sr-081181-7eRMM:BB:b
City Council Meeting 8-11-81
TAFF REPORT
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and C-ity Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Claim for Vested Rights from Emergency Building
Moratorium, Claim Number M-052, by Erik Karl Vogt
for Vested Right/Hardship Exemption to Convert
Portion of Structure to Health Club at 2401
Main Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Claimant seeks to remodel an existing. structure that is
currently vacant and was formerly a woodworking shop with a
showroom located at 2401 Main Street. Claimant's proposed
development is a health club including such amenities as
saunas,jacuzzis, steam rooms, exercise and dance classes. The
facilities will. be available on an hourly basis, indent 6,0 The
property is zoned CM-2; the use proposed would be permitted
although a variance for parking will be necessary.
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 a business license and a
•
BUG ~ ~ .,._.
variance neither have been issued. As claimant indicates,
building permit, Architectural Review Board approval, and Coastal
Development Permit also appear to be needed for this development.
No expenditures or liabilities were incurred prior to April
22, 1981. Claimant is the lessee of the subject property and has
listed, however, expenditures totalling $10,275 since the
adoption of the moratorium for applications for business license
and variance, and for a 90 day period to lease the property, 50~
of which ($5000) is non-refundable.
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 to that date.
HARDSHIP
Claimant indicates that the subject property is an ideal
location for his proposed business and that he has been looking
for such a site for one and one half years. According to
claimant, if he is not exempted from the moratorium, he will lose
the right to lease the building and with it over $5000 and will
not be able to again find such an ideal location and building.
Additionally, claimant states that his business will be an asset
to both the commercial and residential area.
Claimant has submitted with his claim a letter from the
owner of the property supporting claimant's proposed development
and explaining why the property has been vacant and detailing his
own hardship in connection with this property.
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