SR-01-13-1981-11F~, _i
JA~1 ~ 3 t9&~
Santa Monica, California, January 2, 1981
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal, .Modification of .Landscaping Plan, Tentative
Tract No. 38531, New 16-Unit Condominium, 202 San
Vicente, Progressive Savings and Loan
Introduction
This is an appeal from the Planning Commission's modification
of the landscaping plan for a new condominium project on San
Vicente Boulevard. Appeal is by Councilmember Jennings.
Background
On October 15, 1979 the Planning Commission approved the Tentative
Tract Map for a new 16-unit condominium on a vacant lot at 202
San Vicente Boulevard which still contained several mature trees
including nine palms and a large Pittosporum. As a condition
of approval the Commission required retention of four of the
palms and the Pittosporum with the further requirement that the
palms to be removed either be relocated on site or moved to a
city park at the developer's expense. The Pittosporum was sub-
sequently damaged by a storm and a substitute approved by the
Architectural Review Board's landscape architect. Five palms
were eventually moved to Virginia Avenue Park but only two,
instead of four, were retained on site.
On October 20, 1980 the Planning Commission required the developer
to replace the two missing palms and comply with the original
1;1nd'SO~~j.ng pl~xa. On December 15, 1980 the Planning Commission
0
d 6°~ ~ 1 v s'l; ,; ''
Mayor and City Council
-2- January 2, 1981
approved a modified landscaping plan using Canary Island pines
in lieu of palms and requiring relocation of the two remaining
palms to a park at the developer's expense. The revised land-
scaping plan was approved by the Architectural Review Board on
December 16, 1980. On December 19, 1980 the Planning Commission's
action was appealed by Council member ~ehnings. In the interim
the developer has installed all of the txeesrcalled-for by the
new plan.
Alternatives
Under the City's condominium procedures the City Council may
affirm, reverse or modify any action of the Planning Commission
in regard to a tract map and the decision of the Council is
final. The Council, therefore, has three alternatives available:
1. Deny the appeal and affirm the Commission's action,
thereby ratifying the new landscaping plan approved by
the Commission and the Architectural Review Board.
2. Grant the appeal and delete the new landscaping plan,
requiring the developer to proceed with the original
plan including the provision of two mature palm trees
to replace those erroneously removed.
3. Grant the appeal and modify the new landscaping plan
to require the retention of the two existing palms in
addition to the Canary Island pines.
Recommendation
In view of both the Planning Commission and the Architectural
Review Board's approval of the revised plan and the relocation
of the two palm trees to a city park where they will receive a
Mayor and City Council -3~ January 2, 1981
higher degree of protection than might exist on site, it is
respectfully recommended that the appeal be denied and the
Planning Commission's action affirmed,
Prepared by: James Lunsford
JL:bn
~p~~;
w
~~. ~,-,.'. ~3 i'1
~€~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ U~
December 19, 1980
TOc TYe Honorable City Council
F.'FtOM: William Jennings
1~Et 202 San Vicente Boulevard, Tentative Tract No. 38531,
Modification of Landscape Plans
T respectfully appeal the decision of the Planning Commission
on December 15, 1980 allowing the. Developer of the above
Tentative Tract to revise that Tract's landscape plans
allowing the removal of two large palms from the premises,
The grounds for this appeal are:
1. The :Developers newest landscape plan is not in keeping
with the intent of the Commission to retain
existing planting.
2. That there is substantial question as to whether
the Developer has .acted in good faith with respect
to previous Commission requirements; and
3. Landscape Plans incorporating the existing palms
are possible.
n
12espectfull.y /ubmitted,
The staff report concerned a request for modification of plans fora new five-
unit condominium at 2325 Twentieth Street by Charles }lou. A 1S0-day extension had
been granted Plovember 3, 19$U: (There being no-one present to speak for the app7i--
cation in its turn before the Commission, the matter was postponed and heard later.)
Mr. Hou was then present and spoke for his request. Chairman !Catz moved to approve
the extension of the Tentative Map for 1$0 days with t}re requirement that the dish-
washers be moved right next to the sink in the same wall as the sink. Seconded by
Commissioner Edvaards, the motion carried by the following vote:
AYE: Hotchkiss, Kennedy; Sullivan, Katz
NAY: Cloke, Edwards
ABSENT: Kleffel
E. Re uest for Extension:. Tentative Tract No. 36240'
.The staff report was read for an extension requested fora new six-unit condo-
minium at 911-913 Fifth Street by International V.I:P. Investments, Inc. (This item
was taken prior to Items 5C and 5D during the meeting because 5C & 5D representa-
tives had not arrived in ahe.Co_unci7_Chamber:j .Commission discussion centered
on the court case Filed by the applicants. Robert Smylie, project attorney, spoke
for the matter. Commissioner Sullivan r:cved to grant a 1$0-day extension., seconded
by Commissioner Kennedy. 'Commissioner Cloke proposed a substitute motion to extend.
for 30 days. There was .no second. .Therea,""ter-Commissioner Notchkiss moved to grant
a 90-day extension, as a substitute r.;otion. Seconded by Commissioner Edwards; it
failed to carry, as follows:.
AYE: Hotchkiss, Edwards
'NAY: Cloke, Kennedy, Sullivan, '',atz
A6SEM(: Kleffel
'fhe original motion to grant a 1$0-day extension was then voted upon and failed as
follows: (None that the Commission later granted a 90-day extension. See Page 3.) .
RYE: Flotchkiss,.Kennedy, Sullivan
NAY: C7oke, Edwards, Ka t
ABSENT: Kleffel
st for t~iodiFication: Tentati
3$531
I
S
Fr
The staff report was read concerning another request for modification of the
landscaping plan at 202 San Vicente Boulevard for a new sixteen unit condominium
by Plotkin Rosen Development Co. Ron Reimers, landscape architect, addressed the
Commission concerning the landscaping plan proposed by the developers. During
the public hearing:
Linda Black, 1025=z Eighteenth Street, noted her concern about the palm
trees disappearing from the project.
Commissioner Hotchkiss moved for approval aF the modification under the conditions
set forth in the staFf report recommendation,with.additional conditions that the
replacement planting, specified .for the Pittosporum Undulaturn or Victorian Box
which are noted for removal on the east side, whether in the patios or wherever,
be specified so that the replacements may be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Board and be substantial ,so that neighboring properties maintain a feeling of the
greenery they previously and presently have, subject to appropriate finding as to
orvaership and agreement with adjoining owners as necessary; and that a medium .
sized,fairly full tree be located along the west side back near the adjoining
p<~rrkingcourt of the adjoining building; and that, should there be any accidents
-in the moving of the existing palm trees, if for any reason they cannot be moved
properly, trees of equal size mu t he provided as replacements.. Seconded by Com-
,...~;
~.
CITY PLAAiNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
M E M O R A N D U\ M
DATE: December 1, .1980 `~~ ~~ ~ •~' ~~~,/
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM:. The Director of Planning
C'= ~`
~,~
SUBJECT: Request for Modification, Landscape Plan, Tentative
Tract No. 38531; Nero 16-Unit .Condominium, 202 San Vicente
.Boulevard, Progressive Savings and Loan.
This is a request for furi:her modification of the landscaping plan
at 202 San Vicente Boulevard, Last considered by the Commission
on October 20, 1980. The staff recommends that the modifications
be approved subject to Architectural Review Board approval and
substantial compliance prior to Final Map submission because:
1. This will be the fourth major landscaping plan approved
for this project, each of the first three having subsequently
been discarded.
2. Part of the original intent was to retai.a existing plant-
ing as much as possible and as shielding for adjacent proper-
ties during construction,.a purpose which has been entirely
defeated and toward which no effort has been made during the
past 40 days despite assurances that immediate action would
be taken. The developers have instead constructed masonry
walls and contracted for yet another landscaping plan.
3. Installation of approved landscaping is the most appro-
priate means of assuring concerned citiaens that the Commis-
sion's requirements will be complied with, especially in those.
instances where previous assurances have not been fu11fi11ed.
RECOMMENDATION. It is respectfully recommended that the subdivider's
request for an alternative landscaping plan be approved with notice
to the subdivider that the Commission does not consider the tendered
Final Map in compliance with the approved tentative, that it will
not be submitted to t1.ie City Council for consideration until cer-
tified to be in compliance by the Comrmission, and that such certi-
fication will not be given until the following has occurred:
1. An alternative landscaping plan on the ot-der of that
proposed in the Plotkin/ROSen letter of November 19, 1980
has been approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2. Any existing palm trees removed from the premises have
been relocated in a City park under the direction of the
Recreation and Parlcs Department.
~, ~~ ~
Planning Con¢nission -2- Decernber, I, 1980
3. The major landscape features., including but not limited
to all trees in the front yard,.-court yard and replacement
trees on the southwesterly side yard, have been installed
in accordance with the approved plan.
Respectfully submitted,.
' ames un - ard;
irector of Planning
JL:lk
T.T. 38531
PLOTKIN ROSEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
13352 Washington Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90066
(213)822-9122 November 19, 180
Planning ,Commission
City of Santa Monica
SantaMOnica, California
Dear Commissioner:
The purpose of this ,letter is to respectfully request the following
approvals:
1. Approval of the modification to the existing landscaping
plan to a landscaping plan which better integrates the
landscaping to the buildings and to the landscaping along
San Vicente Boulevard. The revised landscaping plan recom-
mended and designed by Mr. Ron Reimers, Landscape .Architect,
significantly upgrades the current plan (see the attached plan
and the descriptions below); and
2. Upon approval of the revised landscaping plan, that the
Commission allow submission of the Final Map to the Citv_
Council for final approval and recordation.
The reasons for modifying the landscaping plan and requesting the
above approvals are two-fold: physical impossibility and/or imprac-
ticality to implement certain of the current landscaping requirements
of the Tentative Tract Map and the lack of architectural integrity
in the resulting landscaping if in fact the conditions could have been
satisfied. The following is a description of the problems with the
current landscaping plan and the solutions recommended by Mr, fieimers.
Front Palm T.'rees (San Vicente Blvd.)
When the Tentative Tract Map extension was approved by the Commission,
we Were required to purchase'2 additional Phoenix Carnariensus (Canary
Island Palms) to replace the 2 palm relocated and donated to Virginia
Avenue Park. Since San Vicente is characterized by multi-trunk and
branch trees rather .than by palms (there are no other parkway palms
in that area of San Vicente), it has thusly been recommended to forego
..bringing in the 2 new palms. In addition, we wish to donate (at our
cost) the. remaining 2 palms to a City park, bringing to 7 the total
number of large palm trees voluntarily donated to the City by us. In
exchange for the 7 donated palm trees (see attached letters), we will
install 8 single and multi-trunk Eucalyptus Citriodora ranging in
height from 25' to 50'. The result is a front elevation with a greater
number of ,trees, greater landscaping inte~_est and det-aii and 2 addit-
Tonal trees donated by us for the use and enjoyment. of the City park
system.
Page 2
Courtyard Ficus Microphylla
As approved by the Commission,we were required to replace the large
Pittosporum tree killed prior to our purchase of the property with
a 25' high and 25' wide Ficus Microphylla. In order to place this
size tree in the courtyard, it would necessitate the closure of
San Vicente Blvd. for a 48 hour period iri order to allow two 90-ton
cranes working in tandem to place the tree in the courtyard. It
was the opinion and recommendation of the Mr. Crane Co., a leading
California large crane operator, that it would be a costly and dangerous
manuauver, and that he could not guarantee the safety of the tree
or of the building. Tn addition, in order to fit the tree into the
courtyard, it would be necessary to cut the spread by S' since it
exceeds the size of the courtyard. Once installed, the tree would cut
all effective light into the courtyard, be out of proportion to the
courtyard and woral.d eliminate our ability to introduce flowers and
small plantings into auk brick planters. It was thusly recommended
to install a 48" box Ficus .Microphylla in the courtyard with a height
of 14' and a spread of 16' and to add three 24" box Tristania Conferta
(16' high) a7.ong the west sideyard wall to provide screening for
our. building and the adjacent building.
Existing Eastside Trees
The eastside property line currently has some Pittosporum Undulatum
of varying size and health. It has been recommended to carefully
trim and shape th^ salvageable trees and to remove those stumps and
superfluous specisr.ens from the alley to the point indicated on the
.plan.
Westside Punica Granatum
At the time of the extension approval, it was required by the Commissio:
to replace this tree in a westside patio. The tree size so required
has a spread of 15' in a 10' sideyard area. The tree would encroach
on the adjacent property and its root system would interfere with
the property line wall (as the previous tree did with the previous
wall). Mr. Reimers has recommended against the planting of this
tree because it defeats the purpose of providing an open patio area;
it encroaches on adjacent property and is not in context with the
overall landscaping design. '
Summary
Tn summary, the recommendations made by Mr. Reimers are logical and
1
_ Page 3
will create a superior product com~iared to the currently .approved
plan. It also eliminates a severe traffic problem and the liability
exposure created by the condition that we install a 2,5'.Ficus tree
in the courtyard. We have worked very hard to produce a product that
will enhance San Vicente. N7e have, at every step ,of the way, upgraded
the building and the landscaping design; and have worked with the
City at each step to secure the necessary ap,p.rovals and permits.
We have to date, donated 5 large palm trees tothe City andwishto
donate 2 more. However, unlike other projects in the City; we have
added more trees than were relocaL-ed, and have only used mature trees
which look goad. today rather than same little 15 gallon "future"
trees. Landscaping is an integral element in the creation of success-
ful ].ivina areas and successful neighborhood environments. San.
Vicente i:;, an important resource of the community and derr.dEnds of this
project a fully integrated and coordinated landscaping deign; not.
a patchwork design. What we have been facing and battling is trying
to force certain landscaping elements to fit where logic dictates
they do not belong.
We trust that you can now appreciate that we also share the concerns
of the Commission with respect to the preservation and enhancer:raant
of the City's landscaping. We have satisfied the preservation of
trees by donating 7 palms to the Park system and have enhanced our
:specific project by designing a landscaping plan superior to the
one which :i.ncorporated the existing trees. Your approval of our
requests will enable us to proceed .immediately w9.th the approval. of
our Final Map, and will a7.1ow us to proceed with landscaping of ourr
project and the addition of the palm trees to the City park a
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
ff ? q l
"x i. ~J
Pa,,il Plotkin JJef~frey A. Rosen
.. San Vicente Ocean Townhomes
S A ~ti
CITY PLATV'NS`~G DEPARTMENT
CITY GF SANTA MONICA
M E :~; O R A N D U M
DATE: October 20, 1980
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: The Director of PZannina
SUBJECT: Request for Extensica, T=ntative Tract No. 38531,
New 16-Unit Condominiui:,,~202 San Vicente Blvd., R4
This is an application for extension of a Tentative Tract Map
carried over from October 5 for determination of the exact number
of trees required to be retained. Review of plans, documents
and approvals indicates that 2 palm trees and 1 pomegranate,
supposed to be retained, are now missing,
The current project owners are not the same as those who designed
the project initially.
ORIGINAL CONDITIONS, The site map shows .the following trees.
existed at the time of application:
1 large avocado
9 palms
1 pittosporum
1 magnolia
1 pomegranate
4 oranges
PLADINING COP'L~;ISSION APPROVAL. On October 15, 1979 the Planning
Commission approved plans ballinc for the retention of 4 palms,
1 pittosporu.-n, and the existing screening landscaping located on
.both sides of the property both during and after construction,
The Commission also added the condition that the palms the
developer had planned to remove Host be either relocated on site
or moved to a City park at his expense,
The pittosporw-n was subsequently da:-aaged by a storm, and the
Arct?itectural Review Board's landscape architect approved a 25'
high and 25' wide rusty leaf fig as an appropriate substitute.
The revised landscape plan also indicated relocation of 4 of the
5 palms in the middle of the lot. Two were to be moved to the
front yard and two to the rear yard. The revised plan also
indicated retention of an existing pomegranate tree on the westerly
lot line.
i
Planning Com_-^.ission -2- October 20; 1980
SUBSEQUENT C_u=`iG~S. Th° ceveloper reports the following sequence
of events in regard to the palms. There were 5 palms in the
middle of the ict, 4 of :which were to be relocated, 2 to the
front and 2 to t'?e rear. .he first to be moved fell and broke. in
half when it was lifted out of the ground. The Edison Company
advised agair_st cuttinc the trees in the rear yard because of the
overhead electric lines. Consequently, the 3 remaining trees were
all moved to the front and placed between the 2 existing palms on
each side. there sere then 3 palms' on the westerly side and 4
palms on the easterly side. They maintain the small 10" palm was
never intended to be retaine3. P7hen excavation for the garage
began, the trees began to fa21 and there was no way to anchor them,
so S of the trees, the 3 ne:~rly relocated and the 2 existing at each
corner of the building, za=_re ;:loved to Virginia Avenue Park. The
pomegranate trees had to ae removed when an existing retainin g
wall was remo•red because the root system was involved in the wall`s
base.
PRESENT CONDI^IO':5. At present only 2 of the 4 required palms
remain. Additionally, the pomegranate tree is also gone and there
is no shrubbery: or screening whatsoever on .the westerly side.
UNAUTHORIZED RJ`~`,OVAL. The 3 trees .clearly removed without
authorization include 1 30" diameter palm with a 72" base from
the westerly Iot line, i 36" dia-nater palm with a 60" base from
the easterly side, and a 12" pomecranate from the rear westerly
line.
ALTERNATIVES. Extensio^ of a Tract Map is discretionary by the
Planning Com~~ssion. Th=_ City Attorney's office has advised that
a recent cour~ ruling pro'?ibits the imposition of new conditions
on an extension, that t^e extension can be for time only. The
Final Map for the proje^t was received by the City Engineer on
September 18, 198 and `oraarded to the Planning Department for
submission tc the City Co incil on October 13, 1980. Without
extension, tine tentative .nap twill expire on October 13, 1980.
Approval of a rir_a1 Diap b~,> the City Council is required if it
conforms to the tentative. Inasmuch as 3 required trees are
lac;cing, the Final Riap does not appear to conform to the tentative
and the Coancil would not be obligated to apprpve it.
Available alternatives include denial of the extension, which -
would cause the rip to exoire and require reapplication; or grant
the extension :cith renlace^.ent of the missing trees required
before Final 2daa aaproval.
RECOMMEVDhTIO_:. In vie-a of the Commission's inability to impose
conditions on an extension, it is respectfully recommended that
an extension be cranred for a period of 180 days, with official
Planning Commission
'3- October 20, 1980
notice to the subdivider that the Commission does not consider the
tendered Final Map in compliance with the approved tentative,
that it will not be submitted to the City Council for consideration
until certified to be in co-~pliance by the Commission, and that
such certification will nct be given until the fol~.owing has
occurred:
1. Two palms, as sirilar as possible in size and
configuration to those removed, are replaced in the
approximate location fro-r which they were removed, or
other approved location.
2. A 12" diameter pok,egranate tree is replaced at the
location from which it was removed.
3. That the rusty lea= fig and the 2 24'° box podacarpus
are in place to replace ti?e lost screening on the westerly
side.
Respectfully submitted,
ames Lun ford
Director of Planning.
JL:mdt