SR-031081-5AAJAR 1 0 1981
Santa Monica, California, March 10, 1981
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
City Staff
SUBJECT: Ten.i:ative Tract No. 38475, Developer Agreements
Introduction
This report summarize; the requirements in regard to the proposed
condominium at 3005 Highland Avenue. The matter was previously
agendized as Item 6D on February 24, 1981.
Background
A tentative tract map for an 8-unit condominium was filed Septem-
ber 5, 1979 and scheduled for public hearing by the Planning Com-
mission on October 15, 1979. The proposed plan called for one
portion of the building to be 6' from the rear property line
rather than 15' as required. On October 2, 1981 the applicant
wrote to the owners of-the adjoining properties explaining the
requested variance. On October 15, 1981, following written and
verbal objections to the plan, the Planning Commission continued
the matter for three weeks to clarify the demolition permits and
allow the applicant to meet with the neighbors to see if an
accord on the design could be reached.
On November 5, 1979 the matter was brought before the Commission
again, the status of the demolition permits explained, a 10-point
agreement between the developer and neighbors presented and
revised plans submitted indicating changes in the rear unit to
meet the agreement presented. The agreement was read to the
pt9AR 1 0 9989
Commission by Mr. Tobias and the neighbors present affirmed their
consent following which the project was approved.
Agreement
The ten points of the agreement include:
1. Redesign of the rear unit with a 9' setback for the
second floor.
2. The developer to follow State Coastal Commission guidelines.
3. Adequate shrubbery and trees for noise abatement, privacy
and visual enhancement.
4. A 6' locked fence around the pool.
5. Repair of any damage to adjacent properties.
' 6. No working after 5:00 p.m.
7. Relocation of power lines if necessary.
8. Construction of a 6' fence around the property consistent
with community character.
9. A temporary, construction fence for safety.
10. No removal, damage or impairment of the Eucalyptus tree
and preservation of the Century plant; the Eucalyptus tree's
health to take precedence over construction of a swimming pool.
A complete copy of the agreement is attached together with original
ahd revised plans for the rear uhit; copies of Mr. Tobias' October 2
letter regarding the rear yard variance and Planning Commission
minutes .......-
Agreement Binding.,
In approving.. the tentative map
sio~ relied upon the agreement
neighbors as evidence.. that the
satisfactorily resolved. The
and condominium permit, the Commis-
submitted by the developer and
concexns of the neighbors had been
commission's acceptance of the terms
Mayor and City Council -3- March 10, 1981
are thus part of its conditional approval and enforcible against
the developer and any subsequent owner.
Developer Compliance
While most of-the agreement items are not applicable until the
start of construction, Nos. 1 and 3, the redesign of the rear.
unit and a coastal demolition permit have already been complied
with. Insofar as No. 10--protection of the tree and Century plant--
is concerned, inspection indicates that the Eucalyptus tree is
actually 3 trees, none of which are on the applicant's property
and no Century plant can be located.
Prepared by: James Lunsford
JL:lk
Attachments
,:,
Flanning Cvmmas$ton M1r1i1teS ~ '~- - Govember 5; 1379
to all staff recommendations and staff verification of the height limitation anct
'requested Architectural Review Board attention to the stark elevations, particularly
the southern side, and to the landscaping. Seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the
motif,-- arried unanimously.
B. entative Tract tdo. 38475
Ttt s'Eaff report noted that a new eight-unit condominium at 3003-3007 Highland
Avenue presented by Robert Tobias tiad been continued from the November 5, 1479
meeting to permit clarification concerning demolition permits and to resolve some
of the adjacent property owners' concerns about the project. Mr. Lunsford stated
that he had just received a communication from the Coastal Commission declaring
they a•+ould consider the demolition ofi the project and the new construction as one
application. Mr. Tobias read the ten conditions agreed to by the neighbors and
the neighbors present affirmed their consent. Commissioner Kleffe7 moved for
approval of the Tentative Ptap and Condominium Permit subject 'to ail staff a-ecommen-
dations. Seconded by Commissioner Kennedy, the motion carried unaimously.
C. Tentative Tract tlo. 38807
The staff report was read for a new~five-unii: condominium at 7.13? California Avenue
by James Cuda deferred from the October 15, 1979 meeting so that i:he deve"ioper and
adjacent property owners could reach agreement on a rear-Y~rt°d eruroactrnr•nt.. "iht°re
being no one present to attest to arr agreement, the matter was cc,l,t;nued:
D. Findinns E t•1 A.P., Inc. Appeal
fa~~°ma1 €ind~ings of the Zoning Administrator's det°rminat•ion ands°interpretation of
the Zoning Ordinance concerning a request by E.4J.N.P. > irlc. v+ere rt:viewed by tii4
Commissioners. Com.nissioner Hotchkiss moved for approval and ~•ras seconded by Com-
missioner Kennedy. The motion carried as follows:
AYE: }lotchkiss, Kennedy, Savage, Katz
ABSTAIN: Kleffel
ABSENT: Sullivan
8. tJEFJ 6USINESS: _
A. Request for Street Vacation
The staff report noted that Southern California Edison Company had requested vacation
of the stub end of Twenty-second Street just south of Olympic Boulevard to accommo-
date ne4•r construction. Tom Tvy spoke as company representative and noted that their
plans s'rould be revie+•red by 'the A:^ehitectural Revietr Boal°d C.omaiissioner Savage
moved that t'rle.Corm~ission recorrnend 'to 'the City Counc'i'l that. 'chr small portion of
7arenty-second Street be vacated, including a1i conditions recomrlf~nded ~1' the Genett,l
Services Department. Seconded by Commissioner Kleffe'I,-the Inotloli carried. unanimously
B. Restaurant farking> Proposed Revision -
The staff report conveyed the Council's request that tlae Commission-consider amend-
went of the parking requirer::znts for restaurants to require thc: same parY.iny
requirements for one space for every five .seats. in restaurants regardless of seating
.capacity.. Conuoissioner Htotctrkiss~,moved„thatrthten~or~t~i+h~o>¶l~~eraaPrlb+~~ time~n9The
a i a ~,.
e
~~"
• A.G R ~ F: t1 L 21 'S'
• .. ,; ~ 's ~ . .
A~reertent betsae~n: Fobert. ~. T"ob:ias, developer •o'~ the proapaxty ''
3ocaters at 3t}fl5. It~ghland .~,ve_, Santa ~3onica, and TTaighborhnnd
Enviorn:nental t~ction Team -Ocean dark ~tiTE7~'.C^•O~), a group of
cancer,^.ad naigttbaxs xesiding in the inunediate area around -the
property.
This agreement is baseda on the belied that deve~opars and resid~:nts
in Ocaan ~3rk have a cer;snor gaal to make Ocean par3; a place .
~~he.e people can shop, enjay xecrr~ation, and live in a can-
slucive a;.mosphere.
). seveiaper egress to redesign the near condominium
Frith a skylight ef~ect and. set bar,T: the 4ap tlooz.,
9 `, an zc=rlitxonal 3' ~rot7.a ~,:he e~tisting plans.
2. Dsveltiper agrees to ~ollaw State Coastal Ccn~rnission
Cuirlelit~as which include: '
.A. 3aesign :afaould be ari asset: to i:ha conununi-cy thaxacl.:~r '
Tt. rraatitnixm Szwight o~ 33 `
C, as part o~ your Coastal: p~:rmit tc bu~.ld, .inc?tai;~ tt ,
• "atequest for ~emolition'° pax-mit.
3. Develape.; agrees to pxovide adequate skirt='baery zracl •t~•ee:,
a3 a means i+~r noisy abatement, priv<-tcy, ane7 vi ual r~xt«
:~a:.aneetnent .
~. a~=+aeloxsnx agrees to put a 6' loc;ced fence axourtd f.~.c: pool
pe.;. cede, cgrasistant with the 3,ocal. Ia~r, for saf~a~;~.
5. Oevslopex ag~-~~ to xepa~x any c3amacle s'~ona to ac?jacan•v
properties, dt;e to constzueWi~xn, ire a .rea.srsnaksla l~atc~~Y;
o.f ~~i'ms.
5. 13eaelopez agrees that coststruction ~sail.l take place during
the hnuxsconfirming wic''°.it building regulatiorss, but nv
3:ater than 5;Ot~ p.tt. ,~.
7. Developer"agrees to pay ft~r the relacatian cf any po~~Ar 13nt~s
needed, die to constxtsctio:t.
3, Deve?oper agrees to pt~t a 6' (or higher on sides to xr}4~~rt.:
e~cisting fc.ncas} aroutxc~ ttx2 i,xopexUy. ~axace ehc,ulcl ray
co:asistara~ vrith the cor~nauza~.±y c:taract~:r, rind me2hbc7s
.ahould be estaolishsd to p~°avexat gretsfiLti (itr}.t:~bery
on the outs.~.rh" part pf ~l~a wa11 or murals}
~~,.r. ~ ~
~a ,o~ ~~~ I~ t.-' ~~~ ~~ ~
r
"~` ~ ~ ;~ "
~~ .. ~I z-•I~i~ Y ~ y, ~ p i
,. ~ I~_ ~ ~ -YAXDTOS -,~yr ~, ~ ~ P~ ~~~
i
~1 ~~ _ ___
-sL.___ ____ __-. s.____
..a.~ .,.i
. ____ -
.__. _
Eq[
E
Jam
t-
_ _ Sz H
' ~
_
Gs_•r• r,~~ -=
_ --- --
,
-_-.; _.
-
~~ --
-- --- --~ ~ce.__ .
`9vi
~~ ~ _
.. -_-._ u ' ._...
_
_
I
yV
:.l -' ~ ~
~'
~~
?1?
~~
~~
I
~t
i'
y ~~:
~,
2
P. ~ ~
~~P~
a
~f~
f sueu~s
,~ ~ -k~ - ~ry~
_ --~ 4t
~2; h: ~I
1---- .GCNI~SCA_~E_ !.~-~hID __
.:.• LlAQNP/!_NLNL' ~„7ydr+rOV NGIf,: i ~'~- I ~° nHJ.
1 LA/J05~7P%.ky PLAN :zNNrrc,~.c.~ ~er~~=e ; ~e :7
,,o,
. - - ZJt/fyl,C :zWES;/EN, ~ ~f$ .: ! XXT'(:~f~'J I S" 20
_ -_- ~ ___ ..' __ £ Y y~ 3 ~I
~p,~j )),, ' 3
it VV Ya' at ~-.
M1fJ. .ss'gY ~~~
:. ~ ~: F 3.'. {
___ -~_~ r-~ _~` ,~ 1
- ~~~ F~ z
.max ~ F ~-- -._ Z . ~'~
~-' `'.°~-- -- `~, ~~ 0.f ~~~ I
:. _ _~
_ __ _ ~-~ L
-~
. ~;+---~
__ ____ ..r:. -
- .tF .:
~'
-~--------------- -- ---------- ~„"~ A -
.~~ E ,~ ~.
:~ :~ ~ 3 , ~
a.
_ a ~?~,_
~ .. ~ .-, r~-+~~~- P _ _ -`v ~ F. I/N fT.~II'~/ $ `~Ags~SJ ~D~~("t`~Y'
!+L _
# --, - ~ - "~ -{ ~-ifs? t
l ~ c
~ 4[
- --- -- _ ---- ----- ,~ ~ ~rP~
GQ/p~ oe
i tt y ~ n
_---- -.L-~ ---~ i _
_ ___ ~ _ ~ J~ __ __ _ y,
~~
QQQI _ Y -.yl, ~ -*--lt ^~ Yu%w'` Ff / ~ 'Y/ ~-L ,~ Z U
~n
_ r p~
~ ` f 4f
~'---~--~- ~~ z y V~~ --~ ~ - ~% iR
-. f q4.
~ ~~
__ ___ __ ,. 79
_ _ _ J t !I
p tk
~~ r~
~ ~) ~, ..s /°yr..i~CL~f ~ .fir-%C7vNU nC l
-_~ k 1
_ "__' S 12..fo r 1~ _
.. -. ~ LtY i F NG /. !;tJ! - _~Y~ F _° Y. Cb~i,.jv°+`-}tr
r ~ G!1/fDS~P~i~l~ PGQ>~ - •;i. i~ n-.zcL :.r°, f -C z/ ~ ; 7 i
: V` ~
. - Z' ^N/ _a.izCS <N -...:d~3 G- z "' .S 2.~
~ ~ ~r:4 ACA ~ d'ef 'H. ~ .E,'i ~ jQ On rvR;
~.x . n. A l.. • ~+^i .«i E .. r ~~ i ^la:} :Gf AYiG t ~ 7 .
,~.
3
s t ~ l
AI ,C 1
~~
i'cle
~.
f .;,
1
~/F r2
~~
G~
~ ~
' B ~( ;s
(. T9 111 f
s
I ~ ~ LLLt 11_z i~~~`'~ ~ ~~j~ ~. t ~a3t .€~
S)Qh1 .. ~ r I If . a I~.! I - Fg ~ s~i.
i ~ '~_ ~ ~ i r >' faT
~ ~ ! _ -- 4 t ~i ~ _ 1 8 - T n
sl ~ ~~': i yyy
i ~ { ~ _ _~
i .. h
~~~ is X1~ f~~ ~ % ' '~ _
~ ~
hs.~i~~ I ~ 1 iQ, ~ - ~~ ~.
_ ,I. S a ~ ~ ~ ~n
5~.
FL00~2 Pi.i=+~l ~ g ~ ~ _'
~-; LC~K'rvi Jar a'~y ~~ :. ~~
-1 A
7 ~-- ~
?I~I L~ ~~ _~ a
n
i .. w ~lJ t I... ~ 1 rte. O
t
~~l ~ / ~~ r~ ~ ; ~ I -
~ t I~j~.J 1 ~ I / •. 1 ~~~ ~f i _ n.
/ L.% / i ~p
,/ ___i , ' to
/ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ca
•r ii ~ iVl~.a
~" ~ .17x77 r'; _`-! ~ ,a .
, ~ z C''T~+ w7.
~F:TIU a ~ !' <!
i I~ ~ _ ~I
- ~~, _~
.,
• ~ „~
.... _ _,
~~oo~ ~i_,:ti ~~ ,,~ q ~ o ~
:-- = ~ ~~
_ ~ 4 K G
~v ~ 1
!: ~ 7
! ~ ~z z
I E~ ~ ao -~ +wa
~npl- f -
7~ V ^Y ii 1 pgpgi~ ~~<~
f I :
~~ ~ ~ 1{I_ ~f ~ jY ~ i ~ ~ 7z
i
i
t.,`
i
Robert J. Tobias
4307 Hayvenhurst Avenue
Bnci.no, CA. 9143&
November 1, 1979
< D4r. James Lunsford
City of Santa. Monica
Planning and zoning Department
1685 Main Street,
Santa Monica, CA.
Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 38475,
New Eight Bnit Condominium
(3003-3007 Highland Avenue
Santa Monica, CA.)
T3earinq Date: November 5, 1979
7:30 P.M.
t
Dear b1i:. LunsEor.ct;
Wi.Lh refes:ence to the above-entitled matter,
and more particularly to the Planning Co~rttriission's
direc~i.ve that the developer meet with members of the
neighborhood and the community to discuss matters of
mutual concern, please be advised that same has
successfully been accomplished.
Specifically, and pursuant to your Summary
and Recommendation No. 4 to the Coimnission, dated
October 15, 1979, please be advised that the property
owners :directly affected by the developer°s proposed
rear yard adjustment {Carolyn L. Atkinson and David
M. Sherr of 3008 and 3014 Goldsmith Street, Santa
Monica, respectively) have consented to the rear yard
adjustment as originally .proposed with a modification
of the design of the upper floor of the subject unit
affecting .said property owners. Said design is incor-
porated`in-additional plans-which are being submitted
herewith (please find nine copies .enclosed).
1t is expected that Mr. Sherr and Ms. Atkinson,
or their representatives, shall appear at the hearing
on iovember 5, 1979 to express their consent as repre-
sented.
l
s ~.."' •'-~~.. ~-•-• -J ~, v.~.... a....s,v„~, •.~,~~~,.vJ, a.]!V Illy l,lvli VU! 1 IlV
as folio~•ts:
AYE: Hotchkiss :ennedy, Savage, Sullivan, Katz
tiAY: Kleffel
ASSEt~lT: t~?alcnira
6. PUBLIC HEARItiGS: Subdivisions, '~ ~ l 1
A. Tentative 'iraet P;o, 3880/ -° `
The'staff report concerned a new five-unit project at-1132 California Avenue
by James Cuda who was present to speak :for~the condominium. •
Chairman Katr_ noted a letter in opposition received from John and Aldona Venckus,e
P•ir. Venckus, 603 Fourteenth Street, r•:as present and spoke against the variances.
Mr. A. t~arkevicius, 755 Twenty-first Street, also spoke against the variances.
At the hearing's close, Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to continue the item with the
request that the developer endeavor to overcome the neighbors` objections and come
back with an im roved ro'e
p p Jct. Seconded b Commissioner Sullivan the
Y , motion
carried unanimously..
S,: Tentative Tract tdo. 3II410
• The staff report Far this new six-unit condominium at 1519 Stanford Street
noted that it was praposect by Irv Kir:•chenbaum. Representatives Nick Provenzo of -
Cooke Engineering and Louis Katzman, project architect, responded to questions.
At the hearing's close Commissioner Sullivan moved for approval of the Tentative
tdap and Condorninium Permit subject to all staff recommendations, Seconded by Com-
missioner Kieffei, the motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Hotchkiss urging
reducing storage area in the basement in order'to- plant mo~~e trees.. .
C. Tentative Tract too. 37380
The•new seven-unit:condominiuri project at 501 Marine Street has been withdrawn
by tfle developer, Gene Cunningham, prior to the. meetiny;~ Ile. Lavont, 663 t`tarine
Street; hail requested 'co.speak cin the project. She asked to be notified when the
item returned to the ayenda although she did not reside vrithin the immediate neigh-
borhoad receiving notification,
Q`' Tentative 1"Tact tvo. 38475
. e staff report concerned a new eight-unit condominium project at 3003-3007
Highland Avenue proposed by Robert Tobias. Nir. Lunsford advised the Commission-
- that, subsequent o preparing the staff report, he had received information which
arauid require the fil-ing orith the Planning Department of exemptions from:ihe Coastal
Commission and ,Rent Con-trot Board. Sherman L Stacey, attorney, represented the
ovaner and referred to a letter Mr. Tobias had .presented to neighbors of his intent -
to build: A slide display of the project was shown aaith interpretation b}~ the arcf~i- -'
tect, Ron Goldman. ter, Tobias also spoke for his project.
During the heariny-the following people spoke-in opposition,
David tri. Sherr, 3014.Goldsmith.Street,..submitted a-fi-fty=rive~narrie`petition<
Carolyn Atkinson, 3008 Goldsmith Street. .
-Ile Lavont, 663 tlarine Street,
~~'' E. S., Cohen, 3001 highland Avenue,
~~ Ken Fogitt, 633 Pier A~renue.
~~ At the hearing's close ,the applicant agreed to meet with the neighbors to reach a
mutually satisfactory`arrangement so that the item could be continued at a future .
meetin9~
~~ ~:
L#~PtNI~G C'~t~~~ss7 --
~ t'~Plfvur~s G~:T f;r ~i ,
LAW OFFICES
HADDAD AND TOBIAS
ROBERT J. TOBIAS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JACK HAD DA D, INC.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
RICHARD L OUINT
BARRY E. TOBIAS
HERBERT C. RU EINSTEIN
OF COUNSEL
JOHN F. DUNNE, JR.
ROBERT A. GASTON
---~- -.
~~ ,
SVKE 400
100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARO ~~
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA LJ0401 -.
Y2I3) 451-849 - (2131 451-4H51 P
OctobPx 15, 1979
James Lansford, bisector
Santa i~'flnica Plannfng y~partzttent
City of Santa Nbnica
1685 Main Street
Santa Nbnica, California 90401
Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 38475, New 8-Unit
Condaminitun, 3003-3007 Highland Avenue,
Santa NfJnlca, California.
Hearing Date: C~tober 15; 1979
Dear Mr. Ltmsford:
As developer of the subject property, I have carefully read and reviewer .
your recor~randation for approval., with condit%ons, of the proposed projer_t,
and I wish to thank. you personally for your consideration and evaluation of
the developmznt. This letter is specifically directed to Paragraph 4 of your
summary and recorat>endation, that being that written consent tQ the proposed
rear yard adjustment be obtained from the adjacent property owner affected
or some alternative design which does not encroach to the extent requested
be resubmitted for Commission evaluation.
Prior to this date, I have personally met with the owners of four of the
properties which. are rost directly affected by the requested adjustments
herein; these being Carolyn L: Atkinson, 3008 Goldsmith Street, Santa
bbni.ca, David M. Sheer, 30'14 Goldsmith Street, Santa M~niea, Gordon A,. Withrow,
3018 Goldsmith Street, Santa P1onica and Prebin and lsttie Arntz, 3017 Highland
Avenue, Santa I~.~uca. The Arntz property is imrediately adjacent to and south
of the. subject property, and is therefore affected only by the south side yard
modification. The Withrow properly is affected only to the extent that its
nor'Lh west corner touches the south east corner of the subject property. Ttie
Atkinson and Sheer properties are those most affected by the request for real
:.:yard adjustment, Mr. Sheer being accurately descrii~d by you as the property
caner mist affected by this request.
Ica addition to meeting with the above four. property owners, I have provided.,
Ms. Atkinson, Mr; Sheer and. MC; ~ and NTc-s. Arntz w3:th arc explanation of, fhe
proposed project and its affect an their rise and enjoyn>~nt-of their res}pctivz
properties, this by means of a letter to them dated either Cctol~r 2nd or 4,-
'1979; attaching thereto copies af. all docuaents fi'e_i a7.ong with; i:he Ppplica-
tion for tiar:i.ance. ~iditionally; the properties ~Imx:,;iately bounding the
northerly portion of the subject pro~rty owned, respectively, by Edgar S.
.Cohen, 3001 Highland-Avenue, Santa Nxmica, and Pt1am A. Ausing, b30 Pier
LAW OFFIC HS
HADDAD AND TOBIAS
James Lansford, Director
Santa Nbnica Planning Department
(~toL~r 15, 1979
Page ~
Avenue, Santa Iv~nica, have, been provided, with similar letters-and attachr,~nts,
copi;~s of which. are. provided her'e^oith., I have attempted without avail to r.~et
with_Nlessers. Ansing and Cohen, their properties being directly affected only
by the.>~'equest for t~dification.of the north side. yard..
MY purpose. in meting and communicating with the adjoining land, owners was to
explain, to them for their edification and understanding the. nature and: purpose..
of the proposed project development. T have 3~en;and continue to be concerned
with the use: and enjoYme11t of their respeet%ve properties vis-a:vs their
relationship to tho:proposed development, I believe that. this S-unit
condominiwn.pmject will, indeed; becom an asset to the whole community and
particularly to the in¢~date neigh~oring properties-and the proposed adjust-
meet to the rear yard would, not }~.de:t~imsntal to the-neighkx~nc~tid in.~~~hich
the. property is, located.
I. would respectfully request, that, you, as Director of the Planning Departt;ent,
present the following facts for further consider?tion to the Planning and
Zoning Cot¢russion: this- evening concerning the; requested encroacYm~nt upon the
required f~fteen'foor rear yard. adjusiz*~nt. For your edification, I art.en--
closing acopy of the: site and landscaping plan foz the project, having
therecn indicated. the location. of alI of the affected. properties,
Initially, it, must be noted that.a substantial interior court yard, of 74~
square. feet is provided, as pointed" out by you in your recon~ndation. In
fact, the building coverage is k.:a'~ 46°s. of the entire lot area, or 23 113°s
less than is required by the San:,.Nbnica Municipal Code. The rear of Ms.
Atkinson.'s pro~rty corers within, 15 feet. of the conPtx7n Property line, Mr.
Sherr's property is 20 feet"from said property line.. Mr. Shen would appear
to be the one most directly affected by the request. for rear yard adjustz~nt,
although, I: am. concerned, with both property-owners' uSe.and enjoymait of their
res~cective.propertes, equally,
The rear yard.adjustm?nt involves but a 17 foot wide. portion, of the"structure
to come.wi:thin 6 feet of the rear property line in lieu, of the, 15 foot: re:~iLfre-
?~nt• r'Is. Atkinson.'s property would be }~nefted'bv its openness to the north-
and north.west of said property. ivir. Sherr's property would be Jrnefited by
the openness directly to the west. along the. south side yard adjacent, to the
Arntz' side. yard..
It must be noted tha9; the. unit of the proposed. project. which i:s tIk-~. subjcet
.matter of the.sequest for rear' yard adjustment is not simply what one would
consider to be the: back of tha property. In fact, the-front-door af'sad
unit is entirely open. to the back yard., the proposed project being a7rx~st
entirely syrcr~trical wherein one could consider said deuelopmeht as having
no true.'"front" or °'back"., Tn:fact, the entire. property could be 'reversed
..and remain aesthetically and otherwise strong and beneficial to the neigli~r-
hood.
- . _.
LAW OFFICES
HADDAD AND TOBIAS
t
p
Y
,,~
James tiuvsford, Director `i
Santa Nbnica Planning I~partacpnt
C~tober 15, 1979-
. Page 7hsee
The promised project was cmnceived in the manner as presented in the.appli-
cation due, in part, to the surrounding development, zrost of which is in
co!~liance with local and state rules and regulations, sow of which is not.
Crz cannot technically legislate good design, and the su'o jet Sections 9144
and 9145 of the Sang N~nica Municipal Code, concerning ad jcLSt~nts and
variances, ?acre designed to give flexibility necessary to the proper enjoy-
. meet of onus property rights so long as there be na unreasonable detriment
to the neighborhood in which the property is located..
Ixi my discussion had recently ~,rith: Ms. ,Atkinson and N~ssers. Sheer anti:
Withrow, the following compromise was proposed. That I, as developer of
the. property, would irk carefully ~,rith property owners Atkinson. and Sheer
in. a. program to attractively landscape their rear yards, including therein
the inq*.~diate planting of three 75 gallon trees or plants on each of their..
properties forthwith.. If said trees are planted at the present tis~, at
such t%~ as the project were to be completed in, say, 15 sronths, said ties
or plants would be of such maturity so that they would.Ip not only. an_asset
-
to the Atkinson
and. Sheer properties, providing much enjoyrtent to their use '
of same® but would benefit. the suiaject.proper~ty thereby. Although i<7s.
Atkinson and Mr. Sheri seem am~anable to the proposal, they, understandably `
not having had suffici:ent.tiz~ to fully digest the. proposal, ,have, yet, to
commit themselves to such a proposal. I stand with such proposed compromise
open. to them. and would. strongly urge and recommend that you make such a
proposal, ui_ front of .the C,ommiss%on this evening.
z have urged and expect all of the adjacent. property owners to be present.
at the.h>.arincl this eyenic< and, each of them: has indicated that they would
atte:rpt. to be present.
In conclusion,, it is respectfully requested that you recommend to the'Platininc;
C,onmission approval of the project, as heretofore proposed as to items 1, 2
ana. 3, and with respect to item 4::, that the: alternative design consist of _ -
such landscaping as it. necessary to provide Ms. Atkinson and Mr. Sheer with
the greatest b`nefits of .the .proposed design. as su~nitted. Finally, if it-
- be de~..trerl necessary, a reco~nu'atzon of approval by the architectural review
board of, such a landscaping design is urged. Tais latter proposal, could be.
accamplished croncurrently'with the submission to the architectural; review
board of the required landscaping plans wni.ch are in the process of being
prepared .and completed at the. present time.
thank you, kindly for your cansit
RJT av
Ihclosures
T, _ _ . _ _ ____ _ __ _________ __
~:_,
_ - ~: -
LAW OFFICES. -
HADDAD AND TOBIAS
. SUIT£ A00
~ ROBERT"J. TOBIAS IOO WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ~'
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I
JACK HADDAD, rNC. SANTA MONICA: CALIFORNIA ~J040t ~f
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12131 aHI-aHa9 - 2131 45naH51
RICHARD L OUINT
BARRYE. TOBIAS
HERBERT C_RUBINSTEIN OCtObeY 2, 1979
OF COUNSEL
JOHN F. pVNNE, JR. -
ROBERT A. GABTON
Mr. Ikavrd N. Shen
3014 C~ldsmith Street.
Santa b~nica, California 90405
Isar Mr. Sherry
Please lZ advised that the. undersigned is presently a purchaser and agent
of Lupe Isabel Nieto, the owner of a nova vacant. parcel of land situated
imrediately to the P7est of your property. The Nieto property is comronly
::known as 3003, 3005 and 3007 Highland Avenue., Santa.NSoni.ca., California.,
Please 1~ further advised that. an Application for Variance and Request for an
P3justment has been filed in conjunetioxt with an Application for Permit to
Construct eight condominiums on said. lot. With respaa to the ReciL~est for
Pdjustment, it appears that. you are an owner of an adjacent property which
is effected by the ?ear yard set--hacY. ~isia requested 'to be iidjUSted,
Therefore, for yoar review, evaluaticm and. consideration; I am enclosing
the Application for. Variance dated S=ptember 25, 1979 with its attached
Exhibits "A", "B", "C" and "p", along with. the Request for ark Adjustment
explaining the particulars of this matter,
As you Grill note on Exhibit."A", the si.'te plan, there are two darkened areas
in the right upper portion, of the. plan, each, of said darkened areas being
designated with diagnoal lines, There,is also an i:ndication.of the required
15 foot set-back from the pzo~rty line, which is also the co~pn property
line with your property: It is only with respect to these adjustmP.nts con-
cerning said set-backs that this letter is being directed.
R'ne practical. explanation for the. Request for Ptljustment is that we are pro-
jetting the property Iine for the larger darkened area to coire_wi:thn six
feet of the rear lot line, and the. smaller darkened portion to cow within
twelve feet of the. rear lot line,: Fifteen feet is presently required.
~.
Pdditzonally, of course, your property is no less than fifteen, feet .East
of said property lipe, and. therefore,. in, no event., shall any of these gro-
jections cam to within twenty-one. feet of :your property.
Therefore, I would appreciate your review of the enc]-used, and if t.~iS agreeable
with you that the.adjustrl~nt. requested be~gr~rzfed, please date. and sicpx the
n LAW OFFICES ~_. .: _ ",. - _ ____ .. - - .,!
• F~ADDAD AND TOBIAS
Mr. David M. Sherr
C~tober 2, 1979 ~ _~
.~
Page `hiXJ - ~ ~ -. ;~. '~
enclosed acknowledgement where indicated and return to the undersigned no later
than C~tober 5, 1979. If you have problems or questions, T would appreciate
your calling nQ im!~diately to discuss them, for concern is voiced for your. '
interests and continued comfort and enjoyment of your property.
4Yk-ink you for your kind courtesy, cooperation 'ate attention. -
f~
Y
;` ,fBERT J. TOBIA5 _
RJT av
Eaiclosures
~;
_.
ii 3
qq . 5 ~ ~ 1
» i 1 u'c~cJ`m ,} a .C 7 F~sA y~-__.. ~JNN F~'A
• ~ 3 4t. [.'.n rS (~' ~~ C,.a'Uh")..t~ I L ~'M,'Fh Q7;#1/vllQ/
~ .~.~ ~..t~ .. • L+1 ~,sb• KS'JS~FC/Irt*/G?k!d
~ s ~r / `U`Y P~xbJa(d 1 E~i[Gd~''9Ya lfi!~o1lZ g/ ~~~®~~~
a di ~ e Y
~. ~~ ~ ~ ' s
7,~, ~ ~,~ O.7+ Qi3 a~rx
...
~rL1~- x,~.ktxrs as'.~rvcrr/+NS a"f1~7 N p"JSON~7 a ~ e
r.x - a rt t:,rn :~w tea. /~:vnse~
~>.°
~•' ~ _ .:
Y °... ~ ~ l
.. ..°
.__' .. ..
,.:•. -- -
~ _ ~,.,
o ~,.' ~®
~~~~ _ ~,
~~ `a-
'yc - _ ~ -
.t, _ _
+: - _--- _
NTIK ?~ v-_. -- _ '7.w .` - _ .: S i iQHH03
./• 1 •I i
' ~~ - .-
~~ ~ .;'
~® ,. . / , I
•% ~ ;~~
_ - e
•~, li
_ _ _- _
a. ~~.?- •N•. a ^. ..
__.._~ _ ~r~zsn~r
~zzx~xs , uosNZxs~z ~; .. - .° ..
LxiTNi - -• -^'-.. -°•-- -°-- + c..._- wog arr , d '
~4
~ - -~ }
RE~fYED
OF~iGE° ?3~ i'NE
MAR ~ 1130 ~!~'F
Sf1Fbry ~ 1' 4.-`i. 4~L~~.
SHERMAN L. STACEY
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
133 OCEAN AVENUE
SAi ITA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401
March 5, 1981
Ms. Ann Shore
City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
RE: Tract No. 38475
Dear Ms. Shore:
AREA CODE 213
394-1163
I have received your letter dated March 2, 1981
concerning a new .hearing set for the final map on Tract No.
38475. My letter to you dated February 25, 1981 requested
your execution of the map as required by law. I did not
request a new hearing before.. the City Council. The City
Council had an opportunity to take action at its last meeting
and did not.. Government Code X66458 is very clear as to what
results from such action.
Mr. Tobias and I will attend the City Council hearing
on March 10, 1981. However, the Council has no jurisdiction
to take any action other than the approval of the map.
Very truly yours,
~~ ~~~
SHERMAN L. STACER_
SLS:mal
cc: Shane Stark, Esq.
Robert Tobias
~F.,.~ '9 'v'Et
~~~~~€„w~a SHERMAN L. STACEY
5~ [ A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
~~` ~~ '9 ~{~ ~' ~~I 133] OCEAN AVENUE
YN V V% AREA CODE 213
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401 asa-Ilea
$a~~~ ~~ ;l`:~< c:,~t.=F° February 25, 1981
Ms. Ann Shore
City Clerk
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90401
Re: Tract No. 38475
Dear Ms. Shore:
On Jahuary'16 1981, Mr. Robert Tobias filed the
Final Map for Tract No. 38475 with the City. of Santa Monica.
The certification of the Final Map was scheduled before the
City Council on February 24, 1981 but the Council failed
to take action to approve or disapprove the Final Map.
Government Code X66458 provides as follows:
(a) The legislative body shall within
a period of 10 days after the filing of the
final map for approval or at its next regular
meeting after the meeting at which it
receives the map, whichever is later, approve
the map if it conforms to all the requirements
of this chapter and any local subdivision
ordinance applicable at the time of approval
or conditional approval of the tentative map
and any rulings made thereunder, or, if it
does not so conform, disapprove the map.
(b) If the legislative body does not approve
or disapprove the map within the prescribed
time, or any authorized extension thereof,
and the map conforms to all said requirements
and rulings, it shall be deemed approved, and
the clerk of the legislative body shall certify
its approval thereon.
SHERMAN L. STACEY
A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
Ms. Ann Shore
February 25, 1981
Page Two
Mr. Tobias has not authorized any extension of the
time set forth in X66458 (a) and such time has now passed.
I am enclosing a memorandum dated to the Council from James
Lunsford advising that all conditions imposed on the tentative
map were complied with and that the Final Map conforms to
the tentative map. As such, I believe you are under a duty
pursuant to §66458 (b) to certify the approval of the map.
Presently, I believe the Final Map is in the
possession of the City Engineer. Please certify the Final
Map at your earliest convenience and advise the undersigned
that it has been done. If you do not certify the Final
Map by Friday, February 27, 1981, or if you refuse to
certify the Final .Map, please advise the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
SHERMAN L. STAG
SLS:mal
ec: Shane Stark{:_ Esq.
Robert Tobias
{
1„
DATE: March 2, 1981
T0: City Attorney
FROM: City Clerk
SUBJECT: Final Tract Map No. 38475
T'he above map was considered by the City Council on February
24, 1981. A motion to approve the map failed on a vote of
2 in favor, 4 opposed.
Upon receiving a letter ( copy sent to your office) from
Attorney Sherman L. Stacey requesting that I certify the above
map by February 27th, I telephoned your office for advise.
Pursuant to that conversation, I have found from Director of
Planning. Lunsford that the map appeared before the City
Council for the first time, at the February 24th meeting.
I further understand from. our conversation that the Council
. will have an opportunity to approve or disapprove the map at
their March 10th meeting under some provision of the Subdivision..
Map Act. As you suggested, I advised Mr. Stacey that the matter-
will be on the Council agenda of P~Sax•ch 10th.
Attachment
6 ^D
DEB 2 4 9981
Santa Monica, California, February 24, 1981
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: .Final Map Approval
Introduction
MAR 1 0 f989
This report transmits a Final Map for City Council approval of the following
condominium ~ro,j981 which received Tentative Approval November 5, 1979, extended
to November I
TRACT ADDRESS DEVELOPER UNITS
38475 3003-3007 Highland Avenue Robert J. & Lynn Tobias. g (new)
and Sandy Pliller
Background
After public hearing and careful review of the record and staff recommendations,
the City Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map for the above project.
The action of the Planning Commission was based on its finding that the pro-
posed subdivision should cause no substantial environmental damage and is in
conformance with all state and local laws and regulations and applicable General
Plan Elemen ts. The Final Pap conforms to the Tentative Map. The License Division
reports that the developer has either paid or agreed to pay the condominium tax.
The Building and Safety and Fire Departments indicate that the project meets
present fire safety requirements. Approval by the County Engineer's office has
been received for the project.
One unit was demolished by City Permit in July 1979. The Rent Control Board
granted exemption at its April 12, 1980 meeting. Construction has not begun.
Alternatives
State and City ordinances require approval of final subdivision maps which comply
MAR 1 0 99~";
with approved Tentative Maps.
6-
Ff $ 2 4 9989
Mayor and City Council
Page 2
Recommendation
Inasmuch as the Final Map conforms to the approved Tentative Map, the buildings
meet required safety standards and the tax has been paid or an agreement to pay
executed, it is respectfully recommended that the City Council affirm the find-
ings of the Planning Commission and approve said Map.by approving the attached
Resolution.
Prepared by: James Lunsford °
Jl:lk
Attachment: City Council Resolution
February 24, 1981
r?embers of the city council:
l/®
vYe, the property-owners and residents of 6 of the 7 properties
immediately adjacent to the proposed project at 3003-3007 i-iiahland
Ave. (Consent Ca lender 76-D), would like to brim a matter to your
attention at this time.
~iar~: of us were party to discussions with the applicant,Robert
Tobias, at the time of his original application to the Manning
Commission, in Gctober, 1979. irk. Tobias was applyin for a lariance
for rear yard adjustment and side area modification and needed our
agreement. At that time, ail owners of propehty surrounding the
proposed pf'oject -in additio.i to many other concerned neighbors-
opposed the granting of any variances for this project (a copy of
the signed petition is on file at the planning commission). Pentative
tract approval was reserved until we settled our negotiations.
In exchange for our acceptance of his requested variances and
adjustments. T~ir. 'Pobias agreed to several of our conceEns. These 10
agreed-upon conditions are on file in the planning commission office.
we negotiated in good faith with-P+ir. Tobias, and assumed he was
doing the same. Several matters which have been brought to our atten-
tion since then have led us to question this assumption. we have
discovered several instances of misrepresentations, irregularities,
and outright violations by iVir. Tobias who, we learn, does not even
intend to be the developer of this project once the permits are
secured.
we are in favor of responsible develop.~nt in our neighborhood,
as our previous agreement with i~ir. Tobias shows. but we must protest
against outside speculators who misuse our tnust and show no real
concern for the community in which we live.
Ne are concerned that the agreement iJir. Pobias made with us
will not be honored by him or another developer and feel that this
must be included as a condition of final tract approval.
Given the information we have learned since the agreement
we would urge that _ approval_for this pro.iect not be ~rai~ted at
x11. ~'t the very-least we ask for some protection of the con itions
that Mr. Tobias did agree to, which enabled him to receive variances
and tentative tract approval.
Thank youi
David Sherr
(property-owner)
Carolyn Atkinson
(property-owner)
ia_argene Nelson
(property-owner)
Kenneth Fugitt
Irene 'Holt
/ , ~ ,,
3014 Goldsmith St. _~~~ y/ ~ „;; .~//,">.~~//
3008 Goldsmith at. ~~ ~-~~~~GL,
63~c Pier Ave. ~'
f _ ~.-
~~ ~
_ _ -,
_ ~, ;
630 Pier Ave. ~A _ ..__.--: _-
~_-,
630 Pier Ave. ~B
Patric tan iyicCarthy IDiunjak 3001 Highland Ave.
C-~
I'ebruar~,/ 23, 1981
~?'p `?'11e ~'lty ~'ptinCll,
o.s the owner of the property at. 30'Id Goldsmith St>~ adjacent to
X003-1007 Highland qve.~ S respectfully reeuest +_ha+, you consider
denial of this rermit for *he followi.ng reasons'
The variance granted at the °lanning Commission hearing in ^'ovember
n° '.4?9 was misrerresented to me in a letter dated Oct, d that year, In
+'-;~± letter, ?dr< Tobias s+,ated that his project would come no closer
than 2? feet from my property, whereas the actual fig!ire is six feet,
I am also reliably informed that upon receipt of therermit, ?4r, Tobias
intends to sell the pxoperty to a speculator,
Thank you,
David M. Sherr
'°".
C1~I'Y C)k~
~~\1r~ MO\'iCA
CALIFORNIA
City Clerk
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, Ca. 90401
Telephone (213) 393-99'75
r4arch 2 , 1981
Mr. Sherman L, Stacey,
Law Offices
1337 Ocean Avenue
Santa Monica, GA 90401
P.e: Final Tract Map No. 38475 and your letter dated'
February 25, 1981
° Dear Mr.,Stacey:
This letter confirms my telephone call to your office last..
week to notify. you and your client Robert Tgbias that the
matter of Final Tract Map No, 38475 wi l be on the City
Council agenda of March 10, 1981. It will be considered as
Item 5-A on page 1 of the agenda. The Council meeting be-
gins at 7:30 P.M,
Sincerely,
~~. `~~~~
inn M. Shore
City Clex-k
AMS: ch
cc: Director o:E Planning
City Attorney
~~,.
~;y
RESOLUTION N0. 6218
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING
AND APPROVING SUBDIVISION MAP OF
TRACT NO. 38475
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MOP:ICA DOES RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS.
SECTION 1. That the Map of Tract No. 38475 in the City of
Santa Monica presented by Robert J. and Lynn Tobias and Sandy
i
Miller, being a subdivision for condominium purposes of Lot 1,
Block A, Ocean Part Terrace Tract, as shown on Map record-ad in
Book 6, Page 129 of Maps, and Lots 11 and 12, Block 5, Fountain
Glen Tract, as shown on Map recorded in Book 7, Page 112 of Maps,
both. Records of Los Angeles County,. be and the same hereby is
accepted and approved.
SECTION 2._ That the City Clerk hereby is authorized and
directed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authenti-
cated by-the Seal of the City of Santa Monica.
SECTION. 3. .That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this resolution. and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~`~~~
ACT/A7~ TY ATTORNEY
~:
AI'OPTED AND APPROVED THIS
OF Plarch , 1981
loth DAY
~" ~ MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOIfJG RESOLUTION,
(J0, 6218 !SAS DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUtJCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAfJTA f10tdICA AT A REGULAR PIEETIfJG THEREOF HELD ON
r~ar~h loth .1981 BY THE FOLLO!tIf~tG COUfJCIL VOTE:
AYES: CO.UfdCIL~1Et1BERS; Jennings, Reed, Scott and
Playor Bambrick
f10ES: COUNCIL~1Ef1BERS: Yannatta Goldway, Rhoden
ABSENT:. COUNCILPtEP1BERS; :none
ABSTAIN: COUNCiL~"9E:"9BERS: None
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK