sr-081181-6t- /i,~
CA:RMM:BB:se
Council Meeting 08/11/81
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO: Playor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: Proposed Findings, Claim for Vested Rights/Hardship
Exemption for Claim No. M-045, by RSRF7 Partnership
for the properties located at 2722-2730 Gilshire
Boulevard and 1214-1232 Harvard Street.
Attached are proposed findings, regarding the denial of
the claim of vested riahts/hardship exemption for Claim
No. M-045 by RSRT+7 Partnership for the properties located
at 2722-30 Wilshire Boulevard and 1214-1232 Harvard Street.
Prepared by: Robert M. Myers
Bettylou Borovay
!sr! ~~
CLAIM rd0. M-045
2722-30 [4ilshire Boulevard and 1214-32 Harvard Street
1. Claimant seeks a determination from the City Council
of a vested right or hardship exemption to construct a six (6)
story office with a separate four (4) level parking structure at
2722-2730 6ilshire Boulevard and 1214-32 Harvard Street in
Santa Monica.
2. The project site is comprised of four parcels. The
Wilshire Boulevard parcel and adjacent Harvard Street (.1214)
parcel are zoned C-4. The two remaining Harvard Street parcels
(1218, 1232) are zoned R-2.
3. The [~7ilshire Boulevard property was previously developed
with a one-story office building and is now vacant. Two of
the Harvard Street parcels are vacant lots. The third parcel
is improved with a structure previously used for commercial pur-
poses and now vacant.
4. The subject properties were acquired by claimant on
March 30, 1979.
5. A determination..of a vested right depends on whether,
prior to April 22, 1931, the claimant has secured the last govern-
mental approval necessary for construction and, in Good faith
reliance thereon, has performed substantial work or incurred sub-
stantial liabilities in furtherance thereo.f_.
6. Prior to April 22, 1981 claimant obtained the
following governmental approvals:
Architectural Review Board
Building Permit
7emolition Permit
Renewal of Building Permit
May 7, 1980
November 19, 1980
March 11, 1981
April 13, 1981
7. Claimant did not obtain the>last necessary governmental
approval prior to April 22, 1981 in that exemption approval from
the Rent Control Board regarding the property at 1214 Harvard
Street was not obtained until May 21, 1981 and a demolition permit
for that property must still be obtained.
8. Excavation cannot begin until the improvements at
1214 Harvard Street are demolished.
9. The total cost of development, according to claimant, is
$5,646,102 and expenditures in reliance on the building permit are
stated to be $283,220.
10. Included within this figure is $8,174 to demolish the
Wilshire Boulevard structure; $193,500 to reconstruct the demolished
structure; $10,100 paid to a lessee to terminate his leasehold
interest in the Wilshire property; $38,847 in permit fees;
$32,600 in architectural fees.
11. In this case, the demolition of the Wilshire structure
was in reliance only upon the issuance of the demolition permit.
-2 -
At the time the demolition occurred on or about April 9, 1981
claimant knew it would have to obtain another building permit
because none of the construction authorized by the building
permit issued in November 1980 had commenced or would commence
prior to its expiration. Therefore even as the property was
demolished, claimant was aware that it could not rely upon the
November 1980 building permit in order to proceed with its pro-
posed development; claimant was not relying upon said building
permit when it demolished the structure on the Trlilshire property.
12. A renewed building permit was issued in April 13, 1981,
four days after the demolition of he Wilshire Boulevard structure.
13. None of the expenditures listed by claimant were in
reliance on the April 13, 1981 renewed buildinq permit.
14. Permit fees and planning and design fees do not count
toward establishing a vested right.
15. Liabilities prior to 4-22-81 are stated by claimant to be
$626,482.01, representing land costs, i.e., the principal due on
a $500,000 promissory note for the purchase of the land and pay-
ment still owing for architecti';s services.
16. Costs of acquisition do not count towards a vested right;
nor are design costs, particularly where
to an obligation entered into in Februar
last governmental approval was obtained,
a vested right.
17. In that claimant did not obtain
approval prior to April 22, 1981 and did
the liabilitU relates
1980, long before the
applicable in determining
the last governmental
not make substantial
-3-
expenditures and incur substantial liabilities in reliance
thereon, claimant does not have a vested right to proceed with
its proposed development.
13. The staff report submitted to the City Council for
its hearing of July 28, 1981 on Claim #M-045, is hereby
incorporated and adopted as though fully set forth herein.
-4-