SR-7-A (16)
peD SF KG AS OJ f \plan\share\councll\strpt\97TM006 app
Council Mtg January 20, 1998
7A
;j
JAN 2 0 1998
Santa Monrca. California
TO Mayor and CIty Council
FROM City Staff
SUBJECT Appeal of Plannrng CommIssIon Demal of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map
24905 to Allow a Two Parcel SubdivIsion of an EXisting Parcel at 518
Georgina Avenue ApphcanUAppellant Said Torab
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning
CommiSSion's denial of a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to allow a two lot subdivIsion of
an eXisting 22,327 square foot parcel located at 518 Georgina Avenue In the R1 Single
Family Residential Dlstnct On December 17, 1997 the Planning CommissIon voted 4-0
to deny the subdivIsion request, finding that the proposed approximately 11,160 square
foot lots would not be compatible With the scale and character of the eXisting
neighborhood The Planning Commission Staff Report and Statement of OffiCial Action
(STOA) are contained In Attachment C On December 18, 1997, the applicant appealed
this deciSion The appeal statement IS contained In Attachment D
BACKGROUND
Palisades Tract History
The Palisades Tract was onglnally subdiVIded In 1905 and the angInal tract IS bounded
by Seventh Street to the east, Ocean Avenue to the west, AdelaIde Drive to the north, and
7A
JAN 2 0 1998
Montana Avenue to the south This tract was desIgned to accommodate large homes with
ample yard and garden areas, and has been substantially developed In this manner The
neighborhood IS consIdered umque and dlstmct due to ItS 1 aD-foot wide streets. as
compared to other R1 zoned areas of the City, which typically have 60 to SO-foot wide
streets, parcels with wide street frontages of 100+ feet, as compared to other R 1 Dlstrrcts
with average 50-foot wide frontages, and 200-foot deep lots, as compared to other R1
Districts with average 150-foot depths At 40 feet, the front setbacks In the Palisades Tract
are also much larger than most R1 Districts, which generally range from 20 to 30 feet In
depth Parkways and sidewalks average 25 feet In width, which IS larger than most R1
Dlstrrcts
Due to the large lot sizes and open space features, the PalIsades Tract provides more
open space than any other residential neighborhood In the CIty, and attracts many City
residents and VISitors who enJoy walkmg and cycling In the pleasant ambience of the
neighborhood ThIS IS significant. In that the City IS extremely dense. with a population of
approximately 90,000 people wlthm a land area of Just eight square miles The City IS a
highly deSirable place to work or VISit due to ItS ocean side location, fine climate, urban
facIlities and service and entertainment venues, resulting In numerous VIsitors to the area
on both weekdays and weekends Both the population denSIty and congestion Issues
present threats to the quality of life within the City Given the City's denSity, the Palisades
Tract and the open space It provides are a unique asset to the CIty
-2-
PlannlnQ CommiSSIon Action
The applicant requests approval to spilt a 22,327 square foot parcel Into two lots Lot 1
(5075' wide x approximately 2201 deep) would contain a parcel area of 11,175 s f and Lot
2 (50 75' wide x approximately 220') would contam a parcel area of 11,152 s f
At the December 17,1997 Planning Commission hearmg, seven members of the public
spoke agaInst the proJect, CItIng concerns that the proposed subdIVISIon would negatIvely
Impact neIghborhood character and adversely effect the scale of neighborhood
development In voting to deny the request, the CommissIon discussed recommending
approval of a simIlar subdiVISion application at 502 Georgina on September 17. 1997 The
CommiSSion noted that, since taking action on that application, new Information had been
presented at the City Council appeal hearing on the project that had not been presented
at the September CommiSSion meeting ThiS information was also presented at the
CommiSSion's December 17th meeting
APPEAL ANALYSIS
The appeal IS based upon the belief that the subdiVIsion meets both State and City zoning
requirements and, therefore, merits approval The appeal raises two Issues and states,
In part
1 Because the two proposed lots Will satisfy the R-1 Dlstnct standards which
were In place on the date thiS Application was deemed complete (I e ,
October 30, 1997, the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map IS legally entitled to
approval unless there IS a demonstrable environmental, public health, or
phYSical lImitation which would preclude thiS lot spilt (See Government
"
-.)-
Code Section 66474 and zoning Ordinance Section 9 20 14 040 )
The applicant has filed a Vesting Tentative Map for this project and, therefore, contends
that the R-1 standards which were In place at the trme the application was deemed
complete should prevail Because the minimum lot sizes and dimenSions would be met
by the proJect, the appellant believes the project should be approved However, In
approving a tentative map, the Planning Commission. and Council on appeal, must find
that the proposed subdivIsion, together with Its provIsions for Its design and Improvements,
IS consistent with applicable general or speCific plans adopted by the City of Santa Monica
Staff believes that thIS finding of consistency cannot be made since the subdivided lots
would not be compatible with the density. scale. and character of the other properties In
the neIghborhood
The land Use Element of the General Plan Includes Objective 1 10, and Policy 1 10 1,
which seek to expand the opportunity for residential land use while protecting the scale
and character of eXisting neighborhoods -- In thiS case, the Pahsades Tract As previously
stated, the hlstonc subdiVIsion of thiS portion of the City featured 100 foot-wlde/200 foot
deep lots lining 100 foot-wide streets Consequently, homes were deSigned with large
front yards, wide side yards, and large rear yards, creating a unique neighborhood
ambience SubdiVIsion of 100 foot-wide lots mto 50-foot wide lots would allow for denser
development on lots which are half the Size of neighbOring properties Although the
proposed lots exceed the minimum standards set forth In the R 1 District, neighborhood
-4-
scale and compatibility would be adversely affected by the subdivIsion The
neighborhood's low density IS a distinctive feature of the Palisades Tract, therefore the
Increase In densIty which would result from the subdivIsIon of 100 foot wide parcels would
be detrimental to the eXisting neIghborhood character
A number of lot splits were approved In this tract between 1947 and the early 1970's as
a matter of right under the City's Zoning Ordinance In 1976. Ordinance 1024 was
adopted which requIred public notice and a vanance application to approve lot splits under
certain conditions Finally, In 1984, the Council adopted Ordinance 1294, which
Implemented the State SubdIvIsIon Map Act requirements, requIring Planmng Commission
approval for subdivIsIon requests No lot splIts have been approved In the Palisades Tract
since 1976 Consequently, more than fifty percent of the anginal 100 foot parcels In the
PalIsades Tract are stlll mtact and the anginal scale and character of the tract has been
maintained Staff beheves that the loss of additional 100 foot parcels In the tract would
adversely and Irrevocably change the character and scale of the area
2 In denYing this Application. the Planmng Commission relied on a general
Land Use and Circulation Element ("'LUCE") policy statement regarding
neighborhood compatibility to override the express proVISions of the Zoning
Ordinance regulating allowable lot sizes In the R-1 Dlstnct This approach
Violates the rule of Interpretation codified In Callforma Code of CIvil
Procedure SectIon 1859 and CalIfornia Crvrl Code Section 3534 ThIS rule
prOVIdes that when speCifiCS are given, they apply and control over more
general policy statements
-5-
The applicant argues that, because Land Use Element Policy 1 10 1 specifies that the
allowable development intensities are those Identified In the Land Use Element under
Land Use ClasSifications, the City IS precluded from evaluating the Impact of a project's
denSity on the scale and character of a neIghborhood If the project's denSity IS less than
the maximum development Intensity permitted However, the City has never Interpreted
thiS provIsIon to reqUire that the City Impose these precise development Intensities In
every residential dlstnct Instead, thiS provIsion as well as the Zoning Ordinance's
standards regarding development Intensity have been Interpreted to establish a maximum
on the permitted denSity In a given zone
Additionally, the Land Use Element definition regarding allowable development Intensities
should be read In context of the policy's essential focus whIch IS to preserve the character
and scale of reSidential neighborhoods Interpreting thiS provIsion In any other manner
would Impose ngld denSity reqUirements and would prevent the City from assessing the
character and scale of a neighborhood In light of a neighborhood's unique charactenstlcs
and eXisting denSIty The applicant's mterpretatlon would effectively nullify a provISion of
thIS policy Staff believes such a result IS unwarranted
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed subdivISion IS consistent With the MUniCipal Code With regard to lot Sizes
and dimenSions, but IS not conSistent With Municipal Code SectIon 9 20 14 040(a) In that
It IS not consistent WIth applIcable general and speCifiC plans In that It IS not consIstent WIth
-6-
Policy 1 10 1 of the LUCE which encourages the development of new housing In all
eXisting residential districts, while stili protecting the character and scale of
neighborhoods
NE~HBORHOODCONCERNS
Neighbors of the proposed project have expressed Opposition to the project (See
Attachment F, Planning Commission Staff Report) Their comments both In writing, and
at hearings on November 25, 1997 (for the appeal of a Similar lot split at 502 Georgina),
and for the subject project on December 17, 1997, centered on preserving the hlstonc
character, scale, and design of houses Within the Pahsades Tract neighborhoods
Neighbors are also concerned that approval of the subdivIsion would open the door to the
demolition of homes along these streets, and the subsequent redevelopment of lots With
two, rather than one, single family home Residents also cited Land Use Element Polley
1 10 1 r and stated that lot splits would change the scale of the neighborhood and
detenorate Its character by reducing the open, park-like appearance of the wide, palm-
lined streets The lot spilt would create odd-shaped, 50 foot wide x 200 foot long parcels,
With large front setback areas (40 foot) and small (minimum 5 foot) side yard areas which
would be out of scale With the majority of parcels In the area
CEOA STATUS
The proposed subdiVISion IS categorically exempt from the proVISions of CEQA pursuant
to Class i 5 of the State GU!dellnes In that minor subdIvIsions of land creating fewer than
-7-
four parcels In an urbanized area, specifically the R1 Dlstnct, would result In no significant
environmental effect
PUBLIC NOTICE
Pursuant to MUnicipal Code Sections 9 04 20 22050 and 9 20 14 010, notice of the public
heanng was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of the property
located within a 300 foot radius of the project at least ten consecutive calendar days pnor
to the heanng In additIOn. all members of the public who had previously filed comment
letters were included In the mailing notice A copy of the notice IS contained In Attachment
A
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented In thIS report does not have any budget or fiscal Impact
RECOMMENDATION
It IS respectfully recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the
Planning Commission's denial of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 24905 based on the
followmg findings
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FINDINGS
1 The proposed map IS not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
specified m Government Code Section 65451 and should be denied pursuant to
Santa MOnica MunIcipal Code Section 92014 040(a) and Government Code
-8-
Section 66474(a) More specIfically. the design or Improvement of the proposed
subdivIsion IS not consistent with Policy 1 10 1 of the Land Use and Circulation
Element This policy provides In relevant part '"Encourage the development of new
housing In all eXisting reSidential districts. while stili protecting the character and
scale of neighborhoods" Approving thIS parcel map would not be conSistent with
thiS policy based on the follOWing findings
(a) The site IS zoned R-1 and IS located within the Palisades Tract
(b) The Palisades Tract was originally subdivided In 1905 and IS a unique and
distinctive neighborhood Among Its speCial characterrstlcs are 100 foot
Wide streets, as opposed to the 60 foot to 80 foot Wide streets tYPical for
other R1 zoned areas of the City, parcels With 100 feet of street frontage, as
opposed to the tYPical R1 parcel street frontage of 50 feet, 200 foot parcel
depths, as opposed to the tYPical 150 foot deep parcels found throughout
most of the City, 40 foot front yard setbacks. as opposed to the 20 foot to 30
foot front yard setbacks In most of the other R1 areas of the CI.!y, and
parkways and Sidewalks which are on average 25 feet In Width Each of
these features have a direct and substantial Impact on the character and
scale of the neighborhood
(c) The Palisades Tract was deSIgned to accommodate large homes With large
yards and It was developed consistent With thiS deSign Consequently, the
Palisades Tract presently contains large, old homes surrounded by
substantial yards and gardens
(d) As a result of Its broad streets and pathways, large lots. old homes, ample
yards and gardens, and substantial setbacks, the Palisades Tract provides
more open space than any other reSidential neighborhood In the City
(e) The City Itself IS extremely dense With a land area of Just 8 square miles and
a population of approximately 90,000 people Moreover, the combination of
an ocean Side location, fine climate, vigorous economy and urban faCIlities,
servIces and entertainment venues make the City an extremely deSirable
place to work or VISit Consequently, on any weekday, approximately
200,000 persons are present In the City, and on weekends, thiS number
frequently climbs to 400,000 or more Population denSity and congestion
both present threats to the quality of lIfe In the City Given the CIty's denSity,
the Palisades Tract and the open space It prOVides are a unique asset to the
City
(f) Between 1947 and the early 1970's, a number of subdiVISions of the parcels
occurred In the Palisades Tract These lot splIts were approved
administratively as a matter of nght In 1976, the City CounCil adopted
OrdInance 1024 which repealed the nght to subdiVide lots as a matter of
right and reqUired publiC notIce of a vanance application to approve lot splits
under certain conditions In 1984, the City CounCil adopted Ordinance 1294
to Implement the State SubdIVISIon Map Act and require Planning
-9-
CommiSSion approval of subdivIsion requests Since 1976, no lot split has
been approved In the Palisades Tract Consequently, more than fifty percent
of the onglnal1 00 foot parcels In the PalIsades Tract are stili Intact and the
onglnal character and scale of the tract has been maintained However, the
loss of any additional 100 foot parcels would adversely and Irrevocably
serve to change the character and scale of the PalIsades Tract Reducing
lot width from 100 feet to 50 feet would reduce the requIred sldeyard setback
by 50%, resulting In less open space between homes and greater
development density Additionally, reducing an eXisting 100 foot wide
parcel Into two 50 foot wide parcels would be Inconsistent with the anginal
design and plan for the character and scale of the Palisades Tract and the
resulting development would be out of scale with the maJonty of the other
properties In the neighborhood
(g) ThiS divergence from the scale and character of the neighborhood would be
even more stnklng given the location of the proposed lot spilt since the two
50 75 foot wide parcels which would be created by the proposed map would
be narrower than the vast majority of the eXisting parcels on Georgina
Avenue
2 Based upon the findings of fact specified In Paragraph One above, the proposed
map should also be denied pursuant to Santa MOnica MUnicipal Code Section
920 14 040(d) and Government Code Section 66474(d) since the site IS not
phYSically sUitable for the proposed density of development as a two lot subdiVIsion
3 Based on the findings of fact specified In Paragraph One above, the proposed map
should further be denied pursuant to Santa Monica MUnicipal Code Section
920 14 040(h) since the proposed subdiVISion IS inconsistent with Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9 04 08 02 020 whIch provides In relevant part that "the R1
Dlstnct serves to maintain and protect the eXisting character of the residential
neighborhood It
Prepared by Suzanne Frick, Director
Karen Ginsberg, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner
Donna Jerex, AssocIate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
-10-
Attachments
A Notice of Public Hearing
B Radius and LocatIon Map
C Planning CommissIon Staff Report
(December 17, 1997) with attachments
D Appeal Statement
E Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No 24905
- I 1-
1IliJ! -q12
ATTACHMENT A
.~ -013
.. ~ (114
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on the following requests
Appeal ofthe Planmng Commission's Demal of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 24905 (Tract
Map 97-006) under Santa MOnica MUnicipal Code Subchapter 9 20 14 to Create a Two
Parcel SubdivIsion on 5 Acres of Land Located at 18 Georgina Avenue
APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
Said Torab, represented by The Law Firm of Lawrence
and Harding
WHEN:
Tuesday, January 20, 1998
WHERE:
Council Chambers
1685 Main Street, Room 213
Santa MOnica, Callforma
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter Written
information received before 300 pm on the Wednesday before the hearing Will be given
to the City Council In their packet Information received after that time Will be given to the
City Council prior to the meeting
Address your letters to
City Clerk, c/o TM 24905
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more Information about this proJect, please call Assistant Planner Gina SZIIak
at (310) 458-8341 Santa Momca Bus Lines #1, #2, #3, #7 and #8 serve City Hall The
meeting faCility IS handicapped accessible If you have any special needs such as sign
language interpreting, please contact the Office of the Disabled at (310) 458-8701
Pursuant to Callforma Government Code Section 65009(b), If this matter IS subsequently
challenged m Court, the challenge may be limited to only those Issues raised at the Pubhc
Hearing described In this notice, or In written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa
MOnica at, or prior to, the Public Hearlflg
ESPANOL
EI CanCilla MUnicipal de la cludad de Santa Monica tendra una audlencla publica para
revlsar apphcaclones propomendo desarrollo en Santa Monica Para mas mformaclon,
lIame a Carmen Gutierrez al numero (310) 458-8341
"'till 010
iiJtI ~r)16
ATTACHMRNT B
i4~ -017
.. V' IJ 1 8
..
l~ TRACT
N .,...,"l.2,34l;l.~~
~l~ TriACT .J724f <
MB 9'2 7//72 ", !~
" l' 9 :1
, 5
. ....... ...~" :L r-
@ --- 10' 1
\ !~ 3D'f.
~l 1<
1, L- I
...., ."j
I- l~ ~I
z 11
'd :'i- ; ..~ ~ \' "\
I- L
:; . " i
..----- I !~ 23 ,1
, ~1 ~I
s
11! - -\
"oCk 11I'\~ ---- -
J'"
"" $',
... ~~I: Z~ ~I-
, I~ -A"'C'"' N!: .I~,-
Z 3~'22 'I'" -1~
4- ~s; " j..L ."
,/'l -,
el
- " ..~,
'~w~" ", " ...
....&.1 ~ . ...It-
~-- ' '!~
. 5 ~~
--~- %!~
~t 6 t
-'3D ~..... I",
.
'. SEVEt.\TK
;302
I~ 1~
:!""--~--
~
J;"-
,
])
'.
s
..
l~
t,
..
\. '^
,-
I~ 3 i
. r-....--
-< ''!o4
I- 11
C< l~ !~
....
~ ::> ' ~~-~-
<D
"" ;::..:.
o:t ...., -
::E ;..
, :><L ..-
;; '"
...
3EVE ~'"
f
. 1<,"
- I-
'-j ?-'
,'I ~ ~
J' ~, .
;:::::E~
.. .:::60-.....j.".
501
~
, f";) ~
20 JJ~
'2; 1.
'J -0; '7 {~} ;) ~.' '
,.:: W~
.j
~ ,.
.....,
..:J:
@
"
tf5\ 5 TR liT
4 Q ~ \:..;I
I. ;.~.,.A ~~ :;; j'V-? 3.1
': "lt5::;5~3~!" -1,.._ -[
\1IoI.'flllo -t "i 1-- .... oF \
· -<~: ." -,.,-. ~l' . 'J>! ..
! .. .,.~,.. (r g. " - ./
1$ /8 ., .".....3 ~ 'I" i
,L ~ :J,,:~
.. .:~I~~T'- ~'T
I ..... at, I
" ~!.. 1~5 . ~ ~
n~H" - I . ~I
l~ - "l
~
502 @
I, /9 'J
....' ~-
...,~
"
~ ~, -
-~ .......-:
~....,-,,,
r"...~ -
al~.~
, ''''I
4 5
'; 5 4
i"
"
<:
z
a
0:
a
......
t.:)
i'
,~ '..J
~L z;
): ") , y.;
IQ ......':.III"1t~J'::,~! ~ ~---
h n:..:: N:'~~;O ~ ~II~ 1"-
~I~ ....... .... " ~ ;: '/o~. n. .....
i~ 6
~''!o'K
0< ...
4 1
~
..
.~
@
@
':
II~ .~
.~
" ~l
.. -
<-
'It
..,
c-
z
I
I
I"
!
ti
..
'" ~
...
~b"
I I I
oj: ~ !
'"
U-,
_ ~i" '~S
. ,
lU.
16
1~
~..n
:II
I I
,
~~
I \ ! 1
, I' I
; 1 i I
1 ' \
I I
!,! \ 'j I; I
~~~v^-~~
~
."
--"II!!
If co,,, "'0",'''0'
J
I
!
I)
I i
, I
I I
I '
~
LOT 7, BlK H, THE PALISADES CASE NO
STR;;ET ....!JDAES~
518 GEORGINA A,VE
5 "..\
ZONE
R1
APPL':;ANT ~AI D TORAS
9-30-97
:::;AT~
RAD::JS MAP FOR
PUi!LI:
-fEAq N.:;:'
;)f\T~
[?1b\lNJl0JU[f{]@ iQ)~~J\~lJ~~lM1J
~~~rv ..cr~
,,-:r' '1
0~t.~ li /t:>.~~
:If: Ie-renet'
AUOJ Ma~
~...c.t ..... GI
~ ...... r i1-...--...f. r,_ ~ -
.'=-...-..........--- .--
~
I
I
\
I!
.JJ
Ol~
~" Die
ATTACHMENT C
iIl~ .1121
.... - 022