SR-402-002 (26)
f
.
.
1;1-8
NOV 1 4 1989
C/ED:PB:DKW:WW L;7O-Z--C:C>z
pc/cc8946
council Mtg: November 14, 1989
Santa Monica, California
L1 ) ~. - ~. ~- :.~~
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning commission Approval of Conditional
Use Permit 89-046, Tentative Tract Map 48039 to permit
construction of a three story, 34 foot high, five unit
condominium constructed over a subterranean parking
garage located at 1253 11th street in the R3 District.
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Leo Chang. Appellant: Syd
Jurin, representing residents and homeowners of lIth
street.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Planning Commission approval of CUP 89-046 and TTM
48039 for the construction of a three story, five unit
condominium at 1253 11th street.
On August 2, 1989, the Planning Commission approved the project.
(See Exhibit !lAII) .
Syd Jurin, representing residents and
homeowners of 11th Street, appealed the Commission action. (See
Exhibit "BtI).
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to construct a three story, five unit
condominium on a 7500 square foot R3 (Medium Density Multiple
Family Residential) District parcel that presently contains two
detached residential dwelling units which have been granted an
exemption under Rent Control provisions.
I.:J -~
NOV 1 4~
- 1 -
I . .
On August 2, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Tentative
Tract Map 48039 and Conditional Use Permit 89-046 to permit
construction of the five unit condominium.
During the Planning
commission hearing, several adjacent residents expressed concerns
regarding the demolition of the two detached buildings that were
constructed prior to 1930. Several of the residents felt the two
structures should be designated as landmarks under the City IS
landmarks procedure.
The Planning commission approved the
condominium project subject to a condition that required
Landmarks Commission review prior to Architectural Review Board
review. On August ll, 1989, Syd Jurin filed the appeal.
On August 17, 1989, the applicant filed an application for
Landmarks Commission review.
On september 14th, the Landmarks
Commission voted to conduct a hearing on October 12, 1989 to
consider designating both sides of the 1200 block of Eleventh
street as an Historical Landmarks District. On October 12, 1989,
the Landmarks Commission voted to continue discussion of
establishing a landmarks district until November 9, 1989, to
allow the surrounding residents additional time to prepare
information to support their requests to designate the block as
an historic district.
Under SMMC section 9607, the Landmarks commission may recommend
that the city Council designate the block as an Historic District
if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
A. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of
the cuI tural, social, economic I po 1 i tical, or
architectural history of the city;
- 2 -
i
.
.
B. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or
other noteworthy interest or value:
c. It is identified with historic personage or with
important events in local, state, or national history:
D. It embodies distinguishing architectural
characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style,
method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials
or craftsmanship; or
e. It is representative of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer, or architect.
At their meeting on November 9, 1989, the Landmarks Commission
determined by a vote of 4-3 that the project area did not merit
designation as an historic district. If a district were created,
the future al teration,
restoration,
construction,
removal,
relocation, or demolition, in whole or in part, of the
residential structures would be prohibited (unless otherwise
specified by the Council).
Thus, approval of an historic
district would require that the subject condominium application
be denied absent a Certificate of Economic Hardship approved the
the Landmarks Commission (or City Council on appeal) .
In light of the Landmarks Commission I s determination that the
block does not merit designation as an historic district, no
further City Council action is required on that issue, and the
future
alteration,
restoration,
construction,
removal,
relocation, or demolition,
in whole or in part, of the
residential structures, subject to relevant city requirements, is
permitted.
Processing of the condominium application can
continue.
- 3 -
.
.
The Landmarks Comisssion also considered whether the specific
structure at the subject site merited designation as a landmark.
By a vote of 7-0, the Commission determined that landmark
designation of the existing structure was not warranted.
The Landmarks decision is appealable to the city council during a
ten (10) day period following the Landmarks determination.
ANALYSIS
The project, as approved by the Planning Commission, conforms to
the height, setback and density standards of the R3 District.
Under the R3 District development standards, the site could be
developed with six units, with eight foot side yard setbacks and
a 3 story, 40 foot height limit. The developer has proposed to
construct 5 units, with 8-12 foot side yard setbacks and a 3
story, 34 foot height limit and parking for 13 vehicles.
The appeal letter states that the 5 unit condominium developed
will adversely impact traffic and cause alley congestion between
11th and 12th streets, will have an adverse impact on water and
sewer facilities and will negatively impact the residential
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
The appeal letter also states that the existing buildings and six
other properties located in the vicinity of the project site were
built in 1904 as part of the "original" city of Santa Monica and
should be preserved as an historic district. The traffic
generated by the five unit condominium would be identical to
traffic generated by an administratively approved five unit
- 4 -
T
.
.
apartment building which could be developed at the site. Under
City of Santa Monica CEQA guidelines both uses are exempt from
environmental review. The City Parking and Traffic Engineer
approved the layout of parking and the location of driveway
ramps. The twenty foot wide alley that abuts the rear of the
site should facilitate the flow and movement of traffic in the
alley and should not result in congestion or other adverse
traffic conditions. Traffic, water, sewer and other site impacts
from the proposed proj ect are considered less than significant
and do not require special consideration.
The merits of the proposed condominium project should be
considered relative to the requirements of the City's zoning and
subdivision regulations. Therefore, the staff recommends that
the City Council decision on the appeal be based upon the merits
of the condominium project.
As noted above, the historic issues cited in the appeal letter
have been considered by the Landmarks Commission at its November
9, 1989 hearing. The Commission' s deliberations resulted in
determinations that the specific structure on the project site
was not worthy of landmark designation, and that creation of a
historic district for the project area was not warranted.
If the Council denies the appeal, the processing of the
condominium application will continue. If the Council upholds
the appeal, no further processing of the condominium application
will occur.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
- 5 -
-
.
.
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Inasmuch as the condominium proposal meets all relevant planning
requirements, it is respectfully recommended that the council
deny the appeal and approve the Conditional Use Permit and
Tentative Tract Map subject to the findings and conditions
contained in the August 2, 1989 Planning Commission statement of
Official Action.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Wanda Williams, Associate Planner
Attachments: Exhibit A- Planning Commission staff Report and
statement of Official Action
Exhibit B- Appeal Letter
WW:ww
PC/cc8946
11/10/89
- 6 -
~~~(~
--
~lJtlJt "t\
Clty of .
Santa Monica
/1,/V7 //Y)'P-'" j T Y C c: 2Commurn~;r1d Ecanomlc Development Department
7 V P LJf:::/ CI"7"'" ~ . prannlng and Zoning DivISion
(2' 3} 458-8341
"69 ~JG 14 ;:,~= ttPPEAL FORM
.
. {ltA~
f~-
["'{h,b + "13 lJ
~
.:
r
.
I
.
r
FEE $100 00
Date FrIed ~ II, I~i <1
ReceIved by /1l ~ "!i> ~
Receipt No . _.:~ ~: f--;'-
~ame Residents. ho~o\mers. and friends of th~ 11th Strp.p.t nrF.n (between Wilshire & ~ri-
Aodress 1244 12th Street f16, San ta t-1onica 90401 7ona)
Contact Person Syd Ju r in Phone 393 -8470
Please descnbe 1M prolect and decISIOn 10 be appealed 1~53 11th Stree t pro,iect f five (5) un it T
three (3) story luxury condominium suhdivision CUP B9.04;;. TTM 4fHH9
Case Number ~ l.J P i 9 - t y.- G "-;;)1 - ..,. tc ?Jf
~~ss 1253 11th Street
Applicant qose and Leo Chanq
Orglnal neanng date -. , Au q.1s t 2 t 1989
Onglnal actIOn a oproved
Pleasestatethespeclflcrtason(s)fortheappealll Sub~ect builduHl was buia in 1~4.~ on A t.rl'lr:t l;:lir!
out in the late 1880's bv architect Waldo K. Cow~n~ Thp. rulilnin~~ tn~thpr with ~~v (6)
other properties like 1233 11th Street also built in 1904. constitutp. 1-he "ori ninrll"
City of Santa Monica and should be preserved as an historic area. 2) Thl~ PtQje~t. with
at least twelve (12) occupant cars. wQUld serious'\.y i\l]l]r<'lvrlt:", thp ~nnJp~t;nn ;mti n....t<;e
in the alleyway between 11th and 12th streets, causing undue hardship to the homeowners
(OVER)
~ /_ II addibonaI space IS needld. USI back allorm
. y dC! utL u-- Dall
L- (J
~d//~/dr
, ,
S19naIU~
SlntlIIonICl Municipal c-.
Subcnapfer 10L AppIlft.
~
--
,
f'Cz-t/oz
.'!IIIt
whose properties face the alleyway. Visitors' parking would be impossible on the
already-clogged 11th Street.
3) This project, with others that will result from a "domino"effect, will not
protect tithe area from deleterious en viromenta 1 effectsl1, and I1the existing character
and state of the residential neighborhoodu will also not be protected as stipulated
in the Zoning Code.
4) The addition of five (5) luxury condominiums will aggravate the already ov~-taxed
water and sewage facilities of the City of San ta Monica. to be compounded further by other
possible similar subdivisions.
5) The entire area should be down.zoned from R-3 to R-2 to preserve the quality of
the residential neighborhood.
.I