sr-082581-7d`=~ -, ,i
RMM:BB:b
City Council Meeting 8-25-81
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUB~7ECT: Clai?a Number M-055, by Enco Builders to
Construct a 10 Unit Condominium Project at
955 Ocean Avenue
auG ~ 5 99fit
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Claimant seeks to proceed with the construction of a five
stor-„ 10 unit condominium project at 955 ^cean Avenue. There
will be two units on each floor and the units will have two
bedrooms, three bedrooms, or three bedrooms and den, and. tT.ro and
one-half baths. Subterranean parking is proposed.
The property is zoned R-4 and is presently vacant. 7t was
purchased by claimant in January 1981.
VESTED RIGHT
A determination of a vested right depends on whether the
claimant has secured the last governmental approval necessar~~ 'or
construction and, in good faith reliance thereon, performed
substantial work or incurred substantial liabilities in furtherance
thereof.
1. Governmental Approvals.
Claimant obtained the following gr_vern_mental approvals i.n
connection with its proposed development nri_or to the adoption
of the moratorium:
m
AUG 2 5 1981
Tentative Tract trap 9-15-80
Coastal Development Permit 1-06-81
Claimant did not obtain the
approval prior to the adoption of
yet obtained Architectural Review
map, or a building permit. In th;
been obtained, claimant would not
to ~ roceed.
last necessary governmental
the rioratorium. It has not
Board approval, a final tract
st these approvals have not yet
be entitled to a vested right
2. Expenditures and Liabilities.
Claimant indicates the total cost of development :vill be
$3,500,000. It is not stated, but it would appear that the
rurchase price of $1,100,000 is included w~.thin that total.
Expenditures prior to April 22, 1981 are stated to be $18,129
and represent permit `ees ($575), professional fees (architectural
$10,000, engineering $792, legal $1,350), blueprints ($262) and a
soil test ($900). Nearly $5,000 of the total expenditures predate
even the tentative map approval. These ex~~enditures are neither
the type nor magnitude that would establish a vested right.
Claimant has listed a loan liability in the amount o- the
total purchase price. Costs related to land acquisition do not
count toward a vested right.
HARD S'r.I P
Claimant states as its hardship the loss of money and interest
spent on the project. Claimant also indicates that it has
complied with City and Coastal Ccm,-nission regulations, and that
the proposed development will enhance the City, increase =.ts tax
base, and provide new housing.
-.
-~-
Claimant makes reference to the provision of low cost
housing in the vicinity of Santa Monica as part of its Droposed
development. It is unclear what this means. Presumably,
provision of affordable housing was a condition of a Coastal
Permit. No specific information has been provided in the cla~_m.
RECOMMENDATION
1. It is respectfully recommended that the claim for
vested right be denied. Prior to April 22, 1981, claimant 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 moratcr_i_um to claimant's
project would result in an unfair hardship to claimant, an
exemption on the basis of unfair hardshi^ should be granted.
-3-