SR-102880-7D1I °~
OGT 2 8 9988
Santa Monica, California, October 7, 1980
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal, Tentative Tract Map Extension,
Tentative Tract No. 33579, New 42-Unit Condominium,
1-034-1038 Fourth Street, Michael Lillie and Harris Toibb
Introduction
This is an appeal from the Planning Commission's extension of a
Tentative Tract Map for a new condominium project. Appeal is by
Council Member Ruth Yannatta Goldway.
Background
On September 18, 1978 the Planning Commission approved a Tentative
Tract Map for a new 42-unit condominium project at 1034-1048 Fourth
Street. The property is presently developed with 10 units.
On September 17, 1979 the Planning Commission extended the Tentative
Map for one year on condition an exemption, vested right or removal
permit be obtained from the Rent Control Board.
On March 24, 1980 an application for a removal permit was filed with
the Rent Control Board and is still pending for resolution of replace-
ment housing. A hearing is scheduled for November 6. A Coastal
Permit is also required.
On September 15, 1980 the Planning Commission granted an additional
one-year extension with the understanding that no further extensions
are possible. Council Member Goldway appealed this action.
~~
OCT 2 8 9984
Mayor and Council -2- October 7, 1980
Alternatives
The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify any action of the
Planning Commission in regard to a Tentative Subdivision Map.
Recommendation
In view of the fact that a legal request for a removal permit is pend-
ing before the Rent Control Board, it is respectfully recommended
that the appeal be denied and the determination of the Planning Com-
mission affirmed.
Prepared by: James Lunsford
JL:lk
~s~-.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .+ _ ....5~ .33~
~~,,=_=..°=` CALIFORNIA '
-- ,
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
Room 212 City Hall
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
October ,7, :1980 393-997,5
i•Sr. Harris Toibb
*ir. Michael Lillie
- 4119 Via i~iarina.
.Marina del Rey, California
Dear 1-,essrs. Toibb and Lillie:
This is to officially inform you that the Planning Commis-
sion's action extending Tentative Tract D1ap No. 33579 for
a forty-two unit cordcmirium project at 1034-1038 Fourth
Street, Santa Monica, has been appealed to the Santa Monica
City Council. Appeal eras taken by Council. Member.RUth
Yannatta Goldway. - _ .
The appeal will be heard by the City Council on Tuesday,
October 28, 1980 at 7:30 p.m.,although it will not be first
on the agenda and ycu should check with the City Clerk's
office prior to that date to determine where on the agenda
the item appears.
City Council policy requires written notification of tenants
of the appeal and the'time and place of the Council meeting..
Notification should be given to each tenant at least one
week prior to the meeting and a letter certifying to the
notification filed with 'this office at least five days
prior to the meeting.
Should you wish additional information or clarification
regarding this item, kindly let me know and I'll be happy
to assist you.
.Yours very '-rully,
ames un ~ d
Director of Planning
JL:lk
cc: Council. Member Goldway ~
Rent Control--Attorneys !'
Psomas Associates, Attn: Carlene Vandervort ~ -
I
i
l~
f ` ~ ..h
,' CITY PLAAINING DEPARTMENT.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
~I E id O R A N D U M ,
~ATEc September 15, 1980
~:_-_ _ The. Honorable Planning Com~-nission
??p,~: T're Director of Planning
S~JEC^: Request for Extension, Tentative Tract No. 33579,
Neer 42-Unit Condominiu~-a, 1034-48 Fourth St.,.R4,
H_ Toibb -
?::_s is an application for an extension of a Tentative Tract
:Ian °or a proposed 42-unit project at 1034-48 Fourth Street.
Te property presently is developed with dwelling units and
a ~eot?al Permit application is pending before the Rent
CWrtral Board. '.
?~CO`_"~"`:~A^IO`:. Inasmuch as the applicant is pursuing Rent
Co-~rol and Coastal perr:.its it is respectfully recommended
twat the ^enta~ive .4ap be extended for a period of'one year on
condition that the project meet all new requirements and ~•rith
t^e ~~_^.derstandirg t'rat ,no further extensions are possible.
• Pespectfully submitted,
.~ ~~~
es Lunsr~l
irector of Planninq
.,11
e
t ~ ."
Planning Commission Minutes -5- September 15, 1980
G. Demolition Procedures AR3 Approval for Commercial Structures
The staff report noted that the Main Street Planning Group had presented a
proposal that demolition of commercial buildings be withheld until Architectural
Review Board approval of a replacement had been obtained and that staff had pre-
pared an analysis of the proposal. Commissioner Sullivan moved to diregt staff
to complete a comprehensive study of commercial demolitions in Santa Monica during
the years of 1979 and 1980 and report back with a more complete picture of the
type of structure removed, businesses lost and length of time parcels remain vacant,
together with a description of the problems involved. .Seconded by Chairman Katz,
the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
8. NcW BUSINESS:
A. Request for Modification, Tentative.Tract No. 37912
The staff report concerned a request for modification of a requirement that
solar water heater systems be installed as a condition in the reapproval of a
new seven-unit condominium at 601 Pacific Street by the Corliss Development Cor-
pora*_ion. Joe Palazzolo was present to represent the developer. Commissioner
Kleffel moved that the request be denied and the condition left in effect. Seconded
by Commissioner. Kennedy, the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
B. Request for Extension, Tentative Tract No. 33579
The staff report noted that the application for extension concerned a pro- ~
' posed 42-unit condominium at 1034-1038 Fourth Street which had a7 ready received ~
one extension and which was being considered by the Rent Control Board. for a !'-
removal permit. A representative for Mr. and Mrs. Toibb was preseni. Cgmonis- ~y
sinner Sullivan moved, seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, to grant the extension~~
for a period of one year subject to all original as well as new conditions
and with the understanding that. no further extensions are possible. The motion
~~~ carried unanimously.
`,
'~, C. Request for Extension, Tentative Tract No. 36261
The staff report stated that a request for a second extension had been received
from the developer, Sui-An Fung ~~~ho was out of the country currently. A motion
was made by Commission Sullivan and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy to grani a
six-month extension for the project on condition that construction commence within
the six-month period and that the building comply with all new requirements for
solar water heating, kitchen lighting and bathroom windows as well as the original
conditions. The motion carried una m mously.
D. Request for Extension, Tentative Tract No. 38214
The staff report concerned a request for extension fora new six-unit condo-
minium project. at 847 Seventeenth Street by S. Daghighian and A. Aghai of Fard,
Inc. The project had just received Final Map approval by~the City Council. An
extension was granted for a period of ninety days to permit recordation of the
Final Map on a motion by Commissioher Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner Kleffei.
The vote was unanimous.
E. Request for Extension, Tentative Tract No. 36656
The staff report indicated that a request for extension had been received from
Paul Williams concerning a ne~r~ 6-unit condominium at 910 Idaho Avenue. The request.
was granted fora period of ninety days on a motion by Commissioner Kennedy and
seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. The vote was unanimous.
F. Request for Extension Tentative Tract No. 37993
The staff report stated that Michael Fattah had requested an extension for a
new five-unit condominium at 1508 Harvard Street. The request was granted for a
period of sixty days on condition That solar hot water heating and pipe insuiatien
be provided in addition to the original conditions on a motion by Commissioner
Sullivan, seconded'by Commissioner Kennedy. The motion carried unanimously.
HER9ERT D. STURMAN
HARVEY FIERSTEIN
MARK I. ROS ENBERG
B. J. ADELSON
MICHAEL BLUM EN FELD
EDWARD C. BROFFMAN
STEVEN H. GENTRY
PAUL A. PEN SIG
ROBERT STEVEN MANN
MARK J. LIN DER
hI~~3STFI~T & ST~LI'IA~
LAW CORPORATION
SUITE ISOO
IBBB CENTURY PARK EAST
LOS ANGELES~CA LIFORNIA 9006
TELEPHONE (213 553-5500
October 22, 1980
-~~ 7.D
0 CT 2 8 9980
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
FILE NO
~:"D
Santa Monica City Council ~ ~
City Council Office a.. n.-
..a o
~.,a
Santa Monica City Hall c~P Y
LL~~
Santa Monica, California 90401 :,t
~„ C,e -„,aw,aas
~rr~~
,,. W „
i•r7"~ws~
Re: Hearing Date: October 28, 1980 .-; ~o ~,x.,y+~
"
~
Tentative Tract No. 33579 r= "
4
fey
Property: 1034-1050 4th Street
Santa Monica, California
Dear IIOnorable Council Member:
This office represents Mr. Harris Toibb and Dorchester
Development Company, of which Messrs. Toibb and Michael
Lillie are principals.. This letter is respectfully
submitted in support of the Planning Commission's one-
year extension of the above-referenced Tract Map on
September 15, 1980, and in opposition to the purported
appeal thereof of Councilperson Goldway.
Our clients have several reasons and justifications for
the necessity of an extension of time for their project.
The most compelling: our clients were from June, 1978
until December, 1979 .(eighteen months) in litigation
placing in issue Mr. Toibb's right, title and interest to
the subject 4th Street property, and under Court restraining
orders pending the litigation restricting him from proceeding
with the project. Additionally, our clients applications
before the Santa Monica Rent Control Board have been pending
since March, 1980, and remain unresolved. As a result of
the delays before the Rent Control Board, our clients have
been unable to proceed with the Coastal Commission.
We respectfully submit the "appeal" should be denied for
each of the following reasons:
1. At the September 15, 1980, Planning Commission
meeting, the vote in favor of the Tract Map
extension was unanimous;
ro
/~~
®CT' 2 8 1980
PIEI~STEIl~ & ST(Ji~1~~'I'LA~'
LAW CORPORATION
Santa Monica City Council
October 22, 1980
page two
2. We understand the staff report from the Planning
Commission recommends that the appeal be denied;
3. Although Councilperson Goldway had notice of the
Planning Commission meeting, and an opportunity
to attend and be heard, no protest or objection
was presented at the meeting.. Our clients
should not be subjected to two hearings on the
same subject;
4. The "appeal" is .defective, since no written
complaint of the decision was submitted, and
since it is untimely, as contemplated and
required by Government Code §66452.5(d);
5. Our clients have been denied procedural due
process in the absence of a written complaint,
since we are unaware of:
a. The grounds for tY)e appeal;
b. The facts upon wh°ich Councilperson
Goldway bases herfiprotest;
c. Whether the prote t is based on any
new facts, and if~so, the reasons
why such facts we e not previously
brought to the atention of either
our clients or th Planning Commission;
d. The reasons why C
failed to appear
Commission meetin
given our clients
address and refut
uncilperson Goldway
t the Planning
which would have.
an opportunity to
any contentians.
6. Our clients .acted dili
and good cause exists
view of the following:
a. June, 1978 - lit
the Las Angeles
among other thin
and interest in
property (the LA
tly under the circumstances,
the. subject extension, in
ation was commenced in
perior Court, involving,
Mr. Toibb's right, title
e subject 4th Street
UTT) ;
F1EI3STEIN & STiTi~1®'iA~
LAW CORPORATION
Santa Monica City Council
October 22, 1980
page three
b. August, 1978 - in the LAWSUIT, the Court
issued restraining orders which restrained
all parties from charging or incurring
obligations on the subject property, and
which in essence prohibited Mr. Toibb, and
his agents, from developing the subject
property, pending the litigation. Accord-
ingly, as a practical and legal matter, Mr.
Toibb was prohibited from pursuing the
Tract Map until the LAWSUIT was resolved;
c. September, 1979 - a first extension of the
Tract Map was obtained. At this ti e, the
LAWSUIT was not resolved, and Mr. T~ibb
continued to be unable to proceed w}Ith the
Tract Map, under the circumstances;)
d. December,. 1979 - the injunction remained in
effect, pending resolution of the LAiWSUIT.
On or about December 10, 1979, a ju gment
was entered in favor of Mr. Toibb, i!rn which
his right, title and interest to th subject
property was confirmed. Thus, this was the
first point in time where Mr. Toibb was able
to proceed with the project;
e. January, 1980 - acting .promptly after the
favorable termination of the LAWSUI~, Mr.
Toibb resumed the project. Marshall & Stevens,
appraisers and evaluation consultants, were
retained to assist in the Rent Control Board
and Coastal Commission proceedings. Marshall &
Stevens issued their initial report dated
January 30, 1980;
f. March, 1980 - Dorchester filed its Category 3
Removal Permit Application with the Santa Monica
Rent Control Board. At the time, the Board's
Rules and Regulations did not expressly prohibit
any '°off-site" replacement housing;
g. April, 1980 - the Rent Control Board issued
changes in Category 3 standards, affecting the
Dorchester Application. 'Phe revised,Regulatiens
I'~~~sr~l~ s STU~Ia'IAN
LAW CORPORATION
Santa Monica City Council October 22, 1980
', page four
were not known to our clients until the Rent
Control Board mailed them on June 23, 1980;
h. June, 1980 - after receiving the new Regula-
tions, and realizing that new or supplemental
Applications would need to be filed with the
Rent Control Board, and that it would not
come for hearing until after September, 1980,
project engineers Psomas & Associates were
requested to seek a further Tract Map
extension. On or about June 25, 19$0, the
extension request was submitted to Mr. Jim
Lunsford, Planning Director for the City of
Santa Monica;
i. July, 1980 - our clients filed supplemental
Applications with .the Rent Control Board,
under Category 2 (these applications are now
set for hearing on November 6, 1980y;
September, 1980 - the Planning Commission
unanimously votes for an extension of the
subject Tract Map.
From the foregoing, it is self-evident that our clients have
proceeded with the project as fast as they could, and have
been delayed by circumstances beyond their control. It is
respectfully submitted that our clients should not lose their
rights by virtue of the issuance of the Tentative Tract Map,
nor should they be penalized for the unfortunate litigation,
and the delays before the Rent Control Board, due in large
measure because of the new and developing nature of the Board
and its Rules. We hope this Honorable City Council will care-
fully note that within ore (l) month of the termination of the
litigation, our. clients took the steps necessary with Marshall
Stevens to obtain reports for the immediate filings before the
Rent Control Board.
Although the grounds of the purported appeal are unknown to
this office, we trust the foregoing will satisfy any concerns
of the Council members, and discloses the total inappropriateness
and unfairness to our clients of doing anything other than
affirming the one year Tract Map extension approved by your
Planning Commission.
I IEI~STEI1! C ~fUlil~'~~SIv
LAW CORPORATION
Santa Monica City Council
October 22, 1980
page five
We shall be appearing before your Honorable City Council at
the time of the hearing of this matter, and look forward to
answering any questions the Council may have.
Thank you .for your kind consideration of this matter.
MIR:sw
cc: Mayor John J.
Councilperson
Councilperson
Councilperson
Councilperson
Councilperson
Bambrick
Ruth Tannatta Goldway
William H. Jennings
Christine E. Reed
Cheryl Rhoken
Perry Scott
Respectfully submitted,