SR-12-B (19)
Santa Monica,
It/-a
NO\! ? b iqR1
California
'.-
CA:RMM:LL:11262/hpc
City Council Meeting 11-24~87
o/?J2--o 0 '6
<l,. >.
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: city Attorney
SUBJECT: Application for Hardship Exemption from Ordinance
Number 1416 (CCS) by Edwin I. Feigin for Property
Located at 127 strand street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Applicant seeks permission to submit a proj ect application
for a four story, eight unit condominium building under the
property development standards which existed prior to adoption of
Ordinance Number 1416 (CCS) (hereinafter "Ocean Park Interim
Ordinance").
The property is zoned R-4 and is currently vacant.
Applicants' proposed project consists of an eight unit
condominium building with semi-subterranean parking. The owner
intends to occupy one of the units. The project site consists of
two parcels, one acquired in 1972, the other in 1978. Applicant
estimates the total cost of development at $1,196,000.
Under the requirements of the Ocean Park Interim Ordinance,
applicant I S project would not be allowed to exceed two stories
and 27 feet in height, except that the roof could extend to a
maximum of 35 feet if the roof pitch were \0% or
two sides. Since the project is larger} than
Planning Commission would have to make findings
more on at least
four units, the
that the project
is not inconsistent with the findings set forth in Section 1 of
- 1 -
I ~fII1".I
Nov 2 4 198)
the Ocean Park Interim Ordinance. In addition, the project would
have to comply with R-2 property development standards, except
for building height. Whereas under R-4 standards, appl icant
could have built nine units on this site, the Ocean Park Interim
Ordinance would only allow six units.
Expenditures and Liabilities
Applicant purchased one of the two parcels which comprise
the subj ect property in 1972. The second parcel was purchased
from the City at public auction in 1978. The total purchase
price for the subject property was $80,230. Between 1972 and
1987, applicant claims to have expended $22,205 for taxes,
insurance, accounting and maintenance related to the property.
Applicant indicates that he made expenditures in the amount
of $7,425 representing engineering, architectural, and solar
consultant fees between 1980 and 1981. On April 22, 1981,
Ordinance Number 1207 (CCS) (hereinafter "Emergency Building
Moratorium") was adopted by the City council. Although
applicant filed a claim for vested rights and exemption from the
Emergency Building Moratorium in 1981, his claim was denied by
the city Council.
Subsequent to the denial of his claim for vested rights and
prior to July 28, 1987, applicant claims to have made additional
expenditures in the amount of $l2,050. Those expenditures
represent legal, architectural, and engineering costs related to
the proposed project.
In addition, applicant claims to have incurred liabilities
in connection with the proposed development in the amount of
- 2 -
$57,850 prior to July 28, 1987. Claimed liabilities represent
$19,850 incurred prior to February 17, 1981, and $38,000 incurred
in 1984 for architectural, engineering and solar consulting
services.
Hardship
Appl icant and his brother purchased the subj ect property
with the intention of building retirement homes. Having
determined that the best way to defray some of the costs was to
build a condominium project in which they could live, applicant
contracted with architects and engineers in 1980 and 1981 to
design the project. Prior to filing an application for a
building permit with the City, the Emergency Building Moratorium
was adopted. Applicant's claim for vested right under Ordinance
Number 1207 (CCS) was denied on June 23, 1981.
In 1984, applicant contracted with architects and engineers
to design a new project which would conform to City requirements.
Applicant states that he and his brother were once again ready to
file their application with the City again when applicantts
brother died. Applicant states that his brother's half interest
in the vacant property has been tied up in the probate of his
estate. The probate of applicant's brother's estate is expected
to be concluded wi thin the next three months and the executrix
joins in this application for hardship exemption. Applicant
states further that he has obtained financing commitments for his
proposed project.
- 3 -
RECOMMENDATION
Applicant has incurred expenditures and liabilities in
reliance on requirements which were in effect prior to adoption
of the Ocean Park Interim Ordinance.
These expenditures and
liabilities were, however, largely incurred prior to 1985. It
appears from applicant's application for hardship exemption that
a development application was not filed before July 28, 1987 for
reasons pertaining to the fact that one-half of the property was
tied up in probate.
It is recommended that the City council take one of two
courses of action:
1. Grant applicant's application for hardship exemption and
adopt the attached findings in support thereof; or
2. Deny applicant's application for hardship exemption and
adopt the attached findings in support thereof.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, city Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attorney
- 4 -
CA:RMM:LL:11265/hpc
City Council Meeting 11-24-87
Santa Monica, California
PROPOSED FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF GRANT OF
HARDSHIP EXEMPTION APPLICATION BY EDWIN I.
FEIGIN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 127 STRAND STREET
l. Applicant seeks a determination from the city Council
of a hardship exemption which would enable him to submit an
application for a proposed eight-unit condominium project at 127
Strand street in Santa Monica under the R-4 property development
standards which existed prior to adoption of Ordinance Number
1416 (CCS).
2. The project site is zoned R-4.
3. The project site consists of two parcels and is
currently vacant.
4. Applicant and his brother purchased the subject
property for a total price of $80,230, purchasing one parcel in
1972, and the second from the City at public auction in 1978.
5. Applicant claims expenditures in the amount of $22,205
between 1972 and 1987 for taxes, insurance, accounting and
maintenance related to the property.
6. Applicant claims expenditures in the amount of $7,425
between 1980 and 1981 representing engineering, archi tectura1 ,
and solar consulting fees.
7.
The
City adopted Ordinance Number
1207
(CCS)
(hereinafter, ttEmergency Building Moratoriumlt), on April 22,
1981.
- 1 -
;
8. Applicant was denied a claim for vested right and
exemption from the City's Emergency Building Moratorium on June
23, 1981-
9. Applicant claims further expenditures representing
engineering, architectural, legal and solar consulting in the
amount of $12,050 subsequent to 1981 but prior to July 28, 1987.
10. Applicant claims incurred liabilities in connection
with the proposed development in the amount of $57,850 prior to
July 28, 1987. Those liabilities represent $19,850 incurred
prior to February 17, 1981, and $38,000 incurred in 1984, for
architectural, engineering and solar consulting services.
11. Applicant claims that he and his brother purchased the
subject property with the intention of building retirement homes.
12. Despite completion of engineering, architectural and
other work necessary to file an application for development of
the subject property prior to July 28, 1987, applicant was unable
to file because his brother's one-half interest in the property
was tied up in probate.
13. Applicant has obtained financing commitments for his
proposed projects.
14. Applicant's claim is sufficient to constitute a
hardship requiring exemption from Ordinance Number 1416 (CCS).
15. The staff report submitted by the City Attorney to the
City Council for its hearing of November 24, 1987 is hereby
incorporated and adopted as though fully set forth herein.
- 2 -
'I pi Z"-.1:lCJ ~
..
CA:RMM:LL:11266/hpc
City Council Meeting 11-24-87
Santa Monica, California
PROPOSED FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF DENIAL OF
HARDSHIP EXEMPTION APPLICATION BY EDWIN I.
FEIGIN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT l27 STRAND STREET
1. Applicant seeks a determination from the City Council
of a hardship exemption which would enable him to submit an
application for a proposed eight-unit condominium project at 127
Strand street in Santa Monica under the R-4 property development
standards which existed prior to adoption of Ordinance Number
1416 (CCS).
2. The project site is zoned R-4.
3. The project site consists of two parcels and is
currently vacant.
4. Applicant and his brother purchased the subject
property for a total price of $80,230, purchasing one parcel in
1972, and the second from the City at public auction in 1978.
5. Applicant claims expenditures in the amount of $22,205
between 1972 and 1987 for taxes, insurance, accounting and
maintenance related to the property.
6. Applicant claims expenditures in the amount of $7,425
between 1980 and 1981 representing engineering, architectural,
and solar consulting fees.
7.
The
Ci ty adopted Ordinance Number
1207
(CCS)
(hereinafter, nEmergency Building Moratorium"), on April 22,
1981.
- 1 -
" 8. Applicant was denied a claim for vested right and
exemption from the City's Emergency Building Moratorium on June
23, 1981.
9. Applicant claims further expenditures representing
engineering, architectural, legal and solar consulting in the
amount of $l2,050 subsequent to 1981 but prior to July 28, 1987.
10. Applicant claims incurred liabilities in connection
with the proposed development in the amount of $57,850 prior to
July 28, 1987. Those liabilities represent $19,850 incurred
prior to February 17, 1981, and $38,000 incurred in 1984, for
architectural, engineering and solar consulting services.
11. Applicant estimates the total cost of development at
$1,196,000.
12. Applicant claims that he and his brother purchased the
subject property with the intention of building retirement homes.
13. Applicant has owned the site in question in part since
1972, and in its entirety since 1979 and has not ever filed an
application for development with the city.
14. Despite completion of engineering, architectural and
other work necessary to file an application for development of
the subject property prior to July 28, 1987, applicant did not
file his application prior to July 28, 1987.
15. Applicant's claim is insufficient to constitute a
hardship requiring exemption from Ordinance Number 1416 (CCS).
16. The staff report submitted by the City Attorney to the
City council for its hearing of November 24, 1987 is hereby
incorporated and adopted as though fully set forth herein.
- 2 -