Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council

Re: Proposed Variances for 1012 Second Street, City Council Hearing – September 22, 2009

:

We, the undersigned concerned residents and voters in Santa Monica, hereby ask that you deny the SEVEN VARIANCES to the residential zoning code and the proposed vested Parcel Map for the property at 1012 Second Street.

These variances would be harmful to adjacent residents and the neighborhood by allowing structures that exceed the height (including allowing a fourth story in an area where only three-story buildings are allowed), setback, and other zoning regulations.

The Text Amendment to the City Charter allowing this type of Variance was the result of an effort to accommodate a similar project. We must not change the laws of the City to accommodate particular projects, nor create an environment where the zoning laws can be arbitrarily changed to suit developers’ needs. We support incentives to maintain historical properties, but ask that they comply with the height restrictions that would apply to any other development.

According to the Landmark Assessment, the existing house is “one of the last intact surviving examples of this architectural style” from the original township of Santa Monica.  To allow the permanent and adverse alteration of the property by approving this plan would be inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Element of the City.

The Landmarks Commission did not formally approve the project prior to the approval by the Planning Commission.  The proposed Project was presented as a “discussion item” to the Landmarks Commission.   Neighborhood residents were not notified nor was the public allowed to review the plan or comment. Furthermore, the plan presented for discussion was markedly different than the one that the Planning Commission approved. (Please see minutes from Landmarks Commission meeting Nov 10, 2008).

The proposed Project does not meet the guidelines for a categorical CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) exemption, and the Planning Commission did not thoroughly review the CEQA guidelines that apply to historic resources.  A Categorical Exemption should not be allowed since the changes to the historical house in this plan will far exceed the Guidelines for exemptions. This plan would create a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource (CEQA Guideline 15300.2f). The City should require that it undergo CEQA review.

The proposed Project will negatively impact the adjacent residents and property owners by encroaching on an already narrow alley, reducing privacy, reduce or completely block sunlight and create “shadowing” effect on adjacent property due to the height and mass of the proposed building and landscaping.

In the past, we have heard Council members campaign in support of  “keeping our city’s character by controlling development and traffic,” and promise to “protect your neighborhood from overdevelopment and traffic” and “be responsive to residents and neighborhoods.” We respectfully ask you, our elected City Council, to keep your commitment and protect our neighborhood from buildings that exceed height and set-back limits, and to carefully review the CEQA requirements that apply to this project.

Please vote to support the appeal in this case and require the developer to submit a revised plan.