City Hall is willing to negotiate settlement over suit of vacant lot
SM BEACH — City officials are attempting to settle a lawsuit filed by the owners of multi-million property who claim City Hall’s bureaucracy has prevented them from remodeling a beach home.
The City Council met behind closed doors this past week to discuss the suit, filed by Malibu Broadbeach L.P. in April of 2005. The two sides have been attempting to settle the dispute since 2003.
At issue is whether City Hall’s planning department was correct in issuing a stop work order on the property, located at 1267 Palisades Beach Road. The developer argues that because a city inspector OK’d the project to remodel a home from an existing single-story building to a three-story addition, a subsequent finding that it didn’t conform to code, and therefore needed to be shut down, was unfair.
In 1999, the developer was given approval for the remodel by City Hall. The city’s architectural review board approved the plans and City Hall issued a building permit in 2000.
Based on requirements presented by a special building inspector, the contractor in 2001 began work on the project by demolishing the existing building. In March of 2002, that same building inspector verified that the project met city code.
But then in October of 2002, a supervisor in City Hall’s planning department inspected the site and disagreed with the earlier determination. He ordered a stop work order on the project because the developer had removed more than 50 percent of the structure from its foundation, which means it was a substantial remodel and therefore had to meet new building codes.
City Hall officials said the original plan approval and permits were granted on the basis that the proposed work would not be a substantial remodel, which falls under a different set of codes than if it was just an addition to a home.
“The purpose of the 50 percent rule is to strike a balance to implement code,” said Deputy City Attorney Cara Silver. “If you are just adding an addition onto a home, you don’t have to implement new codes.”
The developer appealed the stop work order and a hearing was conducted. However, the developer was not allowed to attend the hearing, the lawsuit claims. The planning department upheld the decision and the developer appealed again, arguing that the original building inspector had authorized the removal of the exterior of the walls and other demolition work. The planning department then determined it didn’t have the authority to make a decision and referred the matter to the City Council.
The two sides have been attempting to settle the matter ever since.
In the meantime, in October of 2004, the planning department declared the property a nuisance and required the developer to demolish the entire building. If it wasn’t demolished, the developer faced fines of $25,000 a day up to a maximum of $500,000. The developer complied and tore the building down.
Attorneys for Malibu Broadbeach L.P. couldn’t be reached for comment. However, the lawsuit claims the developer has been damaged $1 million because of the delay.
“The decisions of the city planning division and the City Council on behalf of the city were invalid and an abuse of discretion because the city had previously authorized the removal of the exterior walls and other demolition work that they later claimed was a mistake by the city’s building inspector and improper, and thus had prior knowledge that this work had been down,” the suit alleges.
City Hall maintains that it doesn’t rely on previous inspectors’ determinations when the project clearly doesn’t meet the parameters for which the permit was issued. However, city officials are willing to settle the case in order for the project to comply with local laws.
“The council decided to settle this case because the settlement that was proposed would require the developer to comply with crucial building codes, would eliminate the blight of a vacant lot and would avoid the uncertainties of litigation,” Silver said. “Whenever we can achieve the result that is originally desired through settlement, rather than litigation, we always elect settlement.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 14, 2006. Read the original PDF.