sr-090881-11e~~~
SEP 8 1989
CA : RNL'0I : MTT : pp
City Council Meeting 9-8-81
Santa.Mohica, California
STAFF REPORT
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Claim for Vested Rights from Emergency Building
Moratorium Claim Number M-046, by Scott Shafer
for Vested Right/Hardship Exemption to Construct
An Office Building at 1803 22nd. Street.
Supplementary Report
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Claimant seeks to proceed with the construction of a
7500 usable square foot building to be built above grade level
parking for 25 cars at 1803 22nd Street. The property is zoned
j~-1 and is presently developed with a single family residence.
Claimant is not the owner of the property; he has entered
into an escrow for an all cash purchase of the property. The owner
is in escrow for the purchase of another property which is contin-
gent upon the closing of the escrow for the subject property.
EXPLANATION
During the discussions over this project, the applicant
was informed that. .various .members: of<the CitysCouhcil had
raised the following areas of concern:
1. The aesthetics of having grade level parking with
office space above the parking level. f
( I®
-1- $~P 8 19fl1
2. Whether approval of the project exempted the
applicant from seeking the necessary permits and agency approvals
for the construction of this project.
3. IIOw this project fits in with the proposed plans
for the City of Santa Monica including the proposed development
fees.
4. Seeking an equitable solution for the actual property
owners, Mr. and Mrs. James Ward.
Following the hearing, Mr. Shafer indicated his prinary
concerns as:
1. Subterranean parking would make the project economi-
tally unfeasible. On grade parking would be screened from the street
caith trees and would be fully enclosed except for ingress and egress
which satisfies the intent of the City Council's motion not to permit
parking which is visible from the street.
2. The drawing initially shown to the City Council did
not adequately reflect the proposed appearance of the building.
3. That he was not attempting to circumvent the work of
the Task Forces, and in fact was willing to meet with them during the
discussions on this project, but has asked for Council approval due
to the time constraint imposed by the need to close the escro=.a on the
property and begin construction in the near Future.
4. Receiving a prcjection of the proposed development
fees and having the proposed fees paid over a period of time or upon
approval of the certificate of occupancy.
-2-
5. The claimant indicated that the freeway created a
sr.,uare-ended cul-de-sac to the west of the property which he believes
could be put to a higher use. This parcel, along with other cul-de-
sacs which are similarly- situated,: could be added to developments
to change the parcel from a maintenance cost for the City to a tax
producing parcel of property. The Claimant inquired into the feasi-
bility of acquiring the cul-de-sac in order to enhance the project and
increase his flexibility in meeting the potential goals of the proposed
Development Fee/Credit system structure. He was informed that this
would not be part of this agreement, but does tiaant to initiate the
process necessary for aca,uisition of the cul-de-sac.
E. Completing this agreement as soon as possible to allow
Z~r. and 24rs. James Ward to close an escroca on the project property
and their new residence.
Due to the time restraint on the application, am important
basis of any agreement on this project is beginning the process of
obtaining the necessary permits as soon as possible. The City
Attorney believes that the goals of a development agreement could
be met in a quicker manner with a hardship exemption with conditions.
FIOwever, no construction should be permitted until the necessary
permits are obtained.
The Development Fee of 3.6o of the total development cost
is based upon a reduction from the proposed 6o for a project of
this size due to the positive attributes of the applicant's project.
The claimant indicated hiG 7500 usable 'square"foot project's well
under the 25o reduction level required for the development credit;
landscaping is to exceed the 10% required by the Frchitectural
-3-
Review Board and applicant caill comply with street tree planting
program; the project will enable the City to retain a local busi-
ness which employs residents and uses local suppliers and alterna-
tive energy methods will be incorporated into the project, such as
solar panels for hot vaater and placement of openable windows for
natural airflow to reduce the use of air conditioning.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has three options in this project.
1. A development agreement could be entered into specify-
ing the terms on which the applicant can proceed. However, an
ordinance would have to be adopted to make the agreement effective.
2. The applicant could be directed to use the Interim Permit
procedure for approval of this project. However ,.this could result
in delay to the applicant.
3. A hardship exemption could be granted subject to certain
conditions to be specified by the City Council. This is uncompli-
Gated and does not require an ordinance but does impose conditions on
the development.
RECOP•u`~LENDATIONS
1. It is respectfully recommended that the City Council
grant a hardship exemption with the following conditions;
a. The structure to be constructed at 1803 22nd Street,
Santa Monica, California shall be no more than a 7500 usable
square foot office building.
b. Any future chances in the permitted or conditional uses
in an rn-1 Zone and the standards in effect for those permitted or
°4°
conditional uses, shall not affect the claimant's right to proceed
with the construction of a 7,500 usable square foot office building
provided that a building permit is obtained within 6 months of the
granting of the exemption.
c. Grade level parking will be permitted, but the applicant
must obtain approval of the Architectural Review Board to ensure
that the structure meets the aesthetic standards of'the Architectural
Review Board.
d. Exemption from the moratorium shall not include exemption
from any other required approval or permit from the City of _
Santa Sionica or other appropriate governmental agency.
e. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the claimant
shall be required to nay a Development Fee equal to 3.60 of the
total project cost in order to proceed.
2. If the City Council decides not to grant a hardship
exemption with conditions, it is respectfully recommended that the
City Council require the applicant to seek approval of the project
through the interim permit process to be implemented after October
1, 1981, rather than enter into a development agreement.
Prepared by: Robert ??. Payers, City Attorney
Alartin T. Tachiki, Deputy City Attorney
-5-