Loading...
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 -