SR-10-27-1981-11J1 ~~
OCi 2 7 t98t
Santa Monica, California,. October 27, 1981
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal, Tentative Tract Map No. 42087, 19-Unit Commercial
Condominium Conversion, 2120 Wilshire Blvd,., C4, F. Noble..
Introduction
This report transmits an appeal from the Planning CommissionPs
failure to take action on an applioation for a Tentative Tract.
Map. Appeal is by Mayor Ruth Yannatta Goldway.
Background
Application for the Tentative Map in this case was filed prior
to the moratorium enacted April 22, 1981 and first appeared
before the Planning Commission on A9ay 4, 1981 at which. time the
Commission took no action an ito At the time of filing a
written waiver was obtained allowing the. Planning Commission
six months to act on the Map.
On October 5, 1981 the Map was again placed before the Conunission
because the six month period was running out and, if not acted
upon, the Map would be deemed approved under the State Map Act.
The Commission again took no action and on October 6, 7:981 the
matter was appealed by Mayor Goldwayo
Recommendation
Under the provisions of Ordinance 1220, the approval of a Tentative
Tract Map is prohibited and it is respectfully recommended i:hat
the application be denied.
Prepared by: James Lansford ~~~
JL:lk OC7 2 7 1981
0
DSr. James Lansford, Secretary
City Planning Commission
City of Santa Monica, California
Dear Pdr. Lansford:
®ctober 6, 1981
2n accordance c~rith the provisions of Section 9122C and 9148C
of Chapter 1, Article 2X of the Santa Monica Municiapl Code
and with the provisions of Section 66452.5(d~ of the State
Map Act, 2 appeal the Planning Commission"s October 5, 1981,
decision to table and thus take no action on the fo17.oF-wing:
Tentative Tract No. 41814, 5-unit new condominium,
1510 Princeton Street, R2, Ro Plurphy.
Tentative Parcel No. 14444, 4-unit condominium
conversion, 631 California Avenue, R3, M. Daley.
and its decision to take no action on:
Tentative Tract No. 42087, 19-unit condominium office
conversion, 2120 Wilshire Boulevard, C4, F. Noble.
~i ~ 7C.
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
M E M O R A t~ D U M
DATE: October 5, 1981
TO: Honorable Planning Commission
FROM:. Director of Planning
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract No~ 42087, 19-TJnit Commercial
Condominium Conversion, 2120 Wilshire Boulevard,
C4, F., Noble.
This is an application for conversion of a 19-unit office '
.building on which no action was taken at the May 4, 1981
meeting. As the applicant had executed a written waiver
allowing the Commission 180 days to act on the tentative
map it will be deemed approved on October 14, 1981 unless
acted upon before that dateW
Under Section 2(b} of the Interim Permit Procedures Ordinance
in effect October 1, 1981, a tentative tract or parcel map
for which application has been made cannot be approvede
RECOP'IMENDATION. It is respectfully recommended that Tentative
Tract Map No. 42087 be denied in accordance with the
requirements of Ordinance No. 1220„
Re ectfully submitted,
mes Luns o d
irector of Planning
JL:nh
Planning Commission Minutes
6. PUBLIC HEARIiJGS:
Plone.
7. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Tentative Parcel No. 14444
i
I_ 2-
October 5, 1981
The staff report stated that this application 'for a four-unit condominium con-
version at 531 California Avenue by Margaret Daley had been before the Commission
for tentative approval May 4, 1981 when the applicant executed a written araiver
allowing the Commission 180 days to act on khe tentative map. The Commissioners
consulted with the City Attorney Stark on alternative means to deal with the matter
under Interim Permit Procedures Ordinance No. 1220. Following discussion, attorney
for the applicant, Gordon Russell, addressed the Commission as did Mrs. Daley, both
responding to questions. Commissioner Choke stated she felt that the Commission
did not have adequate information on ne~v requirements: She moved to adjourn to a
study session with legal counsel and continue the matter to I~Jedsneday night when
they could act on the matter. Co~~urrissioner McKee seconded the motion and further
consideration anal discussion fol~lbwed. Commissioner Hotchkiss made a substitute
motion to ta61e the matter and Chairman Katz seconded it. Commissioner Shearer
offered to move the recommendation of the staff report but Commissioner Hotchkiss
noted that a motion to table is not debatable; adding he felt tabling t~ras a clearer
act than abstaining from voting. Thereafter the motion to table carried as follows:
AYEo Choke, Hotchkiss, McKee, Kleffel, Katz
PJAY: Shearer
ABSENT: Sullivan.
B. Tentative Tract Nb, 41814
Staff member Kenyon Webster read the staff report which concerned a new'five-
unit condominium at 1510 Princeton Street proposed by Robert Murphy and Bud Richard-
son. Mr. Richardson was present and responded to questibne, noting Mr. Murphy lived
in .the old single-family dNrehling the partners had owned from early 1979. The pro=
had been before the Commission for tentative approval May 4, 1981 and had been held
over on a 180 day waiver. It uvas noted that one of the partners lined an the pro-
perty in the old single_family home there, Following discussion, Commissioner
Hotchkiss moved to table the matter Seconded by Chairman Katz, the motion carried
by a vote identical to that immediately above.
C. Tentative Tract ido. 42087 ,
i4r. Webster's staff report noted an application for conversion of a nineteen
unit office building to condominiums at 2120 !=iilshire Boulevard presented by Frederid:
Noble before the Commission i+lay 4, 1981. A 180-.day waiver had been executed 6y the
applicant. .Chairman Katz and Commissioner tlcKee noted they had not been present at
that meeting, A motion was made by Commissioner Shearer and seconded by Commissioner
Cloke to deny the tentative map in accordance vaith requirements cf Ordinance 1220.
The vote was as follows, and did no receive a quorumo
AYEa. Choke, McKee, Shearer
ABSTAIN: Hotchkiss, Kleffel, Katz
ABSENTo Sullivan
Thereafter, Commissioner Hotchkiss moved that the Commission recommend that the
Council review this case an its of=dn mei^its. Seconded 6y Commissioner hlci<ee, the
motion carried as noted
AY F: P.1nkP~ Fiotrhkist. Mr.Kae~ Kleffel. Katz.
~'~ /-~-
_~/
~f-
LAW OFFICES OF
WILLIAM A. KERR
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2120 WILSHIRE BOVLEVARD
WILLIAM A.KERR FOURTH FLOOR
PETER A. VMOFF SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90403-5799
JOEY P. MOORE (213 453-5473
November 3, 1981
The honorable City Council
CITY OF SAIQTA MONICA
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 42087,
19-Unit Commercial Condominium
Cohversioh,'2120 Wilshire Boulevard,' C4
To The honorable City Council:
The Applicant under the above-referenced tentative
tract map number desires hereby to make and preserve a record
by lodging the following protests and/or objections in and to
the within matter:
1. Pursuant to the applicable terms of the Subdi-
vision I~Iap Act, .Government Code Section 6.6410, et seq., .and
the Consent to an Extension of Time to Act Upon Tentative Tract
Map, .the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Monica was
required to act on such rnap on or before October 14,.1981. At
its hearing, dated October 5, 1981, .the Planning Commission
refused and/or failed to act on such matter and in fact expressly
tabled such matter.. By reason of the provisions of Government
Code Section 66452.1, the within tentative tract map number
420"D7 must be and is deemed approved, .and the City Clerk of the
City of Santa Monica is hereby requested to approve such map;
2. The consent to an extension of time to act upon
tentative tract map was and is a routine waiver requested of all
applicants, and was not obtained by the City. solely for the
purpose of permitting concurrent processing of related approvals
or an environmental review of the subject project;
3. Ordinances numbers 1208 and 1220 breach and
violate the Consent to an Extension of Time to Act Upon Tenta-
tive Tract D4ap, entered into by and between the City of Santa
Monica and the Applicant on April 14, 1981;
The honorable City Council
CITY OF SAPdTA MONICA
November 3, 1981
Page 2
4. Ordinances numbers 1208 and 1220 violate Article 1,
Section 1, and Article 1, Section 19, of the .California Consti-
tution;
5. Ordinances numbers 1208 and 1220 are subject to
and in violation of the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code
Section 66410, et seq., as they relate to the conversion of
commercial building into a commercial condominium;
6. As there is no applicable general or specific plan
containing definite objectives and policies as to commercial
condominiums, Government Code Section 66427.2 exempts this
project from the application of Government Code Section 66473.5.
As the Subdivision Map Act is controlling in this regard, Section
2(b) of Ordinance No. 122Q as relied upon in the staff report, is
inapplicable and thus is not a justification for the failure of
the Planning Commission to act timely;
7. The n-~---__ Planning Commission violated Govern-
ment Code Section 66451.3 and the common law, in that they did
not give sufficient or. reasonable notice to the Applicant~of
the October 5, 1981 hearing;
8. The City Council violated Government Code Section
66451.3 and the common law in that they have not given sufficient
or reasonable notice to the Applican£ of the November 3, 1981
hearing;
9. The within appeal is not authorized by the Subdi-
vision Map Act or the Municipal Code of the City of Santa Monica
and thus, the appeal filed by Mayor Goldway must not be considered
as (1) only the developer may appeal under Punicipal Code Section
9314, or (2) the S4ayor is not an "aggrieved party", and thus entitled
to appeal.
The Applicant does not, by his appearance
waive any of the above objections or protestations,
the right to argue such to the appropriate tribunal.
Very truly yours,
tonight,
arld reserves
64ILLIAP4 A. KERR
i4AK : cd