sr-081181-7ggas e I ~
~~
RMM:BB;b
City Council Meeting 8-11-81
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Claim for Vested Rights from Emergency Building
Moratorium, Claim Number M-058, by Renata Bentsen
for Vested Right/Hardship Exemption to Convert
Structure to Office Use at 2020-2024 Pico Boulevard
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Claimant seeks to convert an existing massage parlor and
storefront to owner occupied office use at 2020-2024 Pico
Boulevard. Th'e property is zoned C-2 and was purchased by
claimant on June 19, 1981.
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
furtherance thereof.
In connection with the project, claimant did not obtain any
of the necessary governmental approvals prior to April 22, 1981.
Since that date claimant has applied for and obtained
Architectural Review Board approval for the proposed remodeling
on August 5, 1981.
This project constitutes a conversion under the building
moratorium. However, based upon certain miscommunications among
~~t~ (:
staff, the project was placed on the ARB agenda as an exempt
project and the error was not realized until after the ARB
meeting when the claimant sought a building permit to proceed.
Claimant indicates the total cost of the project will be
$25,000. Although expenditures to date are stated to be $2700,
it is unknown what that figure represents or when such
expenditures were made. Based on the date of purchase, i.e. June
1981, it is believed that no expenditures and no liabilities were
incurred prior to April 22, 1981.
Claimant does not have a vested right to proceed in that no
governmental approvals were obtained prior to April 22, 1981 and
no expenditures were made and liabilities incurred in reliance
thereon prior tbR that date.
Claimant states that the space she presently occupies is to
be demolished and an unlawful detainer action and a liability
lawsuit for her removal from that space are pending, Claimant
further indicates that she was able to obtain additional time
from her landlord based upon ARB approval and that if unable to
move into the subject property she will be forced to go out of
business for some period of time and the four employees of the
company may have to seek employment elsewhere. According to
claimant, deposits paid to the contractor and subcontractors will
be forfeited and their commitment to this project canceled if a
hardship exemption is not granted.
2
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 moratorium to claimant's
project would result in an unfair hardship to claimants, an
exemption on the basis of unfair hardship should be granted.
3