sr-082581-7eCA°RMM:BB:se
-City Council Meeting 8-25-81
STAFF REPORT
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Claim for Vested Right from Emergency Building
A4oratorium, Claim Number M-056, by Richard Howard
Gross To Convert Vacant Store to a "Fast Foods"
Sandwich Shop at 512 Santa Monica Boulevard.
a
AUG 2 5 1981
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Claimant seeks to renovate vacant space at 512 Santa *TOnica
Boulevard for use as a fast fond sandwich shop. The space was
previously used for approximately the last twenty years as a
bowling supplg store.
The project site is within the C-3 zone and is being rented
for this purpose by claimant. A hearing for a use permit has
been held, but no 3ecison will be made pending a decision on
claimant's exemption request.
VESTED RIGHT
A determination of a vested right depends on whether the
claimant has secured the last governmental approval necessary
for construction and, in good faith reliance thereon, performed
substantial work or incurred substantial liabilities in further-
ance thereof.
In connection c.?ith this project, claimant obtained no
necessary governmental approval prior to the adoption of the
Santa Monica, California
AU6 2 5 1981
moratorium. No expenditures were made or liabilities incurred
prior to April 22, 1981. Accordingly, claimant does not possess
a vested right to proceed.
HARDSHIP
Based on apparent misinforamtion from the owners of the
building within which the sandwich shop is proposed, as well
as inadvertent lack of or miscommunication with staff, claimant
believed he could proceed with this project. Renovation was
thus begun for the desired use.
According to claimant, of the estimated total cost of
development of $20,000, renovation costs totalling $10,000
have already been spent and delay or inability to proceed will
cause claimant additional loss. with respect to loss of his
sole means of income.
RECOT~MMENDAT I ON
1. It is respectfully recommended that the claim for
vested right be denied. Prior to April 22, 1981, claimants had
not obtained the last necessary governmental approval and did
not perform substantial work or incur substantial liabilities
in reliance thereon.
2. If, under the facts as presented above or as may be
determined at the time of the hearing, the City Council should
determine that application of the moratorium to claimant's
project .would result in an unfair hardship to claimant, an
exemption on the basis of unfair hardship should be granted.
-2-