SR-09-28-1976-7A- ~_."~t3 ''S~n1Ca, Cal~fO??'~3, September 10, 1476
i
~~' TO: The Mayor and City Council
~~ fl ~~ ~'
r20M: City-Staff
r~~~x~
~~~~.
SUBJ~CT: Appeal, Landmarks Case 03-007 ~tp ~.,~.~~
:~710retOn Bay Fzg Tree, if lramar Hvt21 ~ .`~ ~
7HS3 ~e~~'.`'8' B~
~~; u~3a~~ rn ray
craw ~tH!tx's ca~~t~a~
lntrOduCtiOn r~b~;i ~,•ppy7
TF11S report d2SCr~beS the deSigriat_On Of th2 M?ramar tree aS
a landmark by the Landmarks Co?r~mission, the appeal procedure
and the alternatives available to tie City Council in its_
capacity as the Appeals Body.
Background
In June the Landmarks Cormission initiated proceedings to
deS3gnate the 1'fOretOn Bdy Frg '_'r e2 at the ~"!1raTar =iO toi a5 a
City Landmark. Public Hearings were held on August 3..rd and i7th
following which the tree was designated as a landmark and a
circular ar2a 100' in diameter from the center of the tree
trunk W35 designates as a 1andr,ark parcel. The Fu]lta Gorp.,
owners of the Miramar property, lave appealed the size of the
'_andInark va"_Cel t0 t e City COllnC11.
under th2 D-rOV1S10nS Of "C112 Landmarks ~J 2"di rianCe any alteratl0n,
remOVal, rel0Cat10n Or der~!Ollt_On Of a landmark Or landmark ^arCel
must be approved by the Landmarks Co-rumission through the issuance
of a Certificate of Appropriateness. In its designation, the
Landmarks CcmT~ission specifically exempted existing structures
within the 100' circle from this provision.
TO: The Mayor and City Council
- 2 - Sep to-.,~_ 10, 15 5
mhe designation o~ the tree is based upon its locat_on on the
site of the former home of $enatar J. P. Jones, the founder
of Santa Monlaa, that 1t Wa5 planted by mem~}'.erS OS tS12 Senator'S
family and its aest?~ietic interest and value. The tree is mare
than 9S y2arS 01d and };aS a Sprea 4i Of dppr6X litia "Le1y 110° It
is ;n good condition and considered a fine 'r,atanical specimen of
its species.
In the course of the hearings the Commission heard testimony by_
a highly qualified landscape architect to the effect that the
tree's root system could be reduced to a distance of 25' from
the base of the trunk and the tree would survive. The Conmiss;on
were also advised that current zoning re•G~,~irements in the R4_
District limited lot coverage to ~0° and that the suggested land-
mark parcel represented approXimately 10~ or tt±e open area re-
Guired.
Tn geleCting the l00° d1aI^eter S122d landmark parcel, the Com-
itl5S3..an eXpreSSed the .ntent to preserve nOt Only t'I1e m?nllill2lR
root strllCtllre heCeSSary fOr 5llr°TiVal 'Dllt an area Sll~~1Clent
t0 retain the-tree`s ap%r'J Xlmate--5122-.:-and-COnf lguratl0n aS w211.
Alternatives
Under the Landmarks
verse or modify any
The decision of the
following a Public
and noticed for the
Ordinance, the City Council may uphold, re-
determination of the Landmarks Ca:rmission.
City Council must be made within 30 days
?ear;ng. The Public Hearing has been scheduled
$epte,:}:er 2~,th Council meeting.
id: The Mayor and City Gou_,cil - 3 - Septe~:ber i0, i97b
Inasmuch as the appeal is only to the size oL the iandmark_
parcel rather than any e~uest.ion as to the appropriateness of the
designation, the alternatives appear to be those of upholding
the 100` circle or reducing it to 50' as desired by the rujita
COrOCratlCn. A third alternatlV2, 1nCreaS_P.g ti'ie size Or 'Ciie
parcel does not appear end=Gated.
The OrOS Sri iaVOr Oi alternatiV2 One include the prOVisiOn Oi
a parcel area susficient to reasonably preserve the fia tree`s
pr2Sent Cbni~guratiO2: WltnOllt unduly restricting the ou-ners°
future deVelOpment. AS indiCdted, file tree°s present Spread 1S
approximately 110', greater than the area proposed, and the
~arCei Si.22 reDr25entS Only abOllt 10o Or file Tegll7.r ed Ope_T'i Space.
i_e COns in"_..de the prvbau_e ~__-t3i~a.t lOn Oi t~'12 deSigna~ed ar2a
being utilized for other than part of the landscaped open space.
The pros in favor of the second alternative, reducing file land-
mark parce'_ to a 50' ra~_her than 100' circle include the ~2serva-
t-On Or t.i`_e "?inSmum area necessary fOr SUrV1?7al and the 12ast
_:ipa-_ri:!ent Or C{eslyn Ca u~abi 11'=1es ~Or rL?.t ;lie COnStrllCtlOn. 'ri'le
cons involife the possibility Mat future construction could im-
pinge so closely upon the tree that its a2sti12t1C values mould
be substantially diminished.
`;ecom,-aendati on
On the basis that the 100' circle is the minimum necessary to
preserve the tree`s present configuration and the requirement
~0: `ihe ~"ayor and City Council
- ~ - September 1Q, 1976
that at least one-hall of the total site must be devoted to
open space and landscaping, there appears to be no unreasonable
deprivation of the owners` future development riches and it is
respectfully recoml ended that trig first alternative be selected
and th2 d2 tc'rm_natton Of the Land,T~a rYS l;C:?~ 1SS1Gn llDheld.
Prepared bp: J. Sv. Lur_sford