sr-081181-7f•
RMM;BB:b
City Council Meeting 8-11-81
AU6 1 1 1981
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
T0: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Claim for Vested Rights from Emergency Building
Moratorium, Claim Number M-053, by Estelle
Chapman and William Bred berg to Construct a Six
Unit Townhouse at 1443 Princeton Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Claimants seek to proceed with the construction of a .six
unit townhouse at 1443 Princeton Street. The property is zoned
R-2 and is presently improved with a single family dwelling. It
was purchased by claimants in July, 1977.
The proposed development will consist of six units, each
with two bedrooms and two bathrooms and a subterranean garage.
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.
1. Governmental Approvals
Claimants obtained the following governmental approvals in
connection with their proposed development prior to the adoption
of the moratorium:
aus 1 1 ~aa~
Rent Control Board Approval 5-17-80
Tentative Tract Map 8-04-80
ARB Approval
12-03-80
Claimant obtained a "Category I" Removal Permit from the
Rent Control Board on May 17, 1980. Although their application
indicates a demolition permit issued on the same date, no record
of any demolition permit for the subject property could be found
in the Building Department. Nor was any building permit for the
proposed development sought or obtained prior to April 22, 1981.
A tentative tract map was approved for the proposed
development on August 4, 1980. An extension of the map was
requested and heard by the Planning Commission on August 3, 1981;
no action was taken. In this case, the tentative tract map has
expired without the City Council approving a final map. Thus
claimants cannot sell any units as condominiums until such time
as a new tract map is obtained.
Since claimants did not obtain the last necessary
governmental approval prior to April 22, 1981, they do not have a
vested right to construct their condominium project.
2. Expenditures and Liabilities
Claimants indicate that the total cost of development is
$650,000. They list their expenditures at $117,508 of which
$79,336 are related to the costs of ownership from 1977 -1981.
The remainder relate to expenses for permit fees, professional
fees (architecture, engineering, attorney, accounting), marketing
study, and "administrative and overhead". Liabilities listed
total $118,500 and are in connection with the first and second
2
trust deeds on the property. Neither the expenditures nor the
liabilities are of the type that would count toward establishing
a vested right.
Claimants in this case are Mrs. Chapman and her son Mr.
Bred berg. Claimants indicate that the property was purchased
with Mrs. Chapman's retirment savings for investment purposes
and to provide income for her future. According to the
claimants, there is now a monthly net loss of more than $700 and
the Second Trust Deed for $10,000 is said to be due in October
1981 with no means of repayment unless the project progresses.
Claimants have submitted a statement attached as Exhibit
"A" explaining these hardships in greater detail.
RECOMMENDATION
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. In that claimants' tract map has expired, it is
respectfully recommended that their request for a hardship
exemption to construct six condominiums also be denied. However,
if under the facts as presented above or as may be determined at
the time of the hearing, the City Council should determine that
claimants should be permitted to proceed with the construction of
the building, an exemption on the basis of an unfair hardship
3
specifically addressing the construction of a six unit building
and not a six unit condominium should be granted.
4