SR-07-11-1980-5B~_
~/~
DATE: July ll, 1980
T0: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Final Tract Map No. 35503, 6-unit condominium
.conversion at 425 Marine Street, considered and
approved at the City. Council meeting of July 8, 1980.
Attached. for your information and records is a copy of the
letter from the attorneys representing applicant W. Firmin
in regard to the above Map. On motion of Mayor Pro Tempore
Yannatta Goldway, this letter was made a part of the record
and file on that map.
Attachment
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
City Engineer
Rhodes, Barnard, Maloney, Hart $ Mullen
Lf _
IDIFORMATIOP7 Santa Monica, California, June 30,.1980
TO: Mayor and City Council.
FROM: Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Additional Information,. Request for Final Map.,
Tentative Tract No. 35503, Six-Unit Condominium Conversion,
425 Marine Street, R2, W. Firmin, Agenda Item 6D(12),
May 24, 1980.
Introduction
This matter was continued from June 25, 1980 for :additional
information regarding Coastal Zone applications, solar access
requirements and the title listing on-the County Assessor's rolls.
In accordance with the Council's request, the following is
respectfully submitted:
1. Coastal Permit, The executive Director of the South Coast
Regional Coastal Commission reports the only permit applica-
tion they have. had was for'the original construction in
1974. The permit was. issued to Ray Mahaffey.
2. Solar access Design. Under Section 66473.1 of the Subdivi-
Sion Map Act, conversions are exempt from the requirement
for solar access design.
3. Title. The County Ascessor's file lists the owners as
Edward P. Scully and William J.: Firmin, 2708 Wilshire Bou1e- _
vard, Santa Monica, California 90403.
Prepared by: J. W. Lunsford
JL:1k
JUL 8 1980
. ~
JUN ~ 4 1980
Santa Monica,'Califorhia; June 11, 1980f~
it
TO: Mayor and City Council ~~~. $ 1984
FROM: Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Report for Final Map, Tentative Tract No. 35503,
Six-Unit Condominium Conversion, 425 Marine Street,
R2, w. Firmin
Introduction
This is a request for approval of a Final Tract:Map for a six-unit
condominium conversion at 425 Marine Street. The request is by
the owner and subdivider.
Background
On July 10, 1978, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative
Tract Map for a six-unit condominium conversion. The conditions
included installation of security gates, repair of the rear fence
and dead-bolt locks. The required conditions have been complied
with.
On May 7, 1979, the Planning Commission granted a one-year exten-
sion of the Tentative Map without the requirement of Rent Control
approval because of the delays of going before the Coastal Commis-
sion. Extensions for six projects in the Coastal Zone were approved
without the Rent Control requirements at the same meeting. On
other projects, not in the Coastal Zone, the requirement for Rent
Control was attached. The applicant has not made application for
conversion to the Coastal Commission
July 10, 1980.
The extension is valid until p
8
~1~L 8 198Q
. ~~~..*
Mayor and City Council
-2-
June 11, 1980
The applicant seeks approval of the Final Map without Rent Control
approval on the basis of the Council's recent rescission of this
requirement.
Recommendation
In view of the absence of a condition for Rent Control approval on
the Tentative Map extension, it is respectfully recommended that
the Final Map be approved with the recently adopted policy.
Prepared by: James Lunsford
JL°lk
RESOLUTION NO. .6033 ~
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE-CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ACCEPTIPIG A.TVI) APPROVING SUBDIVISION
MAP OF TRACT NO. 35503, AND DIRECTING ISSUANCE.
OF CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT ON CONDITIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS
SECTION 1. That t_he Map of Tract Noy 35503 irs_ the City of
.Santa Monica presented. by Edward P° Scully,. Elizabeth L: Scully
and William Jn Firmin, Inc., being a 'subdA.vision fc,r condonn~inium
purposes of Lot 24,_Block I, of the Santa Fe Traotf as shown on
.Map recorded in Book 18, Page 17, Miscellaneous Records, Reeords
of Los Angeles Caunty, is accepted and approved.
SECTION 2. The Building Officer is directed to issue a condo®
' minium conversion permit for. the project described by this mag,
pursuant to the previsions of Resolution 5572(CCS}, to be effective
upon full-satis~action of the conditions precedent stated in
Section_2 thereof. __
SECTION 4_ The adoption of this reso7,ution does not relieve
the_subdivicer from-compliance with all Federal, State, and loeal
laws applicable to the project.
SECTION 4_ The City Clerk hereby is authorized and directed
to endors= upon the face of said Map. this order authenticated by
the :Seal of the City of Santa Monica.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to-the adoption of r
this.=esolution and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORMe
TM ~ , " b
STEPHEN SHANE ST
Acting City Attorney
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS Rth DAY
OF Julv . ~O,~P~~ .
I HEREBY CERTIFY THRT THE FOREGOIf~G RESOLUTIONf
IVO. 6033 , NdAS DULY ADOPTED BY TtiE CIT`~" COISNCIL OF THE CIiY
OF SANTA P~ONICA AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREO[' HELD ON "
July 8 , ~aS~ BY THE FOLL01~'TNG COUNCIL. VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Jennings, .Reed, Scott, van d:en
Steenhoven, Hambrick
'~CES:~ COUNCILMEMBERSt Yannatta.Goldway.,-Rboden - .
ABSEi'~T: COUNCILMEMBERS: None.
ASSTA~p~; COUNCILMEhiBERS: None
ATTEST;
r
C
G~~~CITY CLERK
HOWARD W. RHODES
B:THOMAS BARNARO
J. WILLIAM MALONEY
CHARLES R. HART.JR.
DENNIG M. MULLEN
JOHN 6.JAKLE
CHRISTOPHER M-HAR DING
IRA LKURGAN
RHODES, BARNARD, MALONEY, HART & MULLEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1244 SIXTH STREET
POST OFFICE BOX 1069
SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90406
(213) 393-O q4 • B]1-1500
CITY OP COMMERCE -
LOS ANGELES, CA - -
~213~ 723-6311 • ]22-3662
July 2, 1980 oUR FILE No.
Mayor John Bambrick
and Members of the Santa Monica
City Council.
1685 Main ..Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
RE: Final Map, Tentative Tract No. 35503,
425 Marine Street, Santa Monica,
Dear Mayor Bambrick and Members of the City Council:
The purpose of this letter is to outline the position
of the applicants caith respect to the above-referenced matter.
Initially, I believe the reason for the City Council's
action in continuing the hearing on this matter was to allow the
Manning. Department sufficient-time to determine whether or not
the applicants or the previous owners of 425 Marine Street had
ever made an application with respect to this property with the
South Coast Regional Coastal Commission, and had that application
denied or withdrawn. I have submitted documentation to the
Manning ,Department concurrent with this letter indicating that
no such 'application was ever filed. I personally contacted the
South Coast Regional Planning Commission and was informed by one
bf its employees that the only application ever filed with respect
to this property with-them resulted in issuance of a permit in
July, 1974, allowing the previous owner, Raymond Mahaffey, to
.construct the six--unit apartment building presently located at
..425 Marine .Street. -I have also learned that Mr. Mahaffey has an
.interest in other properties in the 'Ocean Park area, which I
believe was the source of the confusion during the previous hearing.
Second, Councilperson Reed indicated that although the
applicants in this case had secured an extension of their Tentative
Tract Map without imposition of the condition that they secure Rent
Control-Board approval, most extensions granted at the.aime they
RHODES, BARNARD, MALONEr, HART & MULLEN
A PROFESStO NAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
received their extension did impose such a condition. She then.
commented that this seemed very unfair. The applicants do not
know why this distinction was made, either. Neither the appli-
cants nor any of their representatives appeared before the
Planning Commission at the time the extension was granted. At
alI times since-that extension was granted, the applicants have
relied upon .,the.fact..that said extension was granted without .
the conditian of Rent Control Board approval. .Although, in
retrospect, it may appear to some of you that such a condition
should have been imposed, it seems patently unfair to impose
such a condition now.
Another problem raised with respect to-this application
concerns the inference if not the:.suggestion that by securing ____
approval of their Final Map, the applicants will thereby violate
the-Santa Monica Rent Control Charter Amendment. Santa Monica
City Charter, Section 1803 (t) provides, in pertinent parts
"Any landlord who desires to remove a controlled
rental unit from the rental housing market by demoli-
tion, conversion or other means is required to obtain
a permit from the Board prior to such removal from the
rental housing market in accordance with rules and
regulations promulgated by the Board.°'
Apparently, the inference-is that'tiy securing approval
of their Final Map, applicants will have removed controlled rental
units from the rental housing market by way of conversion. This
inference, however, incorrectly assumes that a condominium convey-
sign is effected upon approval of a Final Map. There is a major
distinction between a mere subdivision of-land under the Subdivision
Map Act and a completed condominium conversion. This-point of law
is widely recognized. For example, in the case of Stein vs. City
of Santa Monica (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. WEC 059251),
it has been argued on behalf of Santa Monicans.for Renters' Rights
et. aL as follows:
"The mere recordation of a Subdivision Map does not
change the use of land. Many apartment buildings currently
-used-for rental housing purposes have recorded Subdivision
Maps. .However, until the first unit is sold, no condo-
minium exists. 'C'ivil Code, Section 783 ;'County of Los
Angeles vs. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (1970),
3 Cal. 3d 809, 814." (Interverier's Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Opposition to Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, pp. 62-63; filed on behalf of Santa Monicans
for Renters' Rights by the Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation
- 2 -
RHODES, BARNARD, MALONEY, HART & MULIEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW -
Thus, the applicants' request for approval of their
Final Map cannot be denied on the basis that such approval would
constitute a violation of .the Santa Monica Rent Control Charter
Amendment.
As indicated in the Director of Planning's report to
you on this application, dated June 11, 1980, the applicants have
complied with all conditions attached to approval of the Tentative.
Tract Map and to the extension of that Tentative Tract Map. During
the-course of the previous hearing before the City Council,. neither.
the staff or any members of the City Council identified any condi-
Lions with which the applicants had failed to comply. As a result,
- I suggest that my clients are entitled to approval of their-Final
Map pursuant to 'Santa Monica Municipal-Code, Section 9312d,
Government Code, Section 66458(a)," Youngblood vs. Board of Super-
visors (1978), 22 Cal. 3d 644, and Great Western Savings-and Loan
Association vs.` City of Los Angeles 31 Cal. App. 3d 403.
I believe that your most substantial concern is adminis-
trative in nature. Evidently, certain. developers who have previous-
ly-=obtained Final Maps for condominium conversions are proceeding
in °aiolation of the Santa Monica Rent Control Charter Amendment
by marketing converted units without having .secured a removal permit,
a determination of vested. rights, or a determination that the Rent
Control law otherwise does not apply to .them by either the Rent
Control Board. itself or by the courts. .Your concerns, and presumabl}
those of the Rent Control Board itself, are understandable in this
respect. Nevertheless, from a legal standpoint these concerns do
not-justify denial of the applicants' Final Map. In this respect,
under no circumstance will my clients take any action to violate
.the Rent Control Charter Amendment or any other federal, .state or
local .law. It would be especially foolhardy for the applicants to
do so, since both Mr. Scully and Mr. Firmin are licensed real estate
brokers.. P~oreover, the proposed resolutionz approving the Final
Map i.n this case should alleviate the Council*s concern. Section 4
of that proposed resolution providesa
"The adoption of this resolution does not relieve
the subdivider from compliance with. all .federal, state.
and local laws applicable to the project."
Finally, it is fairly evident that this application is
being viewed by some of you solely as one aspect of the larger
political issue concerning._condominium conversions. Undoubtedly,
the views of the public and of the City Council have changed
- 3 -
.RHODES, BARNARD, MALONEI, HART S MULLEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
substantially with respect to condominium conversions since
June, 1978, when the applicants secured approval of their
Tentative Tract Map. Nevertheless, as indicated above, the
applicants are entitled to approval of their Final Map. under
_ the applicable statute, ordinance and case law.-
If any of you have ,-.reservations about approving
the Final Map for Tract No. 35503 which you do not believe are
responded to adequately in this: letter, I would greatly
appreciate the opportunity to discuss those concerns with you
before you make a final decision in this case.
;Sincerely,
CHRISTOPHER M. HARDING
cMH/lp
- 4 -