Loading...
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,