This is a rendering of how the house would appear looking up from Temescal Canyon.
One of the more spectacular views in Pacific Palisades is on Mount Holyoke Avenue between Earlham and Friends Street. From the public sidewalk, one can view the ocean, Pacific Coast Highway and the Santa Monica Mountains.
It goes without saying that homes on the other side of the street have enjoyed unobstructed views since purchasing their homes. Then, a notice was posted on the lot across the street at 425 Mt. Holyoke last year about the construction of a home.
The property, a steep hillside, was listed for sale for $6,995,000 in January 2023 by owner Darla Jones. It was sold on July 2023 for $3.3 million. She with her late husband Stan had purchased the property 47 years ago.
Kurt Seidensticker, an entrepreneur (Vital Proteins, Starshot Ventures) who had moved into the neighborhood the previous year, purchased the lot.
CTN was told Seidensticker wants this home, which will be built into the hillside on a 42,000 sq.ft. lot to become his family home. He hired land use consultants, and architectural and engineering professionals.
A group of residents, the Mt. Holyoke View Preservation, is against the construction of a home. They argued that there is a no-build restriction on this Tract 9300 lot, which was originally called Lot B.
They say that the original deed states Lot B is never to have a structure and that the Civic League is in charge of upholding that.
CTN contacted the Pacific Palisades Civic League (PPCL), established in 1943 and the successor to the Palisades Corporation, to see if there was a deed restriction.
The PPCL is an all-volunteer organization, whose authority is limited to reviewing building mass, height, setbacks and landscaping in Tract 9300. The Palisades Corporation had deeded its responsibilities for the CC&Rs (covenants, condition and restrictions) to the PPCL.
Three PPCL members spent hours poring through old records. (Visit: www.PPCL9300.org) Late in August members responded via email, which was also shared with Mt. Holyoke neighbors.
“The original tract map from 1926 (Sheet 2, TR 9300 Parcel Maps) (see following email due to size) does not show it [425 Mt. Holyoke] as part of Tract 9300. Instead, it is shown as part of a very large Lot B, which includes Temescal Canyon, Potrero Canyon and Malibu Road (now PCH).”
PPCL members explained that by the early 1930’s, the Palisades Corporation, created to represent creditors, had begun selling off the Association’s remaining assets. One of those assets was the portion of Lot “B” including now 425 Mt. Holyoke.
“We reviewed CCRs from 1935 Holyoke Title Deed, which show a portion of Lot B reconfigured (reduced) to its current boundaries,” PPCL members said. “What is interesting is that it is listed as a Parcel 2 and linked with a Parcel 1: “Lot Number one (1), Block Number Thirteen (13), in Tract 9300.” In Paragraph 4, it states, “…No residence shall be constructed on Parcel Two (2) unless it a part of and attached to the residence constructed on Parcel One (1).”
In a 1935 corporation grant deed from Palisades Corporation to Katherine G. Young and Marie L. Young stated that a breach of any of the restrictions would revert the deed to the Grantor and contained a power of termination “thirty years after the date a notice of intent to preserve the power of termination is recorded, if the notice is recorded within the time prescribed in paragraph (1).”
The deed restriction expired in 1965. And according to lawyers, the lot north of the property (435 Mt. Holyoke), was originally subject to the same restrictions [as 425 Mt. Holyoke], but in 1956 a house was built on the property.
Crest’s Tony Russo, the land use consultant on the project, was asked about the deed restriction and sent a 2003 document that determined the deed restriction is unenforceable per CA Civil Code Section 885.010 through 885.060.
In 2003, the law firm of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, went before the California Coastal Commission, about three homes proposed for that site. The law firm argued that the “deed restriction” was unenforceable. JMBM – Deed Restriction Memo 2003-06-10 (1)
The Coastal Commission agreed and in September 2004, approved three homes on the lot, which were never built. https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2004/10/W12j-10-2004.pdf
Although some residents blame the Civic League for not extending the deed restrictions, the PPCL is solely responsible for CC&Rs.
Members of the PPCL were asked if they had authority for view protection. “Our Guidelines do not include a provision for view protection because our authority from the Corporation Grant Deed is narrowly limited in scope to ‘outside appearance and design’ which we interpret to mean building mass, height, setbacks and landscaping,” said the PPCL members. “We do not have broader powers than these.”
The Civic League was asked about grading issues and said, “The PPCL does not address grading issues which are outside our authority and expertise. However, LADBS Grading Division will require a Soils and Geology Report and provide conditions of approval. The neighbors should be aware that there are engineering solutions to even the most difficult soil problems, the formerly ‘unbuildable’ lots.”
PPCL was asked about possible Coastal Commission issues and was told “we’d advise affected parties to work with a land use attorney well versed in working with the Coastal Commission.”
Last week, Russo was asked where the project was in the development process. “In the very early stages of the entitlement and permitting process,” Russo said. “It will be many, many months before we are close to any permit being issued and there will be multiple meetings/hearings within that time frame.”
He sent a copy of the report “Geology and Soils Report Approval Letter” from L.A. Department of Building and Safety, that was approved on June 18, with a list of 49 conditions that had to be met.
The neighbors were asked about their next steps and told CTN “We’ve received more than 1,000 signatures supporting our effort to preserve the charm and beauty of our unique community including reasonable home sizes and protecting views originally intended for public use when the Palisades was created.”
This is a rendering of how 425 Mt. Holyoke would appear from across the street once constructed.