City Council Meeting: January 9, 2007

Agenda Item: 6-A  

To: Mayor and City Council 

From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning & Community Development

Subject: Appeal 06APP-045 of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 63173 (Case No. 06TM-013) for a Proposed Three-Lot Subdivision at 939 San Vicente Boulevard

Recommended Action

It is recommended that the City Council take the following action subject to findings and conditions contained in this staff report: Deny Appeal 06APP-045 and uphold the Planning Commission’s Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 06TM-013 (Map No. 63173).

Executive Summary

The Planning Commission approved a three-lot subdivision for a 23,062 square-foot parcel at 939 San Vicente Boulevard on October 18, 2006. The appellants, Nicole Massarat and Ivo Stoka, filed an appeal on October 25, 2006 contending that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the City’s Land Use Element of the General Plan, and that it is not consistent with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. After careful research and analysis, staff determined that the project is:

1) Consistent with the Land Use Element and Housing Elements of the General Plan, as well as the California Environmental Quality Act,

2) Does not create significant traffic or parking problems, and

3) Is consistent with the character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.

The following issues should be considered by the City Council in its review of the proposed project and are addressed in this report:

• Is the proposed subdivision generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan?

• Is the site physically suitable to develop two additional single-family homes on the site?

• Would the subdivision cause public health problems or substantial environmental damage, including traffic-related?

• Is the proposed subdivision consistent with the character and scale of the neighborhood and general development pattern in the neighborhood?

Discussion

Background

The applicant filed a subdivision application with the City Planning Division on June 20, 2006, requesting a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 23,062 square-foot parcel (approximately one-half acre) at 939 San Vicente Boulevard into three separate parcels for the purpose of constructing three new single-family residences. The site is currently developed with one single-family home that will be demolished to facilitate the subdivision. The new parcels will range in area from 7,414 square-feet to 8,147 square feet. The subject property is located in the R-1 Zoning District at the northwest corner of San Vicente Boulevard and Larkin Place. The property is surrounded on all sides by single-family residences in the R-1 zone, and is bounded by the City of Los Angeles at the northern edge of the City. Diagram 1 below shows the property location in detail.

DIAGRAM 1: LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY

City of Los Angeles

(Pacific Palisades)

North

The proposed three-lot subdivision is subject to the regulations and standards as set forth in Article 9 of the Municipal Code. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the proposed subdivision for compliance with the R-1 (Single Family Residential) District development standards, and finds that the applicant’s proposal conforms to the applicable minimum parcel size requirements of 50’ wide x 100’ deep (5,000 square-foot minimum). No plans for construction of new homes have been submitted with this application.

Commission Action

The Planning Commission approved the application at its October 18, 2006 meeting. The Planning Commission staff report and Statement of Official Action can be found on-line at: http://santa-monica.org/planning/commission/agendas/pc2006/pa20061018.htm

During the deliberation process, the Commissioners acknowledged that while they were sympathetic to the neighbors’ concern about the prospect of change, they did not believe that the subdivision would change or undermine the character and scale of the neighborhood, nor did they agree with claims that the additional net gain of two more homes in the neighborhood would trigger a significant parking or traffic problem on Larkin Place. Furthermore, the Commissioners explained the City’s policy and need to develop new housing, particularly new single-family housing which lags behind condominium development, and reiterated that the construction of two additional homes on the street would meet the City’s objectives for creating new single-family residential opportunities in the City.

Additionally, the Commissioners stated that they felt that the re-orientation of the lot to have houses with street frontage presence on Larkin Place was a very important element which would add to the streetscape and pedestrian orientation experience of the neighborhood. With regard to the adjacent parcel sizes, the Commissioners acknowledged that although there are some large parcels located nearby, many of those parcels abut the bluffs and are on sloped terrain such that not all of the parcel’s square footage was usable. The Commissioners also stressed that what is more important for the neighborhood is the size of the structures, not the size of the parcels, and that the North of Montana R-1 development standards have been designed to restrict the size of new homes.

Appeal Analysis

An appeal of the Planning Commission’s October 18, 2006 decision was filed by the appellants on October 25, 2006. In the appeal statement, e-mail letter dated October 26, 2006, letter from attorney Stephen L. Jones dated October 11, 2006, and supporting letter from Ivo Stoka submitted December 5, 2006, incorporated by reference (Attachment A), the appellants contend that the Planning Commission erred in its approval of the subdivision application. Specifically, the appellants state that the subdivision is not consistent with the City’s Land Use Element of the General Plan in that they believe that the proposed subdivision will be inconsistent with the character and scale and general development pattern of the neighborhood. Additionally, the appellants contend that the subdivision will aggravate parking and traffic problems on Larkin Place, which they feel is too narrow a street to accommodate an additional two homes and will result in health and safety hazards for the residents.

At the public hearing, residents also stated that the subdivision should not be approved because:

• There is significant parking and traffic congestion on Larkin Place (and any addition of more curb cuts on the street would exacerbate problems);
• The proposed subdivision creates parcels that are smaller than the “average” parcel in the North of San Vicente neighborhood;
• The new parcels will cover more of the existing lot, which could also potentially result in the loss of existing trees;
• The proposed subdivision would change the character of the neighborhood;
• The project does not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because there are protected species and protected trees on the subject property;
• The Planning Commission should have employed similar minimum parcel size requirements as required for the Palisades Tract neighborhood (bounded by First and Seventh Streets, and Montana Avenue to Adelaide Drive).

Consistency With General Plan

Land Use Element

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 1.10.1 which provides, in relevant part: “Encourage the development of new housing in all existing residential districts, while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods.” The proposed subdivision would achieve this goal by adding a net gain of two additional single-family homes. The R-1 zoned area surrounding the subject property is characterized by parcels of varying sizes, dimensions and non-rectilinear configurations created by multiple tracts established and recorded at different times. The parcel sizes range from 8,620 square feet to 19,400 square feet in the immediate area, with no typical parcel size or dimension. While the proposed subdivision will result in parcels that are smaller in size than the parcels in the area, the proposed parcels would still be 40% to 60% larger than the minimum 5,000 square feet required by Code, thus, retaining substantial open space on-site. Moreover, the surrounding properties with very large parcel sizes are located adjacent to the north end of the City, which are hillside properties adjacent to the bluffs with extreme topographic characteristics. This results in much of the parcel area being un-usable in that the sloped terrain does not permit buildable floor area. In addition, many of the existing parcels have small parcel street frontages with dwellings that are significantly set back from the street because of the non-rectilinear lot configuration (i.e., “flag” lots, “key” lots). The proposed subdivision will result in parcels that are consistent with other lots in the area in terms of their parcel street frontage, which will allow for new dwellings that engage the streetfront pedestrian environment. As such, particularly as observed from the street, the proposed map would not constitute a divergence from the scale and character of the neighborhood. The subject property is located within a neighborhood where the necessary public infrastructure and improvements are currently in-place, and developments of similar use, density and design are prevalent. Both pedestrian and vehicular access to the site is provided from San Vicente Boulevard and Larkin Place.

Housing Element

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan. Specifically, Housing Element Goal 1.0 is to “promote the construction of new housing within the City’s regulatory framework.” Policy 1.1 requires the City to provide adequate sites for all types of housing, and Policy 1.7 mandates that the City maintain development standards that ensure that the development of new housing in residential neighborhoods is designed to fit within the existing neighborhood context.

The proposed subdivision would fulfill the Housing Element goals and policies by creating an additional net gain of two more single-family homes in the R-1 neighborhood. Further, the subject property is a suitable site to develop for housing, as the property is on a relatively flat, one-half acre parcel which has the capacity to create three separate parcels within the minimum parcel size requirements (50’x100’) of the development standards in the R-1 Zone. Moreover, the proposed subdivision is designed in a manner that will fit in with the existing neighborhood context, as the new parcels will be re-oriented in a manner that will provide housing that will face Larkin Place, as opposed to making it a side yard wall or hedge, which will provide more streetfront presence consistent with many other properties in the neighborhood.

Traffic and Parking Impacts

Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and at the hearing itself, some members of the public stated that Larkin Place had an ongoing parking and traffic problem, and expressed concerns that the proposed subdivision would exacerbate the problem. While no development proposals are submitted with this application, any future development of single-family homes would be required to provide a minimum of a two-car garage on each parcel to satisfy off-street parking requirements. There is one existing house on the subject property.

In order to evaluate potential traffic impacts, traffic count data was taken on Larkin Place. The 24-hour machine traffic counts were taken on a typical weekday in November 2006, and revealed that only a total of 57 vehicle trips occur daily on Larkin Place, a cul-de-sac, or an average of 7 trips per parcel. However, it should be noted that construction activities are taking place on at least one residence on the block, and the construction traffic is included in this data. Therefore, it could be expected that the addition of two parcels would add approximately 14 daily vehicle trips. Additionally, the proposed parcels to be added to Larkin Place are located near San Vicente Boulevard and the vehicle trips associated with the development of these parcels with single-family residences will not impact the remainder of Larkin Place to the north. Finally, the existing traffic volumes on Larkin Place do not exceed the City’s thresholds of 2,200 car trips per day for local streets; therefore, the project would not trigger a “significant impact” for the purposes of CEQA.

Usable Parcel Coverage

Prior to and at the public hearing, some members of the public expressed concern that the proposed subdivision would result in parcels that are uncharacteristically smaller than the “average” parcel size in the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has conducted a survey of the surrounding parcels in the neighborhood to verify this claim. The following diagram displays the surrounding parcels and their square footages.

DIAGRAM 2: SURROUNDING PARCEL SIZES

All of the parcels on the left side of this diagram are located on the northernmost edge of the City limits and abut bluffs which overlook properties in Pacific Palisades and Rustic Canyon. Much of the land area on those parcels is devoted to steep, sloped terrain which results in land that is virtually un-buildable and un-usable as open yard space. As shown on the diagram, those properties on the northern City limits are primarily the parcels with the greatest land area, ranging from 9,630 square feet to 19,400 square feet.

The parcels in the area that are not on sloped terrain are significantly smaller in size. For example, the two parcels located directly across the street from the subject property are 8,202 and 8,740 square feet. The parcels directly behind the subject property, on Winnett Place, are 8,620, 9,570 and 11,910 square feet. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed subdivision, with parcels ranging from 7,414, 7,500 and 8,147 square feet, is consistent with the general pattern of parcel development in the area.

North of San Vicente Neighborhood Differs From Palisades Tract

Opponents to the proposed subdivision have asked that City staff employ similar minimum parcel size requirements that are in place for the R-1 zoned properties located between First Court Alley and Seventh Street and between Montana Place North Alley and Adelaide Drive (known commonly as the “Palisades Tract”), which require minimum dimensions of 100 feet wide by 175 feet deep. However, there are currently no Code provisions to require minimum parcel sizes larger than 5,000 square feet (50’ x 100’) at the subject site (SMMC §9.04.08.02.070c). At its September 12, 2006 meeting, the City Council directed staff to examine the issue of proposing larger minimum lot sizes for the R-1 neighborhood located north of San Vicente Boulevard. It is anticipated that the issue will be presented to the Council in spring 2007.

Further, this neighborhood (“North of San Vicente”) differs significantly from the Palisades Tract in that this neighborhood is characterized by parcels of varying sizes, dimensions and non-rectilinear configurations created by multiple tracts established and recorded at different times, while the Palisades Tract was originally developed as a single tract with the parcels all of similar shape and dimensions. Diagram 3 below illustrates the different tracts in the surrounding neighborhood North of San Vicente Boulevard compared with the Palisades Tract. These very unique attributes were detailed in the February 9, 1999 City Council staff report recommending adoption of Ordinance 1936 (CCS) which modified the Palisades Tract minimum lot dimensions: http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/1999/s99020908-A.html.

DIAGRAM 3: TRACT HISTORY IN NORTH OF SAN VICENTE NEIGHBORHOOD

COMPARED TO PALISADES TRACT

North of San Vicente Neighborhood

PALISADES TRACT

Neighborhood Compatibility

The proposed subdivision would re-orient the existing parcel to provide three homes with street frontage presence on Larkin Place. The re-orientation of the parcel would result in a more consistent streetscape with the rest of the neighborhood, providing a street-front presence where currently there are many tall hedges and fences that greet the pedestrian on the cul-de-sac streets North of San Vicente Boulevard. Due to the varying sizes and shapes of many of the parcels in the surrounding neighborhood, some flag-shaped parcels with narrow street frontages have homes that are set as far back as 100 feet from the front property line, and greet the visitor with a six-foot high fence or wall at the entry. Diagram 4 shows some examples of neighboring properties with irregular-shaped parcels that have structures set back very far from the front parcel line and are developed with tall fences and walls at the street-front entry, resulting in a “fortress-like” street frontage.

DIAGRAM 4: STREET-FRONT PRESENCE OF IRREGULAR-SHAPED PARCELS

110 Larkin Place (next door to subject property)

102 Winnett Place (street behind subject property)

109 Esparta Way

Alternatives

In addition to the recommended action, the City Council could consider the following with respect to the project if supported by the evidentiary record and applicable legal requirements, including the requirements of State law:

1. Uphold Appeal 06APP-045 and deny the Planning Commission’s approval of Parcel Map 06TM-013.

2. Continue the appeal hearing for specific reasons, consistent with applicable deadlines and with agreement from both the applicant and appellants;

3. Articulate revised findings and/or conditions to approve OR deny the subject application, with/without prejudice.

Environmental Analysis

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303, Class 3 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Single-family dwellings located in residential zones and in an urbanized environment are exempt from environmental review. In addition, the project is exempt pursuant to Section 15315, Class 15 of the CEQA Guidelines as the subdivision is located in an urbanized area, will result in the creation of four or fewer parcels and is in compliance with existing zoning requirements.

Moreover, the property and any existing improvements have been reviewed, and for the purposes of CEQA, determined not to be a significant historic resource due to the fact that building records indicate that the exterior appears to have been altered from its original material, no notable architect is listed on the original building permit, and there have been several additions over the years. Notwithstanding this CEQA determination, because the existing structure proposed for demolition is over 40 years old (existing house constructed in 1950), a permit to demolish the existing improvements will not be issued until the Landmarks Commission reviews the demolition permit application and all requirements of SMMC Section 9.04.10.16.010 (d) are met. The City’s Landmarks Commission retains jurisdiction to review the demolition permit application and to nominate the improvement as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit pursuant to the designation criteria and procedures contained in Chapter 9.36 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. At the time this report was prepared, the Landmarks Commission had not reviewed the demolition permit for this property.

At the public hearing, some members of the public expressed concern that the proposed subdivision is not categorically exempt from CEQA because they felt that the subject property contained endangered species habitat and protected species of trees. The subject property contains several Pittosporum trees and two Sycamore trees. The only trees that are proposed for removal involve a row of Pittosporum trees fronting on Larkin Place in order to allow the new homes to provide street frontage onto Larkin Place upon reorientation of the lot. The remaining trees on the subject property are not proposed to be removed because they are located adjacent to what would be the new rear parcel lines, which would be in the new parcel’s rear setback area. Nevertheless, City Planning staff and the City’s Urban Forester conducted a site inspection of the property in early December 2006 to investigate. The City’s Urban Forester determined that none of the existing trees on the property were of a historic nature or worthy of some form of preservation because they are not considered specimen trees. Moreover, staff has documented that the property does not contain any fish or wildlife habitat and is not a particularly sensitive environment that would trigger further analysis under CEQA.

Public Outreach

Notice of the public hearing was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press and mailed to all owners and occupants of property located within a 300-foot radius of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing.

Budget/Financial Impact

The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.

Prepared by:

Ava M. Pecherzewski, Associate Planner

Approved:	Forwarded to Council:
Eileen Fogarty Director, Planning & Community Department	P. Lamont Ewell City Manager

Attachments:

A. Appeal Statement

B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 63173

C. Subdivision Map Findings and Conditions

ATTACHMENT A

APPEAL STATEMENT

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT B

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 63173

Electronic version of attachment is not available fore review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT C

Subdivision Map Findings and Conditions

FINDINGS:

1. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451. Specifically, while the subject property is not located in an area governed by a specific plan as specified in Government Code Section 65451, the proposed map is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 1.10.1 which provides, in relevant part: “Encourage the development of new housing in all existing residential districts, while still protecting the character and scale of neighborhoods.” The site is zoned R-1. The area is characterized by parcels of varying sizes, dimensions and non-rectilinear configurations created by multiple tracts established and recorded at different times. The parcel sizes range from 8,620 square feet to 19,400 square feet in the immediate area, with no typical parcel size or dimension. While the proposed subdivision will result in parcels that are smaller in size than the parcels in the area, the proposed parcels would still be 40% to 60% larger than the minimum 5,000 square feet required by Code. Thus, the proposal would retain substantial open space. In addition, many of the existing parcels have small parcel street frontages with dwellings that are significantly set back from the street because of the non-rectilinear configuration of the lot. The proposed subdivision will result in parcels that are consistent with other lots in the area in terms of their parcel street frontage, which will allow for new dwellings that engage the streetfront pedestrian environment. As such, particularly as observed from the street, the proposed map would not constitute a divergence from the scale and character of the neighborhood.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Specifically, while the subject property is not located in an area governed by a specific plan, compliance with the City’s General Plan is required. Although no improvements are associated with the proposed subdivision, any future development of the parcels will be consistent with the policies set forth in the City’s General Plan.

3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. Specifically, the subject parcel to be subdivided is large in size and located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. No physical development is proposed at this time, only site subdivision.

4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Specifically, the subject parcel is large in size and located within an urbanized area adequately served by existing roadways and infrastructure. Although no improvements are associated with the proposed subdivision, any future development of the parcels will be consistent with policies set forth in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, in that the proposed subdivision is located in an urbanized area that does not contain habitats or would otherwise injure fish and wildlife and no improvements are associated with the proposed subdivision.

6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvement is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The subdivision of the parcel does not have the potential to disrupt the urban environment or otherwise cause serious public health problems because no improvements are associated with the proposed subdivision. Any future development of the parcels will be consistent with policies set forth in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision in that there are no public easements located within the proposed subdivision.

8. The proposed subdivision is consistent with any ordinance or law of the City of Santa Monica. Specifically, the project has demonstrated compliance with the applicable minimum parcel size and dimensions contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Although no improvements are associated with the proposed subdivision, any future development of the parcels will be consistent with policies set forth in the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Administrative

1. The tentative map shall expire 24 months after approval, except as provided in the provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6 and Subchapter 9.20.18 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. During this time period the final map shall be presented to the City of Santa Monica for approval. No building permit for the project will be granted until such time as the final map is approved by the Santa Monica City Council.

2. An appeal of the approval conditions of approval, or denial of a subdivision map must be filed with the City Clerk within ten consecutive days following the date of Planning Commission determination in the manner provided in Part 9.20.14, Section 9.20.14.070. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator.

3. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied.

Conformance with Approved Plans

4. The Plans shall comply with all applicable provisions of Article IX of the Municipal Code and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica.

Cultural Resources

5. No demolition of buildings or structure built 40 years of age or older shall be permitted until the end of a 60-day review period by the Landmarks Commission to determine whether an application for landmark designation shall be filed. If an application for landmark designation is filed, no demolition shall be approved until a final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission on the application.

Standard Conditions

6. Final parking lot layout and specifications shall be subject to the review and approval of the Transportation Management Division.

7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a copy of the recorded map shall be provided to the City Planning Division.

ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT (EPWM)

Drainage

8. Notwithstanding any Subdivision Map notations to the contrary, in order to mitigate storm water and surface runoff from the project site, an Urban Runoff Mitigation Plan may be required by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management (EPWM) pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 7.10. The applicant shall contact EPWM to determine applicable requirements, which include the following:

· Non-stormwater runoff, sediment and construction waste from the construction site and parking areas is prohibited from leaving the site;

· An sediments or materials which are tracked off-site must be removed the same day they are tracked off-site;

· Excavated soil must be located on the site and soil piles should be covered and otherwise protected so that sediments do not go into the street or adjoining properties;

· Washing of construction or other vehicles shall be allowed adjacent to a construction site. No runoff from washing vehicles on a construction site shall be allowed to leave the site;

· Drainage controls may be required depending on the extent of grading and topography of the site; and

· New development is required to reduce projected runoff pollution by at least twenty percent through incorporation of design elements or principles, such as increasing permeable surfaces, diverting or catching runoff via swales, berms, and the like; orientation of drain gutters towards permeable areas; modification of grades; use of retention structures and other methods.

Off-site

9. All off site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be installed. Plans and specifications for off site improvements shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer.

10. A subdivision improvement agreement for all off site improvements required by the City Engineer shall be prepared and a performance bond posted through the City Attorney's office.

Final Map Requirements

11. In submitting required materials to the Santa Monica Engineering Division for a final map, applicant shall provide a copy of the approved Statement of Official Action.

12. The form, contents, accompanying data, and filing of the final subdivision map shall conform to the provisions of SMMC Sections 9.20.12.010 through 9.20.08.090 and the Subdivision Map Act. The required Final Map filing fee shall be paid prior to scheduling of the Final Map for City Council approval.

13. One mylar and one blue-line copy of the final map shall be provided to and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to issuance of any building permit for a condominium project pursuant to Government Code Section 66499.30. Applicant shall also provide the County with a copy of this Statement of Official Action at the time the required copies of the map are submitted.

14. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the requirements of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.16.010 (d) shall have been met.