7'
8 16. The incidents cited in paragraphs 14 and 15 above are
9j similar to other incidents occurring on the Sea Castle property
10~ since the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Cross-defendants
11 ~ have not complied with the Notice to Abate Public Nuisance nor have
12' they complied with the orders of the Santa Monica Fire Department.
13 Despite repeated requests from the City of Santa Monica, cross-
14~ defendants have failed to comply with those requests and placed an
154 additional burden on the public safety personnel who must respond
16 to calls for service at the Sea Castle property.
17
i
i
18;; FIRST CAIISE OF ACTION
19 (Abatement of a Public Nuisance
20: Against All Cross-defendants)
21~
22 17. Cross-complainants reallege and incorporate herein by
23~ reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
24 through 16 as though set forth in full at this point.
25
26I 18. Uniform Fire Code Section 10.504, incorporated into the
27 Santa Monica Municipal Code at Section 8.04.060, requires that fire
28
7
~~ ~ ~~ ~
1[ detection and suppression equipment be maintained in operative
2 condition at all times.
3
4 19. Uniform Fire Code Section 11.642, incorporated into the
5 Santa Monica Municipal Cade at Section 8.44.060, requires that the
6 owner of a vacant building must remove all combustible and
7 hazardous materials.
1
1
8f
9i 20. Uniform Fire Code Section 11.643, incorporated into the
10 Santa Monica Municipal Code at Section 8.04.060, requires that the
11' owner of a vacant building maintain the building free of
12~ accumulations of combustible or hazardous materials. In addition,
13~ vacant buildings must be maintained, securely locked or barricaded
14; to prevent entry by unauthorized persons.
i
~~
16~ 21. Uniform Building Code Section 104 (d}, incorporated into
17~ the Santa Monica Municipal Code at Section 8.04,040, requires that
18' the owner of a building maintain the building in a safe and
19~ sanitary condition. Cross-defendants' failure to maintain the
20 structure in a safe and sanitary manner not only constitutes a
21 violation of Section 144(d}, but also violates Uniform Building
22 Code Section 243.
23
24 22. Failure to maintain the fire extinguishing and detection
25 systems; remove and maintain the building free of combustible or
26 hazardous materials; and failure to maintain the building and keep
27 it securely locked or barricaded to prevent entry by unauthorized
28 persons constitutes a public nuisance per se within the meaning of
8 ~ --
"' J L.
1 Sections 3479 and 3480 of the Civil Code and Santa Monica Municipal
2 Code {"SMMC") Sections 8.12.410 et seq. since these failures
3 constitute violations of the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform
• 4 Fire Code. Crass-defendants, and each of them, have threatened to
5 and will, unless restrained by this court, continue to maintain the
6 nuisance and continue the acts complained of, and each and every
7 act has been, and will be, without the consent, against the will,
8~ and in violation of the rights of the People of the State of
9f California and the City of Santa Monica.
10
lii 23. Unless cross-defendants, and each of them, are restrained
12` by order of this court, it will be necessary for cross-complainants
13 ': to commence many successive actions against cross-defendants, and
14 each of them, thus requiring a multiplicity of suits, and the
i
I
15 general public will be daily threatened with the threat of a
16' totally avoidable fire on the subject premises.
17
18' 24. Unless crass-defendants, and each of them, are enjoined
19I from continuing their course of conduct, crass-complainants will
20. suffer irreparable injury in that cross-defendants have created a
21 fire threat.
22i
23~ 25. Cross-complainants have no plain, speedy, or adequate
24 remedy at law, and injunctive relief is expressly authorized by
25 sections 526 and 731 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
26
27 2fi. An actual controversy has arisen between crass-
28 complainant and Cr055-defendants in that cross-complainant contends
9
~ i~ - ~ ~
1~ that cross-defendants have created a public nuisance under Civil
2 Code Sections 3479 and 3480 and Santa Monica Municipal Code
3 Sections 8.12.010 et. seq. by failing to comply with provisions of
4 the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, and lawful orders
5 of the Building Officer of the City of Santa Monica, and that such
6, conduct constitutes a public nuisance, whereas cross-defendants
7 dispute this contention, contending that cross-defendants have not
8~ created a public nuisance. Cross-complainants desire a judicial
9,I determination of the rights and duties of cross-complainants and
10~~ cross-defendants and seeks a judicial declaration that cross-
11i defendants have created a public nuisance under Civil Cade Section
12I 3479 and 3480 and Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 8.12.010 et
13~ seq. by failing to comply with provisions of the Uniform Building
14I Code and Uniform Fire Cade, and lawful orders of the Building
15~~ Officer of the City of Santa Monica, and that such conduct
16~ constitutes a public nuisance. Such a declaration is necessary and
17{; appropriate at this time in order that cross-defendants may be
181 apprised of their obligations under the public nuisance laws of the
19 State of California and so that crass-defendants will comply with
20 their obligations under Civil Code Sections 3479 and 3480 and Santa
21i Monica Municipal Code Sections 8.12.010 et seq. and the applicable
221 provisions of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code.
23
24 BECOND CAIISS OF ACTION
25 (Failure to Pay Delinquent Utility Fees -
26 Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 5.08.250, 5.08.260,
27 7.04.550, 7.12.110 and 7.12.120 Against All Cross-defendants)
28 ~///
10 _
~~ - ~~
lI 27. Cross--complainants reallege and incorporate herein by
2 reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
3 through 26 as though set forth in full at this point.
4
5, 28. The City at all times herein mentioned was, and now is,
f
6~~ charged by law with the power and duty to provide water, refuse and
7~ sewer services for fees set by the City Council of the City of
8 Santa Monica.
9
10 29. The Sea Castle cross-defendants requested commencement of
11 utility service for the subject premises pursuant to the procedures
12i set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 5.08.250,
131: 5.08.260, 7.04.550, 7.12.110 and 7.12.120. These requests
1
14i obligated cross-defendants to pay the total fee on a bimonthly
Ii
15 ':. basis.
16 `•
17' 30. The Sea Castle cross-defendants have failed and refused
18 to pay the amounts incurred by them under Account Numbers 60-
19 2139.09 and 55.1410.03 for utility service at the subject premises.
2Di The amount now due and owing is at least $19,858.43 plus interest,
21
22 THIRD CAIIBE OF ACTION
23 (Open Baok Account Against All Crass-defendants)
24
25 31. Cross-complainants reallege and incorporate herein by
26 reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
27 through 30 as though set forth in full at this goint.
2s /Ill
11
i~~ - ~~
11 32. Within the last two years at Santa Monica, California,
I
2 ~ the Sea Castle cross-defendants have became indebted to the City in
3 an amount not less than $19,858.43 on an open book account. Thus,
4 the total amount by which cross-defendants are indebted to the City
5 is not less than $19,858.43, with interest according to law,
6
7~ 33. Neither the whole nor any part of the above amount has
8i been paid notwithstanding the City's repeated demands for payment
9~ therefor, and there is now due, owing and unpaid from the Sea
10' Castle cross-defendants to the City an amount not less than
11 $19,858.43 with interest according to law,
lZ
13~ 34. Crass-complainant City of Santa Monica is entitled to
14a attorney's fees under Civil Code Section 1717.5 for cross-
15~ defendants' failure to maintain this open book account in good
16~ standing.
i
17'
18° FDURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19~ (Services Rendered Against All Cross-defendants]
20
i
21 35. Crass-complainants reallege and incorporate herein by
E
22j reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
23 through 34 as though set forth in full at this point.
24
25 36. Within the last two years at Santa Monica, California,
26 the Sea Castle cross-defendants have become indebted to the City
27 for water, refuse and sewer services rendered by the City to crass-
28 defendants at cross-defendants' special instance and request in an
12
~~ - 5 u
1
2
3
4
5
fi
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
amount not Iess than $19,858.43, plus interest. Thus, the total
amount by which the Sea Castle cross-defendants are indebted to the
j City is not less than $19,858.43, with interest according to law.
37. Neither the whole nor any part of the above amount has
! been paid notwithstanding the City's repeated demands far payment
thereof , and there is now due, owing and unpaid from the Sea Castle
cross-defendants to the City an amount not less than $19,858.43
with interest according to law.
FIFTH CAIISE OF ACTION
{Account Stated Against All Cross-defendants}
14~ 38. Cross-complainants reallege and incorporate herein by
15:~ reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
16~ through 37 as though set forth in full at this point.
~'
17
18!~ 39. Within the two last years, at Santa Monica, California,
19I~ the Sea Castle cross-defendants have become indebted to the City
2 0'
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
far water, refuse and sewer services rendered by the City to cross-
defendants at cross-defendants' special instance and request in an
amount not less than $19,858.43. Thus, the tatal amount by which
the sea Castle cross-defendants are indebted to the City is not
less than $19,858.43, with interest according to law.
40. Neither the whole nor any part of the above has been
paid notwithstanding the City's repeated demands for payment
thereof, and there is now due, owing and unpaid from the Sea Castle
13
~ ill - ~ r
1j cross-defendants to the City an amount not less than $19,858.43
2 with interest according to law.
3
4 8I%TH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (Breach of Contract Against All Crass-defendants)
6
7 41. Cross-complainants reallege and incorporate herein by
8 reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
9 through 40 as though set forth in full at this point.
10
11 42. The City at all times herein mentioned was, and now is,
~~
12 charged by law with the power and duty to provide water, refuse and
i
13I sewer services for fees set by the City Council of the City of
14~ Santa Monica.
15~
I
16~ 43. The Sea Castle cross-defendants requested the
17 commencement of utility service at the subject premises pursuant to
18. the procedures set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections
19i 5.08.250, 5.08.260, 7.04.550, 7.12.210 and 7.12.120. The request
20€ obligated crass-defendants to pay on a bimonthly basis the total
21; amount of the fee due for utility services.
22
2 3 44 . By May 2 5 , 199 3 , the tota 1 amount due and owing was
24 $37,230.54. Cross-defendants Sea Castle Apartments, Ltd. and
25 Robext Braun entered into a written agreement far payment of their
26 delinquent utility bills. (A true and correct copy of the Agreement
27 for Payment of Delinquent Utility Bills, hereafter "Agreement", is
28 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this
14
:~ ~, _ ~ `;
1 reference). In reliance on crass-defendants' execution of the
2' Agreement, the City of Santa Monica did not terminate utility
3 service and permitted the cross-defendants to continue receiving
4 water, refuse and sewer service.
5
6 45. The Agreement provided that the cross-defendants pay to
7 the City the amount of $10,000.00 on June 5, ].993, July 30, 1993
8 and August 30, 1993 with the balance being paid with the regular
9! utility bill in October, 1993. The Agreement also provided that
10 crass-defendants were to pay all utility bills in full as they came
11 due.
12~
13;~ 46. After making the June, July and August payments of
14I, $ZQ,OQQ.4Q and three of the regular utility payments, cross-
15I defendants breached the Agreement by failing to pay the balance of
16 `:. the account in October, 2993 and by failing to pay the regular
17I utility bills that became due in February, 1994 and May, 1994,
18~ leaving a balance of $19,548.44, plus interest of 10~ from January
39I~ 1, 1993 to present.
20~
21 47. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Agreement, cross-
22 defendants are liable to the City of Santa Monica for attorney's
23 fees and costs for breaching the Agreement.
24
25 ////
26 ////
27 ////
28 ////
15 - _
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
], 2
13;
14
15
16~
17'
18
19
Z0~
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SE9ENTH CAIISE OF ACTION
(Failure of Pay Utility Users Tax)
48. Cross-complainants reallege and incorporate herein by
reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
through 47 as though set forth in full at this point.
49. Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections
6.72.010 et seq., the Sea Castle cross-defendants are obligated to
pay a utilities tax.
50. Since at least August 30, 1993, the Sea Castle cross-
defendants have been in arrears on their utilities tax. They have
failed to reply to written requests for compliance dated August 30,
1993 and February 15, 1994.
51. The Sea Castle cross-defendants have failed to pay the
utility tax for their electrical and water usage in an amount of
$4,750.22 plus penalties.
52. [Trader Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 6.72.110, the
Sea Castle cross-defendants are also liable for a 25~ penalty far
failure to respond to the Tax Administrator's request for payment.
WHEREFORE, the City prays judgment as follows:
1. On the First Cause of Action:
16
~F ~ - ~, ~:
1 a. For a temporary restraining order and preliminary
2 and permanent injunction enjoining cross-defendants, and each of
3 them, and their agents, servants. and employees, and all persons
4 acting under, in concert with, or for them from violating Civil
5 Code Sections 3479 and 3480; Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections
5 8.12.010 et seg. and the applicable provisions of the Uniform
7 Building Code and Uniform Fire Cade by failing to comply with
8 provisions of the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code, and
9 lawful orders of the Building Officer of the City of Santa Monica,
10 regarding maintenance of the building in a safe and sanitary manner
111 and securing the vacant structure against unauthori2ed access. -
12 b. That the rights and obligations of cross
13~ complainant and cross-defendants be adjudged, determined and
II
r
14i~ decreed.
I
15I~
E
15~ 2. on the Second through Sixth Causes of Action:
3
17'~ a. Unpaid Utility fees in an amount not less than
18 $19,858.43, plus interest;
19 b. For interest according to law;
20 c. For reasonable attorney's fees according to
21; proof .
22
23 3. On the Seventh Cause of Action:
24 a. For Unpaid Utility taxes in an amount not less
25 than $4,750.22;
26 b. Penalties of at least 25~ of the total utility
27 tax due to the City;
28
17
~~ - ~ i
ljl 4. For costs of suit;
III;
2~, 5. For such other and further relief as the court may dee~-
33 proper.
4
5' Dated: January 23, 1996
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
7
8~ .
By - ~ ~~~ ,
r
9. MARTIN T. TACHIKI
Deputy City Attorney
10
Attorneys for Cross-complainants
11:
12 ~'
,~
DEEMED VERIFIED PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 446.
13 ~;
14
15~I
16
~~
17 ;'
18'i
19:
20~
~~
211
22
I
23
24:
25j
26~
27I
28,
18
~~ - ~~.
a
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles; State ~f
California. I am aver the age of 18 and not a party to the
within action; my business address is 1685 Main Street, Santa
Monica, Galifarnia 90401.
On January 23, 1996, I served the foregoing document
entitled CROSS-COMPLAINT FQR PAYMENT OF DELINQIIENT IITILITY FEES,
PENALTIES, INTEREST, OPEN BOOK ACCOIINT, BREACH OF CONTRACT,
ABATEMENT OF A PIIBLIC NIIISANCE, ATTORNEY'S FEES AND INJIINCTIVE
AND DECLARATORY RELIEF on interested parties in this action by
placing true copies thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
addressed as follows:
Sherman L. Stacey, Esq.
233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
Santa Monica, CA 90401-1306
I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of
collection and processing correspondence for mailirg. Under that
practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that
same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Monica,
California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that
on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if
postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one
day after date of deposit far mailing in affidavit.
Executed on January 23, 1996, at Santa Monica, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true nd correct.
jJ~DY SILYERMAN
:mun~\forms\js\proof.l
~ f~ ~ J
Santa Monica Police Department
Crime Analysis unit
DATE: ,lanuary ~2, 1996
TO: Sgt_ G Galhnot
FROM: Donn Umber
SUBJECT: Sea Castle
r~
0
Below ~s a list of calls far service and arrests (1-1-95 through 1-21-96) and police reports (1-1-95
through approx. 1-19-96) that reference the Sea Castle ar 1725 The Promenade, according to our
automated records.
Date 'Time ,-
Ca11 Location Reported Revd Acfi-ity Code $~ Incident No
sea castle @1725 the prom 011346 0909 animal prob O1 lb 96003453
sea castle @1725 the pram 123095 0543 ptty thft ~o O1 lb 95109489
sea castle @I725 the prom 122395 2228 ped shake Ollb 95107989
sea castle @1725 the prom 121945 2256 man w/ gun Ollb 95106860
sea castle @1725 the prom 120695 0033 fight 011b 95102881
sea castle @1725 the prom 112695 1947 trespassing O1lb 951003b5
1700b1k appian way ,lot n 111995 2236 traffic 002d 95098568
sea castle @ 1725 the prom 111795 1823 trespassing 011 b 95097920
sea castle @1725 the prom 111495 1608 cusp Circ O11B 95097050
sea castle @1725 the pram 110495 0842 trespassing 011b 95094089
sea castle @1725 the pram 110295 0902 assist Ollb 95093442
1725 the promenade .sea 103095 2327 transient 011b 95092840
1725 the promenade ,sea c 102595 0921 trespassing O1 lb 95091220
sea castle @1725 the prom 102495 0734 trespassing 411b 95090962
sea castle @1725 the prom 102395 1248 sto! veh now Ollb 95090717
sea castle @1725 the prom 102195 1315 cusp Pers OllB 95090113
sea castle @ 1725 the prom 101795 1234 susp Pers O11B 95088889
sea castle (a 1725 the prom 100395 1242 ped shake O1 lb 95084933
sea castle @ 1725 the prom 093095 1432 citizen flag 011 b 95084124
1725 appian way ,the sea 092895 2128 distur peace 002d 95083585
sea castle @ 1725 the prom 092795 2109 citizen flag 011b 95483276
sea castle @1725 the prom 090995 1352 id photos O1lb 95477755
sea castle @ 1725 the prom 090995 1349 injured per 011 b 95077754
sea castle @1725 the prom 080695 2358 traffic Ollb 9SOb6837
sea castle @I725 the prom 072595 0301 livng m veh O1lb 95062677
sea castle @ 1725 the prom 072.495 1638 open door O1lb 95062523
sea castle @1725 the prom 072395 2142 ped shake O1lb 95062295
1725 the promenade ,the s 071495 2354 trespassing 01 lb 95059418
1700 appian way ,sea cast 071495 1338 trespassmg 0024 95059249
~~ - 6
Santa Monica Police Department
Crime Analysis unit
DATE: 2-2-96
TO: Ofcs. W. Shirley & D Theus
FROM: Donn Urnber
SUBJECT: Sea Castle Supplement
Below are addttional arrests not included in the list I furnished you wtth that occurred in 1994 at the Sea
Castle Attached are printouts of all persons FI'd since 1-18-94 at the Sea Castle or to which "Sea
Castle" was referred to in the officer remarks portnon of the FI
A>~estee's Name Arrest Date Pri UCR Code
garcia, dose 112694 burglary booking 009410086603
harden, ray nelson 040294 booking othr ofns 009402682301
munoz, dose merced 112694 burglary booking 009410086602
rodriguez, ramos macario I 12694 burglary booking 009410086601
Cnme Anal~~s~s Index X08'6
Date Ranee of Search 1-IS-94 through 1-31-96
Date Completed 2-2-96
t
Date Time
Call Location Renotte~ Revd ,fy Code $~ Incident No
sea castle @1725 the prom 071395 0004 trespasstng O1lb 95058753
sea castle @1725 the prom 071295 1553 ped shake 011b 95458598
sea castle @1725 the prom 052295 2303 transient O1 lb 95042977
sea castle @1725 the prom 051795 1541 trespassing O1lb 95041345
sea castle @1725 the prom 051695 2004 ped shake O1lb 95041116
sea castle @1725 the prom 051695 1747 transient Ollb 95041076
sea castle @ 1725 the prom 050595 0449 drunk 011 b 95037574
sea castle @1725 the prom 042895 0748 transient 011b 95035391
sea castle @1725 the pram 041395 1336 ped shake Ollb 95030793
sea castle @1725 the prom 040795 2224 livng to veh O1lb 95029089
sea castle @1725 the prom 021695 1338 transport O1lb 95013628
sea castle @1725 the prom 021295 2250 traffic Ollb 950126D6
1700 appzan way ;lot n of 021295 2152 gang activ 002d 95012588
Offense Code L~g~ Date Renort Pnmary Kev
Contempt of Court 1725 app~an way/the promenade 102195 95090113
CarJack~ng 1725 the promenade 042695 95034724
Aggrav Assault 1725 ocean front walk 121995 95106644
" 1725 appian way 111995 95098479
Rape 1725 promenade 8th floor 072795 95063516
Disturbing the Peace 1725 app~an way 092995 95083773
Brandishing Weapon 1725 promenade 121995 95106860
Burglary 1725 the promenade 072395 95062216
Theft from Veh 1325 appian 082195 95071368
Trespassing 1725 promenade 072795 95063346
" 1725 the promenade 093095 95084124
1725 the promenade 110295 95093442
" 1725 the promenade 01039b 96000694
ln~ury 1?25 the promenade 121495 95105196
Safekeeping 1'25 appian 072395 95062295
Atlestee's Name Arrest Date Pti UCR Cede Primate Kev
Barnes, alien mm~ 072745 trespass Figl entry 9506334604
Burke, kenneth Arthur 010396 theft/larc booking 4600069401
cantrell,george elves 072695 trespass ilgl entry 9506320101
dornbrach, he~ko mm~ 072395 burglary booking 4506221601
farmer. patr~ck max~r~ell 042795 robbery booking 9503472401
Flaherty, michae! Patrick 093095 trespass ilgl entry 9508412401
Flaherty, mtchael patnck 102195 obstr 3ustice 950901130]
grant,francis gooseff 072795 trespass ~lgl entry 9506334601
~anae, peach mm~ 072695 trespass ilgl entry 9506320103
kelsey. kelly dean 072795 trespass ilgl entry 9506334603
lasley, matthew dames 072795 trespass ~lgl entry 9506334602
Teed, a[an vsnce 050595 drunk drunk drugs 9543757401
achinero. rocco b-!I 072395 not used 9506229501
radcl-ffe, m~chael «a_vne 072695 trespass ~lgl entry 9506320102
ruffert,frank mm~ 010396 trespass ilgl entry 9600069402
slo«~~k, enc 072395 burglary booking 9506221602
~;~alls, louts Jackson 07?395 burglary booking 9506221603
~~ E~
_~_
Santa tlllonica Pvtive De~rfinerrt
Crime Analysis Unit
Date: February 7, 1996
To• Offieer Aquilar, 00, HLP
From R Talbot, OSE, Crime Analysis, {310} 458-$472
Subject: Sea Castle Statistics, 1725 the Promenade, Santa Monica.
The following information is a supplement to the two prior memos provided on statistics at the
Sea Castle at 1725 the Promenade. The first memo sent to Sgt. Gallinot on 1/22/96 summarized
1}calls for service and arrests between 1/ll95 and 1/21/96 at the location and 2} police reports
which occurred between 111195 through approximately 1119195 The second memo sent to Ofcrs
Shirley and Theus on 2/2/9b showed four additional arrests which occurred at the location during
1994 and copies of field interview cards written at the location written between 1/18/94 and
2/2/96
The follov~~ing ~s an addendum of the calls for service made at this address between 111194 and
12/31/94
Calls For Service
no ncnne / locarion dctte time caetrvYty code rd mcrdent no
reported n vd
7 sea castle @ 1725 the prom 122194 1406 need assist 011 b 94108170
8 1725 the promenade 121894 0209 burglary ~o O1lb 94]07283
9 sea castle @1725 the pram 121394 1646 burglary now OI lb 94105905
10 1725 the promenade 120794 1419 burglary rep O1lb 94104090
1 I sea castle @1725 the prom 120794 0106 periodic chk 01 lb 94103982
12 1725 the promenade ,east 120694 1227 burglary jo O1lb 94103786
13 sea castle @1725 the prom 120494 1916 info Ollb 94103349
14 sea castle @ 1725 the prom 1 i 3094 2354 msglcontact 011 b 94102172
15 sea castle @1725 the prom i 13094 0124 periodic chk O1lb 94101877
1 sea castle @ 172 the prom 112694 1457 id photos 0l 1 b 94100870
2 sea castle @ 1725 the prom 112694 1446 burglary now 011 b 94100866
3 sea castle @1725 the prom 112794 0547 citizen flag O1lb 94101089
4 sea castle @1725 the prom 112494 0055 traffic O1lb 94I402b1
~ sea castle @1725 the prom 112394 0922 transient O1lb 94100008
b sea castle @1725 the prom 112294 0943 susp veh di lb 94099720
7 sea castle @ 1725 the prom 110894 1601 trespassing 011 b 94095909
S sea castle @1725 the pram 102994 1050 battery/0 01 lh 94092860
9 sea castle @172 the prom 100694 1917 traffic O1 lb 94085825
10 i 72S ttie promenade ;south 100594 2006 ped shake 011 b 94085493
11 sea castle @ 1725 the prom 092794 2017 1013-code3 011 b 94082984
~ ;~ - ti ~
Calls Far Service, 1/1/94 - 12131194, continued,
no nrnne / locatron date trine actrvrty code rd incident na
reported r+cvd
12 1725 the promenade 093094 1726 assist 011b 94083879
13 1725 the promenade , seac 093094 1534 burglary rep O1lb 94083$31
14 sea castle @1725 the pram 092294 1258 taraffc O1lb 94081358
I5 sea castle @1725 the prom 090694 0404 shots fired 011b 94076244
1 1725 the prorxrenade 082994 0924 assist O1 l b 94073684
2 sea castle @1725 the prom 082394 0757 assist O1lb 94471707
3 1725 the promenade 081994 1931 ped shake Ollb 94074516
4 1725 the promenade 081294 2343 ped shake 411b 94068208
S sea castle @1725 the prom 080594 1408 info recv O1 lb 94065584
6 1725 the promenade 072894 1645 ped shake O 1 l b 94063000
7 i 725 the promenade ,2ckz5 D72694 1744 traffic O1 lb 94062333
8 sea castle @1725 the prom D72694 0759 found prop O1lb 94062163
9 1725 the promenade ,lot D72394 1302 health/salty O1lb 94061219
10 1725 the promenade ,park 072394 0453 susp Crrc O11B 94061146
11 1725 the promenade ,rfo s 07x594 1705 stakeout O1lb 94455255
12 1725 the promenade D62394 1042 assist Ollb 94050974
13 1725 the promenade ,west 062294 2240 id photos Ol lb 94050842
14 1725 the promenade 061444 0045 penodic chk Ollb 94048007
15 sea castle @1725 the prom 053194 04D2 penodic chk Ol lb 94043455
1 sea castle @1725 the prom 053194 0149 penodic chk O1lb 94043437
2 1725 the promenade 453094 0327 penodre chk O1lb 94043202
3 1725 the promenade , seac 053094 0025 penodre chk O1lb 94D43176
4 1725 the promenade 052794 0309 penodre chk Dllb 94042211
5 sea castle @ 1725 the prom 052694 2243 penodre chk 011 b 94042170
b 1725 the promenade 052394 2112 penodre chk O1lb 94041207
7 sea castle @1725 the prom 052394 0350 penodre chk O1 lb 94040989
8 sea castle ,na,i725 the prom 052344 4052 penodre chk O1lb 94040968
9 sea castle @1725 the prom 051994 1820 rnfo 411b 94039981
10 sea castle @1725 the prom 051794 2234 penodre chk Ollb 94039461
11 sea castle @1725 the prom 051994 0432 penodre chk Ollb 94039779
12 sea castle @1725 the prom 031594 2015 penodre chk Ol lb 94038892
13 sea castle .~ai725 the prom 051394 0100 penodre chk O1lb 94038030
14 1725 the promenade 051194 1827 cusp Pers D 11 B 94037663
15 1725 the promenade .rear 040794 1551 ped shake Ollb 94028271
1 1725 the promenade ,the 1 031694 0922 459 veh alrm Dllb 94021764
2 1725 the promenade 031494 1025 assist O1lb 94021199
3 I 725 the promenade 022194 0023 susp veh D 11 b 94014976
4 1725 the promenade _ sea 020494 2345 penodre chk Ol lb 94010559
17? 5 the promenade 012694 1157 status check 011 b 94007651
do - C L~
Calls For Service , 1/1/$4 - 12131194, continued,
no name /location dc~e hme acttvrty code rd incident no
reported rcud `
6 1725 the promenade 012694 1029 assist
7 1725 the promenade sea c 012394 2112 cusp. Circ.
8 1725 the promenade 012394 2022 traffic
9 1725 the promenade 012294 1735 assist
10 1725 the promenade 012194 2006 irusc
11 1725 the promenade 012194 1920 found prop
12 1725 the promenade 012194 1659 status check
13 1725 the promenade 012194 1206 cusp. Pers
14 1725 the promenade 012094 1513 msg/contact
15 1725 the promenade 012094 1215 status check
1 1725 the promenade ;sea c 012094 1009 status check
2 1725 the promenade 011994 2251 ped shake
3 1725' the promenade 010894 0242 gang activ
Ollb 940D7621
O11B 94006785
Ollb 94006770
Ollb 94006332
011b 94006007
Ollb 94005996
Ollb 94005959
O11B 94005896
Ollb 94405599
Ollb 94005562
Ollb 94005529
011h 94005435
Ollb 94002075
72
Additionally, the below calls for service have occurred most recently between the 1 /22/95 memo
and today, 217/96.
no name / location date
reported
1 sea castle @i725 the pram 020596
2 1725 the promenade ;sea 020196
3 1725 the promenade ;sea 020196
4 1725 the promenade 012696
~ sea castle @1725 the prom 012396
trme actrvrty code rd incident no
rcud
1530 inured per O i l b 9600971 S
0652 rd photos O1lb 96008536
0554 arson Ollb 96D08534
1657 chl{stat 011 b 96007094
1123 ~uvemle Ollb 9600617
Additionall}~, the following calls for service occurred where someone at another address called
in about the Sea Castle location These are calls which were reported between January 1. 1993
and present date, 2/7/96 (Calls with asterisks behind the incident number duplicate calls for
sen=ice listed above)
no name / location date time acttvriy code rd tnctdent no
reported rcvd
1 020646 2114 msglcontact OD2a 9601012(
2 love 020596 1612 msg/contact 002a 96009737
3 ~~•320 020196 0652 id photos Ollb 96008536
4 wm horns 122195 1901 unkn troub Ollb 95107387
~ 121995 2358 posted sign Ollb 951D6873
6 Brett 11-5 no 120695 0033 fight 011 b 95102$81
~, - f~ `~
Calls for service relating to the Sea Castle location, 1993 to present,
na ncmre / location date trme acttvrty code ~f incident no
reported rcvd
7 mike Patterson 120295 1807 susp activ O1lb 95101969
8 hack 1115 securrty 112695 1947 trespassing Ollb 95100365
9 1115 tarry norrnan 112295 1101 susp Pers O11B 95099188
10 darrell miller l l 1795 1503 susp Circ 011B 95097864
11 11/6 Sharon Sobel 111495 1608 susp Ciro. O11B 95097050
12 madsen 1115 yes 092995 1434 dstb pce rpt 0024 95083773
13 11/S grossclose 492895 2128 drstur peace 042d 95083586
14 11-6 nley 092895 2046 distur peace 0424 95083575
15 tatterson 092295 1157 transient Ollb 95081627
1 082595 4004 211 s/a j/o Ol lb 95072480
2 082095 2323 traffic Ollb 95071231
3 072695 2115 ped shake Ollb 95063201
4 11-5 if nec bran 071495 1338 trespassing 002d 95059249
5 harbor guards 063095 0213 chkstat 9999 95054556
ti 060595 1451 footpursuit 014f 95046870
7 barbenell 11-6 052695 1121 gang actrv 002d 95043919
8 stephanre 11 6 no 032295 0750 transient 002d 95024072
9 grossclosel l/S if recess 121894 0209 burglary ~o Ol lb 941072$3
10 120794 0106 periodic chk Ol lb 94103982
11 andrew groseclose 11-5 if 120494 1916 info O l l b 94103349
12 Joslyn august 11-6 if nec 120294 1246 psycho O1lb 94102605
1 ~ Wolcott 11=5 110694 1127 burglary rep 002a 94095277
] 4 Saloom 11-5 110494 1129 burglary rep 002a 9409468$
1 ~ mjnthor tompkms 102094 0102 lung to veh 9999 94090062
1 Barbara held (eo~.ti° 1630) 100694 1501 burglary rep 003a 940$5742
_ desk 092494 2006 msg/contact 002a 94082111
It dawson 091994 0850 msQ/contact 002d 94080336
Y ~ ~~c 092094 0642 msglcontact 002a 94080b34
284 091894 1746 found prop 011b 94080186
6 busn spokes n stuff 090394 1110 adw now 002d 94075360
052394 0322 msg/cantact 002a 94040986
$ mark carpentieri 051794 0828 burglary rep 002a 94039264
9 050994 0822 rnforecv 002d 94036931
10 ~~aldorf sec 11-5 rf nee Q32994 2248 gang aetrv 011b 44025744
11 gomez from Bel air patrol 031494 1025 assist 011b 94021199
12 It thomas 030494 1434 rnsg/contact 002a 94018325
1 , v~~, c 020994 1702 msglcontact 002a 94011721
14 scott kennedy 11-5 if nec 012394 2112 susp Care 011 B 94006785
1 S set smith 012294 1501 assist 002a 94006282
1 chp 1=a9980 011794 1641 burglary now 011b 94004794
? miller 11-6 yes 123093 0927 mat misc ~/0 01 lb 93109762
+~ ea - i il
Calls for servrce relatrng to the Sea Castle locatron, 1993 to present,
no name / lacutron date trme actrvrty code rd incrdent no
Y reported rcvd
3 11-5 patrrck ebel 102993 1239 transrent 011 b 9309.1&31
4 recd john 11-5 if nec 101793 0225 459 veh now 002d 93089008
5 alien 11-5 no contact 101293 1042 mal mxsc j/o Ol lb 93687465
6 butler 092493 1831 h&r mtsd. 002A 93081805
7 resd.ll-5 furtaw 082093 1830 man w/ gun 01 lb 93070b21
8 masterson 11-5 if nec 021293 2059 distur peace O1 lb 93011320
9 resd 010293 2220 unkntroub 002a 93000405
Crime Index ~ 916
Dates Searched 010194-123194
Date Completed 020796
~, ;
~~ (1
~ h s ~~~_
SANTA M~NICA I~IRE DEPARTMEN "
~.-~ ~ S .~- •7ryL,8"1.~. 'YVc.z.~.4 a~v~-¢~ ~1.~~~.e- -7^~ n a ,re.~ .
MEM~RANDUIIlI
TO: Nu:sauce Abatement Board DATE• February 6, 1996
FROM: Steven i_ocat~, Assisfant Fjre Marshal
SUBJECT• 1725 The Promenade -Fire Hazard Declaration
The high-rise apartment building located at 1725 The Promenade, known
as the "Sea Castle", represents a "F~re Hazard" as defined in the Uniform
Fire Code, Section 207 The Santa Monica Fire Department supports the
immediate abatement of this hazard in accordance with the Un~forrn Code
for the Abatement of Dangerac~s B~~ldings
The building was badly damaged in the Santa Monica/Northrrdge
earthquake and has been unoccupied since On February i , 199fi a fire
caused maior damage to the remaining building.
Our declaration of a "fiire hazard" is based upon the following:
1 The fire caused the collapse of various areas of the building which
further damaged the fire sprinkler system which is now totally
inoperative.
2 The open structure represents a t~rreat of rapid fire growth due to
exposed combustibles, unprotected openings which penetrate several
floors, and unstable debris piles.
3 The unprotected openings whECh penetrate several floors and
unstable debris piles represent an unreasonable r:sk to fire
department personnel ~n the event of another fire, emergency
medical call or physical rescue of citizens entering the bwld~ng.
E%NIBIi 20
r~ - ! ~
In the opinion of the Fire Department the building in its current status
represents a cant~nu~ng and unreasonable threat to public safety. The Fire
Department wishes to avoid placing Fire Personnel in the damaged
portions of the building. There is a great risk of infury to personnel
responding to future fires, emergency medical calls or physical rescues of
citizens entering the building. The unprotected openings in floors and
walls are a significant fall hazard The risk of collapse and #aflrng debris
during emergency operations is also significant.
There are two options under the Uniform Code for the Abatement of
Dangerous Buildings:
~ . The owner can be ordered to demolESh the bu~ld~ng. This eliminates
the fire hazard entirely.
2. The owner can be ordered to repair the building. It will be necessary
in the intenm to:
- Remove all combustible materials from the vacant building.
- Secure the building to prevent any access
- Provide twenty-four hour a day security to prevent forcible
entry.
- The fire sprinkler system will need to be fully restored
- All unprotected openings in floors and walls must be
barricaded to protect fire personnel entering the building
Recommendation
Based upon the unstable structural cond~t~ons, unprotected openings in
floors and walls, the continuing problem with maintaining building
security and access control; and the risk of additional fires the Fire
Department makes the following recommer€dat~on:
~ . Demolish the building and eliminate the hazard. UnGtl demolition the
property must secured to prevent entry.
2. If the building ~s not to be demolished then the requirements of
Item 2 above must be enforced.
~~ - ~3
~~
To Suzanne Frick. Planning Commissioners and CEty Council Members 1 p-15-97
From Members of the South Beach Neighbor Watch FAX 310-458 - 3346
Re Opposition to the rebuilding of the Sea Castle Property
We are opposed to the rebuilding of the 178 unit apartment house for the following
reasons
1 } Dr Braun allowed this buildEng to deteriorate, even before the earthquake, and
even before the fire The sale of Dr Braun's property is contingent on securing these
entitlements Braun and his bank. First Federal Savings, should not now be rewarded
by being able to secure earthquake entitlements so that he may profit
2~ The cause of the destruction of the Sea Castle was cross nealiaence -
- not the earthquake. The building was shored up and yellow tagged
such that it could be entered and secured. Poiice department personnel
refused to enter the vermin infested building that was inhabited by
arrogant criminals who routinely changed the locks to make their
entrance and exit from the building more convenient. The City failed to
protect its ci#izens and had knowledge of the fac# that the sprinkler
system was not functional one month before the fire. The owner and the
city did not respond in a timely or effective manner to the problems at the
site. The neighborhood was lest vulnerable, crime infested and helpless.
3) The Earthquake Recovery Act never anticipated that landlords could stall till market
forces warranted the rebuilding of non-conforming uses To further illustrate how
cynical and abusive of the earthquake recovery act this project request ~s -- thES permit
was submitted on the last day at the last hour that this act was in effects Had the Sea
Catsle not burned down, it probably would have been cost prohibitive to repair and
rebuild it Afterall, during their earlier bid to purchase the property and while they were
in escrow, Maguire Thomas Partners paid for the final demolition of the Sea Castle m
the aftermath of the fire, not Braun We would have supported Maguire Thomas` plan
far a three story apartment of condomm~um protect that comformed with current zoning
codes'
4} The building is not being replaced m kind because the ballroom and pool area
appear to have been eliminated and the lounge area reduced in order to increase the
size of the apartment units
5) In order to preserve earthquake entitlements, insufficEent parking spaces will be
provided which will excerbate residential parking shortages in the area drastically and
will consequently increase traffic congestion severely
The mass and scale of this protect is completely incompatible and inappropriate for the
neighborhood The cumulative impacts of all the surrounding developments makes
the resurrection of the Sea Castle a nightmare The environmental impacts will be
significant and cannot be mitigated m the absence of an environmental review The
qualEty of fife of the residents will suffer greatly To vESUalfy restore the building to its
farmer monolithic, concrete self directly across from the 6 story Ocean Hotel, would
create a concrete canyon by the beach Any design should be in keeping with the
Shutters Hotel and any replacement protect should be what is currently zoned -- R3R
~~ - ~4
2] The welfare of the South Beach neighborhood and quality of the life neighbors will
~ significantly, neaatroeiv imp~ct~d by rebuil~iina this massive. non-conforming
structure with sub standard i~,arkina.
The presence of this massive. non-conforming building, void of landscaping with substandard
parking wiH present nothing short of a hardship far the neighbors The design looks Hke an oid
fashion hospital and is totally out of place on the beach The cumulative impacts of the protects
that have preceded this grid since the earthquake will cause massive parking shortages and
mayor traffic congestion problems Nothing in the Earthquake Recovery Act prevents the addition
of X60 parking spaces that current codes would require In fact, Section 4 (d) of the Earthquake
Recovery Act speaks of parking provision incentives The council should condition this protect
to provide adequate subterranean parking, les# this council continues the (long standing practice of
denigrating the quality of life of the residents, and destroyung property values in this area More
people live and recreate in this area than available parking spaces can accommodate !n rebuttal
to the argument that more parking could not be provided because of the water table, Shutters
Hotel was able to put 4 stories of underground parking, providing 400 parking spaces and had
similar water table obstacles to overcame At the very least, the council should provide this
protect financial incentives for the goad of this neighborhood
In summary, no building in the City burned dawn as a result of the earthquake Only one bumed
down because !t remained so neglected after the earthquake Let's not reward neglects No other
residents' quality of life has been so negatively impacted and na residents have been so ignored
as those in this South Beach neighborhood Ignore us again rf you will, but the problems won't
go away -- they will lust be better documentedi
Enclosed are fallowing related documents
1 }Statement to the Planning Commission
2} Nuisance Abatement Request 1 formal complaint
3} Sequence of events leading to the destruction of the Sea Castle ~ rB~r~
sew ~~s ~ ~ e ~~ ~ s_ ~ ICJ ~ ~ s ~ ~ c ~ ~bz~ ~--~~
~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~b~>~~r3~~~~~~~
6 ~ o L cam- ~',., -!- Oh cQ.~-~ • l
U U ~ .
~ ~ ~~ .
~mt. ~ a - ~ ~ 9 9 G ._
~' ~ - '?
ATTACHMENT B
y~ r/~_ ry
T~ ~ ~ 1 1
~~ ~ ~~
City of
Santa Monica
Department of Pianrnng and Commurnty Development
Planning and Zoning D~vissan
(310) 458-8341
APPAL FORM
Date Fded ~~~/ ~ T
Received By
Receipt No
Marne ~f~~! ~l'~GZGI~Lc .
Address /G~ ~ ~/Gt~n ~~.c~Gfi~/~ ~i~z S~r~a il"l~~rrr_~ ~_ xa4~~/
Contact Person ~~ ~ Phan~u~.3~~ l'~oG , /k/ `f.3~-~7 ~
r
v
Please describe tl~e protect and dens n to be appealed c
/~y~/~r~~ : ~l~~lGSff~'Ff C f~G v7 O~ _~ See ~45T~~.
/li ~'so ~ .' ,~ er~r~sv~/ ~v6~.a~r~.
„ ~
Case Ncmber ~ ~ ~G ~? ~l~ ~ /
Address / Z ~ ~ ~~ ~~~-P~QG~f ,
Applicant !/~f~ccC~ f~t /1 e~~~ ~"a~- ~lti ~r~ ~'s~/~_ _~r_ ~av~~~J ~ .
Original Hearing Date ~!~ ~~~ ~r~_7.
Original Action vy~~~vr~v~/ s~~rzrf~~
.. ,,
Please state the specific reason(s) for the appeal ~`Ge Q~QG~~,
Please provide two self-addressed, stamped, letter-sized envelopes.
-y-
i
_ J1Cgature - i `L~.~ _ ~.~+~-~i?~=~. ~ Uate c~~ ~`~~1 ~~ ~
,~
Reasons for Appeal
of the
Sea Castle Reconstruction Permit
I The project proposed will have a disastrous impact on the neighborhood traffic
The only available access to the proposed building is from Appian Way, a two lane
street bordering the beach, also used by traffic exiting Pacific Coast Highway,
delivery trucks for Shutters Hotel, Loews Hotel, and the new hotel under construction
adjacent to Loews It is the public access street for the beach par4ang Lots, including
spill-over traffic from the Pacific Park pier parking lot It is the access street for the
chess park, and the residences in apartment butldmgs on the street During summer
months. during the winter engagement of Cirque du Soleil, during the American Film
market in the spring, and on nights of the pier concerts this street is Lammed with cars
to the point that it often requires traffic control measures (access street closures, traffic
directors at Seaside Terrace and Appian Way) This project will bring 240 more cars
onto Appian Way each and every day That's Two Hundred Forty more cars every day
onto a street that is already full
2 The proposed protect will create an impossible parking situation
That's not a subtective assessment That's a recognition of a basic law of physics
The developer proposes to build 178 rental units and only 71 parking spaces if the
protect were subtect to current parking requirements, it would have to provide 240
parking spaces (one per single, 1-112 per one bedroom apartment). Given our mobile
society's reliance on the automobile, this is realistic Under the present proposal,
allowing for no employee parking, there will be a shortfall of 169 parking spaces That
means 169 cars have to be parked somewhere else
There are two public beach parking lots on Appian Way Residents currently Iwing on
the street purchase permits from the city to park in those lots The present available
parking spaces in those lots at night is 127 That's a shortfall of 42 spaces If every
available space is used by a resident of the Sea Castle, there will still be 42 (Forty-
Two) cars with no place to park
Since the demise of the Sea Castle, Pacific Park has been built, Loews Hotel has
opened its special events patio on the beach, Shutters has become more popular, The
Cirque du Sofeii has extended its calender in the vicinity The influx of people has
increased dramatically The competition for these beach parking spaces is already a
trauma to the neighborhood at peak times The lot east of Seaside (which held 20-25
cars and was used by Iocal residents when the public lots were full) has been
eliminated The restaurant at QCean Avenue and Vicente Terrace was recently given
a parking variance to reconstruct with 72 seats (unknown number of employees} and
15 parking spaces This restaurant will put cars on Appian Way and take up parking
spaces The Lobster House on Qcean at the entrance to the pier, is applying for a
~~ U ~
parking variance (98 seats and 31 parking spaces) The AIDS Hospice
(which elimrna#ed the aforementioned parking lot} also has a parking variance Two
night clubs on the pier (currently not running at capacity) have been given parking
variances Anew hotel is under construction adjacent to Loews Hotel, and the Pritikrn
Center has just been granted Hotel status with an unresolved parking plan.
There are no spaces available for these cars to park. It is a basic law of physics that
no two objects can occupy the same space at the same trine. There is no physical
space available for these cars to occupy. No spaces can be created, since the city
plan for the area does not permit milti-level parking structures on the beach There
simply is no place for these cars to park
3 The City will lose all pubUc parkrng on the stretch of beach it plans to spend millions
of dollars to improve
The B.I G project has designated $3 million dollars, $2.5 million of County Proposition
A funds to improve the beach between the pier and Pico Included are enhancements
to muscle beach, a new international chess park, and a new children's playground
within view of the lifeguard station. If the Sea Castle project is built as currently
planned, a#I parking available for the public use will be grabbed up by residents of the
Sea Castle on the very beach the city is planning to improve, intending to attract more
of the public to the area Look at the numbers. 169 (One Hundred Sixty Nine) cars
will fill all remaining beach parking spaces and will spill out into street parkrng for
blocks There will be no adjacent parking for the chess park, for the children's
playground, and for simple public beach use. All of the spaces intended for public
use will be gone, eliminating adjacent public access
Realistic and beneficial planning is the responsibility of city government. The area in
question rs one in which the city has a substantial economic interest !request that the
city find a way to bring this project under the requirements of present codes and
require that the developer be limited to only the number of units for which Fie can
prowde parking To do anything less wil! create a nightmare in the area you want to
enhance, and will be great disservice to the public, the residences and businesses
already in the area
~~ - 8 i
~~ R ~
ATTACHMENT C
~~
~~ - 8