Loading...
SR-402-088 e .- ~ City of Santa Monica@ City Council Report City Council Meeting: January 9, 2007 Agenda Item: (P4- 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 1 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 BackQround 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. 2 DIAGRAM 1 : LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Pa'n:"lt llJl' .~.~ ~ ,~ ; ; P' ,1 I ~ I L'~, ,,(ill' S"'f\",'IOEN1E &i..\JO , . IIo:ttNlI'r ""1. '~ a... I .t' l 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. 3 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.orQ/planninQ/commission/aQendas/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 4 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 Analvsis 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); 5 . 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 6 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 (Le., "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 7 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 ParkinQ 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. 8 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 CoveraQe 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. 9 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 10 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 NeiQhborhood 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 S9.04.08.02.070c). 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 11 Ordinance 1936 (CCS) which modified the Palisades Tract minimum lot dimensions: http://www.smQov.netlcityclerk/council/aQendas/1999/s99020908-A.html. DIAGRAM 3: TRACT HISTORY IN NORTH OF SAN VICENTE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARED TO PALISADES TRACT (]\ U:=:~T.F'"""~1f'f^ ~<'I' ~~ f' ...- q-' ,'" ",'" ,p ./ ~<j ,..~ ,~ <it ~, ./ ,f} (j ~\ c;. (,,1c 9;-.,.,. $ q. ")- ." (/-;, C). <t." "'", t ,.,~ ,Ji' rj.f ~y ~~ "~r ,<- ..8' 0/" p;,?' ,p ,<- ...r!' ~<t- J''''<- l' ~ ,.:. ,<- ...8' 0/" ,~ ..'" "4,0 ~... ~\ <). ,<- ..8' ~...<t"' ::."" 41 ,.." "'"' &0 ,r'" ...r!' O<i:r ~~<tl" !.s;- ~.j<.rt Or .if I' ~" e cY ~{i' ~C!'-...... ~<t- .;: -r", ~... e.."" 'YD ~." ..,.\~ "'"' ",r!' ,,,q- >i" '" ., ",l"" ",-?- >i" ",r!' .~ .." ,f.J'P'.y ."" i'- ,,~ .p'" ~ q't" MONT~ &''''' '" ,,0/" .'" ,jc ~ . <S-".. "r ,<- 0'" '" 0/" ",. ~~'t ~<o ~ ,,'" <t' '" ~r1 S1. ..~ '~r "^ ~'''<'' ~1-,,> '''> PALISADES TRACT 12 NeiQhborhood 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 subiect property) 13 102 Winnett Place (street behind subiect property) ,~.., "",,'h/-i::~;/> '''''!/:y> ,;'t.::~.;;~J~" 1 09 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. 14 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 15 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. 16 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. BudQetlFinancial Impact The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. Prepared by: Ava M. Pecherzewski, Associate Planner ~~~ ~edtocounCil: Eileen Fogarty mont Ewell Director, Planning & Community ity Manager Department Attachments: A. Appeal Statement B. Tentative Parcel Map No. 63173 C. Subdivision Map Findings and Conditions 17 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. 18 APPEAL (NO. 06APP045) TO SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 63173 A. BASIS FOR APPEAL Proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the character and scale of the neighborhood. . Proposed subdivision is inconsistent with general development patterns in the area. Proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the Santa Monica General PlanlLand Use Element. Proposed subdivision would aggravate the problems related to parking and traffic on a nalTOW street, creating health & safety hazards for the residents. B. CHARACTER AND SCALE The subject property is located on the northwest corner of San Vicente Blvd. and Larkin PI. and is part of the larger area commonly known as "North of San Vicente." By any measure this and the Palisades Tract are the most unique areas of Santa Monica and in their character not comparable to any other area of Santa Monica. A very large portion of the area North of San Vicente, until several years ago, was part of the City of Los Angeles and was developed under different standards than in use in Santa Monica. This particularly applies to the cul-de-sacs from Winnett PI. to Woodacres Rd. The main characteristic of these neighborhoods, including about 80 properties, is that they are generally much larger than the properties south of San Vicente Blvd. and of irregular sizes and shapes. Virtually none of the properties are in the classic subdivision form with identical side-by-side lots~ one after another. Larkin PI. and Winnett PI., the two streets directly affected by the proposed subdivision, are a perfect example for the character and scale of this area. The neighborhood consists of 16 properties. Three of these are divided into two parcels each, created by the previous borderline between the cities of Santa Monica and L.A. but each of the three has only one address and one exposure to the street. The properties by (approx.) size are as follows: . 1 property with 29230 sq. ft. . 1 property with 23061 sq. ft. . 4 properties with 19400 - 19818 sq. ft. Paglof5 Appeal re 939 San Vicente Blvd., cont'd . 5 properties with 10054 - 11910 sq. ft. . 3 properties with 9570 - 9730 sq. ft. . 2 properties with 8520 - 8740 sq. ft. Most of them have irregular shapes with street exposures ranging form 20' for some of the largest to approximately 170' for one of the smallest. This pattern of irregular sizes, shapes and street exposures (Exhibit "H") is repeated on all streets from Winnett PI. to W oodacres Rd. and is a si2nificant factor in defining the character and' scale of these neighborhoods that the residents have learned to appreciate and love. And, I might add, so does the abundant wildlife that shares the place with us. Those of us who live in these neighborhoods are fully aware of how fortunate we are and that their special appeal has little to do with any arbitrarily selected standard of measurement, calibration or comparison such as, for instance, the size of street frontages (Exhibit "H"), house styles, their age or size, as lon2 as they are properly inte2rated into the overall scale. character and development patterns of our nei2hborhoods. Larkin PI. and Winnett PI., with 3 or 4 other cul-de-sacs north of San Vicente Blvd. are streets with properties among the most rare and unique in Santa Monica and no comparisons with other areas of the City is justified. The streets are narrow compared to other streets in R-l districts of Santa Monica, do not invite traffic, but offer peace and tranquility to the residents and were sized to serve only a few properties, for instance, six each on Larkin PI. and Winnett PI. The properties offer the owners privacy. lots of open space, ma2nificent views, lush landscapin2 and quiet nei2hborhoods, with stable and quiet nei2hbors who 2eneraJly stay in their homes for a lifetime. Until now, none of them have attempted to subdivide and make a profit at the expense of other nei2hbors, certainly not durin2 my 35 years on Larkin Place. There is little doubt that our nei2hborhood derives its very unique character from its ori2inal desi2n and patterns of development over the past 50 years and even less doubt that the proposed massin2 of houses on three undersized lots. with the hU2e reduction of open space. landscaped areas and other consequences, would cause an irreversible dama2e to its character and scale (Exhibits "C", and "D"). For these reasons, our nei2hbors were ea2er to si2n petitions opposin2 the proposed subdivision. We have collected 327 si2natures and this number represents 97-99% of those asked to Si20. Page 2 of5 Appeal re 939 San Vicente Blvd., cont'd I can onlv conclude that a maioritv of residents throuehout our City support our initiative and oppose the subdivision. People do not want more coneestion~ more traffic~ more cars~ more noise~ more speculation and less character ~ open space and trees and~ when sienine the petitions~ these were the comments that we heard from them. C.PATTERNSOFDEVELOPMENT When looking at the plot plans of our area, one thing becomes eminently clear - the Larkin/Winnett neighborhood is dominated by large to very large properties by Santa Monica standards, with some medium size properties and only two with sizes of 8500 and 8740 sq. ft. that are still larger than most properties in the City. For all 16 properties, this produces an average lot size of 14400 sq. ft., almost twice the regular lot size in the City. All large lots have in excess of 10000 sq. ft. of open space. The canyon rim properties, of course, have unlimited open space. The development pattern therefore is defmed by lots of open space with laree front- and backyard setbacks, as can be seen in Exhibit "C". For comparison an aerial view of the area south of San Vicente Blvd. is shown in Exhibit "E". The proposed subdivision would produce parcels of 7414 to 8147 sq. ft. that, given the established trend to huge houses on small lots, would leave an amount of open space substandard for our area and would have a negative impact on the existing Winnett PI. houses across the backyard fence. Their immediate environment would be degraded and their value diminished. The proposed undersized lots simply cannot be introduced without severely affecting the overall balance of the existing relationship between the density of houses and open spaces that we now enjoy and that have been in place for 50 years. Chaneine this pattern means severelv chaneine the character of the whole neiehborhood. Furthermore the proposed subdivision in three parcels results in a side setback inconsistency in the case of Lot No.1 next to San Vicente Blvd. The lot has a Larkin PI. frontage that allows a side yard of 10 - 20' on the San Vicente side. The houses on San Vicente Blvd., both east and west of the subject property have setbacks of about 40' from San Vicente Blvd., as can be clearly seen in Exhibit "D". The result is a house with its San Vicente facade 20-30' out of line with the neiehborine houses. Technicallv~ the proposed subdivision does not include the actual desien of the homes. However~ after any subdivision this Council will have no control over the size~ character and desien of individual homes. Page 3 of5 Appeal re 939 San Vicente Blvd., cont'd The proposed subdivision is c1earlv for the purpose and with the intent of constructin2: sin2:le familv homes on each lot. Now is the time to consider the impact of such construction. Moreover. perhaps fiftv vears a2:o when the land values were less. a modest home mi2:ht be built on these subdivided lots. Todav. when the individual undeveloped lots will cost millions of dollars. no one will pav those prices to develop a modest home. The homes will be built to the maximum allowed bv the code. We will have three ear2:antuan homes side-bv-side. We will have a Santa Clarita stvle subdivision in Santa Monica north of San Vicente. Subdivision in two lots would have provided more flexibility and would not have created this problem. An additional unbalancing impact on the neighborhood would be the proposed removal of a line of existing Pittosporum trees along the Larkin PI. frontage of the property, as indicated in Exhibit "A". F or all of these reasons the neighbors, immediate and from the neighboring streets are dismayed and seriously disturbed by the prospect and are unanimous in their rejection of this subdivision. E. INCONSISTENCY WITH SANTA MONICA GENERAL PLAN Neighborhood integrity and the preservation of its scale and character are of importance to all of us and this concern is reflected in the applicable sections of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance and General PlanlLand Use Element. The present minimum lot standard of 5000 sq. ft. cannot be applied to properties north of San Vicente Blvd. without beine in conflict with the applicable laws. This is as true todav. as it was when the Subdivision Application was filed. F. PARKING AND TRAFFIC HAZARDS Larkin PI. with its 26' width curb-to-curb is too narrow to safely handle 9 properties instead of the original 6 (Exhibits "I", "J", and "K"). Presently, two houses on Larkin Place have absentee owners. This will not last and, sooner or later, these houses will be occupied. By remodeling, the owners of the subject property have effectively made what used to be a San Vicente property into a Larkin PI. property and park at all times 4-6 cars belonging to their household on both sides of Larkin PI. Two additional houses proposed by the subdivision will add more cars. The attached Exhibits "F" and "G" to "G4" clearly show the precarious situation that we Page 4 of5 Appeal re 939 San Vicente Blvd., cont'd already face now. With the subdivision and the return of absentee owners, additional 10-12 cars could become part of our street landscape in the future and even more cars would be added by visitors, gardeners, delivery trucks etc. Two-car garages per residence will not solve this problem. Such as it is, the street represents a safety hazard, but with the potential increase of residences, it will become dangerous and unmanageable. The street was not desi!!ned for this increased number of cars: not to handle cars from 9 properties safely. Even now no room is left for pedestrians. bicyclists or children. Even worse, since we do not have an alley, garbage and delivery trucks must maneuver through the 10-12' wide gauntlet of parked cars and there is no way to turn around without encroaching on the driveways (Exhibit "G2"). If these are occupied, as they certainly will be, there is no way for the trucks but to back in or out of Larkin PI. all the way to or from San Vicente Blvd., again through the same gauntlet of parked cars. In fact this is already happening and the street is blocked for anyone trvin!! to enter or leave. What would happen in an emer!!ency? There is no way that fire trucks and ambulances could have fast access to our properties. This is an accident waitin!! to happen. Approximately two years a!!o. an ambulance had to slowly inch its way in and out of Larkin PI. in a life threatenin!! situation and I have personally witnessed the event. In fact. one side of the street should always be free of cars. With the subdivision there would be even less curb left for parkin!!. This is a potentially disastrous situation in full development. We respectfully ask the Santa Monica City Council to consider our arguments, save our neighborhood, preserve its character consistent with the City General Plan and deny the Final Tract Map for this subdivision. Respectfully, 1w J{ I1k I vo K. Stoka Attached: Copy of my letter to Planning Commission dated August 31, 2006 14 images in color (Exhibit "B" is not included) Page 5 of5 August 31, 2006 Ivo K. Stoka, P.E. 110 Larkin Place, Santa Monica, 90402 Santa Monica Planning Commission c/o A va M. Pecherzewski, Associate Planner, City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401, Room 212 Re: 06TM-013 (Map No.63173), 939 San Vicente Blvd., SantalYlonica I oppose the proposed subdivision for the fol lowing reasons: LAND USE ELEMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE ]. The proposed subdivision is not in conformance with the Land use Element Policy 1.10.1 that "encourages the development of new housing, while still protectin~ the character and scale of neil!hborhoods." 2. The Zoning Ordinance with a defined "minimum size lot" of5~OOO SQ. ft. is inadequate for the area north of San Vicente Blvd. with the largest lots in Santa Monica and inconsistent with the Land Use Element. CHARACTER AND SCALE OF NEIGHBORHOODS The "average size lof' on Larkin and Winnett Places is approximately 14.272 SQ. ft. The smallest lot proposed by this subdivision is 7.414 sq. ft. The attached graph "Lot Distribution By Size" demonstrates graphically the impact of the subdivision on Larkin Place. The graphs '"Before" and "After" subdivision, show a complete reversal oftbe lot distribution "footprint". "North of San Vicente" is an area wi!h large and often irregular lots that is unique and rare and was specifically planned to be different from other R-l areas of the City. It must Dot be radically chan2ed a2ainst the will of its residents. CONGESTION AND HEALTH HAZARD Contrary to the staff findings, the proposed subdivision will produce congestion and traffic hazards. Larkin PI. is a narrow cul-de-sac and is congested as it is. It was simply not designed to take more cars than it already has. See the photos. UNINFORMED RESIDENTS The "canyon rim estates" between Winnett PI. and La Mesa Dr., most of them the lar2est properties in Santa Monica, have been annexed from Los Angeles years ago. As far as we know, most homeowners of these estates are not aware of what ... the Zoning Ordinance in its present fonn can do to their neighborhoods. Thev need to be informed without delav and have a say in this matter. Page I of2 lvo K Sluka.. 06TM-013 (Map 63173) cont'd PALISADES TRACT In 1997, the City Cowlcil reversed the Planning Commission's decision and denied the proposed subdivision of two lots on Georgina Ave. The reasons for denial are even more applicable to the current proposal. Our area has just as unique a character as the Palisades Tract. The difference behveen the avera1!e lot size and the proposed lot sizes is an order of mae:nitude !!reater than was the case on Gco.l1!ina Ave. In that case the proposed lot sizes matched exactly the already existing lots in the neighborhood. Please see the attached COpy of the Citv Council Action re2ardin2 tbe Palisades Tract subdivisions., dated 11125/06. A bad precedent was prevented tben, another needs to be prevented now. IRREGULARITIES It needs to be mentioned for the record, that a certain number of homeowners in the 300' radius have not received a Notice of Hearing tor ~he original hearing that was scheduled for August 16. Upon repeated written requests, we were not able to obtain, fTom the Planning Division, the certified, original list of names of homeowners in the 300' radius (Pages 6 & 7 of the Subdivision Application). As of today, there is no sign on the property announcing the proposed subdivision. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission Report and Statement of Official Action, based strictly on the provisions of an inadequate Zoning Ordinance, are inadequate themselves. In addition, they do not balance the views of the staffwith the views of the affected homeowners and do not mention all the other important issues included herein. A request has been made for these views and this letter, including the attachments~ to be added to and by reference made a part of, the Planning Commission Report and Statement of Official Action. [ respectfully request: a) a moratorium to be imposed on all subdivisions in the North of San Vicente area, and b) amendine the Zonin~ Ordinance to make it consistent with the objectives and policy of the Land Use Element and to protect this unique area from being abused and degraded. ~ 1(, /1:1/441 Based OD the facts and ar!!uments included hereiD~ J respectfullv request the proposed tentative map to be denied. Attached: I. Sketch, Larkin/Winnett PI., 2. Photographs (2) of Larkin Pl. 3. Graph, 4. City Council Action (3 pages), dated 1]/25/97 Page 2 of2 .~ 8E1 ~~ ~o ~~ ~~ z~ ~~ >0 ~~ ~~ ~E-4 ~~ ~~ E-40 ~~ ~r.J'l ~o OE-4 ~E-4 ~1-4 ~~ o~ .. 0 r:;~ ~~ . 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ u ~ ~ ~ i:'-.! Q\ ~ Q\ ~ Z o 1-4 i:'-.! ~ ~ ~ i:'-.! \'1 - < - ... THREE NE'~1 PROPOSED PROPERTIES ON LARKIN PLACE AVG. LOT SIZE ON LARKINI\;vJNNETT - 14400 SF E:x:JITBIT IIDII - SUBDIVISION AT 939 SAN VICENTE BL'll). VIEVi OF .AREA SOUTH OF S.A.N VICENTE BLVD. EXIDBIT "E"- SUBDI\lISION AT 939 SAN'lICENTE z S . r.J'1u tl~ ~r.:l Ar./'j ~r.:l . ~u ~ =~ ~S ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~~ U t'l io'U .",. E-Ip ~ ~e1 "-l . ~ ~ Q\ M Q\ ...,;;j ~ ~ P-t~ ~ '1 ~r./'j Z ~;~ 0 I-t "-l E ...,;;jo~ ~ ~~ ~ "-l I ZZ ... ... o~ ~ ... ... r.i1~ ~ 5~ ~ ~u I-I~ >< AO ~ 8~ r.J'1r./'j ~@ ~ ~ r;J'J ~ ~ u .s ~~ >t ~ ~ z~ o~ 0~ .~ ~ ~~ o o ~ o z ;J'i-ilif' . ~ ~ P=I ~ ~ Z ~ u > ~ ~ C'\ fi') C'\ ~ Z o I-j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ... . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 Z t..? ~ -< u ;; Z 0 .~ . ~ ~ C'I ~ (f') C'I ~ ~ z ~ 0 Z 1-1 0 ~ ~ ~ u ~ p ~ = H ~ I ~ .. .. t..? 1""'1 -< t..? .. ~ .. ~ t= t..? ~ >< ~ , ::z:: Eo-! o P=l ~ o C'. ~~ ~ P-I~ Z ~ i:>-l I.LI ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <A ~ ~ ~ ~ Cl Eo-! .-rl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ ~ u Z ~ u<.. .... ~o ~ Eo-! ~ ~ ~ ::z::zr.rJ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 5 ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 H Z ~ .... o ~ 0- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Eo-!~ ~ ~ 0 ~ u ~ l:l:: ~ ~ I.LI Eo-! ~ =:: ~ ~ Cl Q ~ ~ H !-o < A ~ o u ,~ ';. . ~ ~ ~ r;.;I E-t Z r;.;I u ~ ~ ~ Q\ f'I) Q\ ~ Z o 1-4 ~ ~ ~ tI':I I - - N t..? - - t= ~ >< ~ r.J'J. :g ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ; ~ ~~ ~I ~~ ~~ ~ E-i ~ o g E-t ~ o ~ '>t ~ Q . ~ ~ !Xl ~ H Z ~ u ~ ~ ~ C"I M C"I ~ Z o I-l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t= ~ >< ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ o~~ H~~ ~H~ ~Z~ U~O <O~ ~H~ O~~ ":E-i~~ =i1Xl~tr.l ~~~~ ooHHH ~~~~ ~~~~ N~~~ ~:~S UH~O <Z=~ ~~1""Itr.l ~ U I ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~OU tr.l~s:l ~~0~ U~~ O~U ~HZ ~~~ ~~~ UH~ ~~~ H ~ < ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ E-i Z ~ u ~ ~ ~ Q\ M Q\ ~ Z o ""'" ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~~ ~~ 1Xl~ ~E-4 E-4Z ZO ~~ U~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~= =E-4 E-4~ ~~ OE-4 ZO ~~ ~~ ~O E-4~ Z~ o DO ~Q ~~ O~ ~ f>.W~'l< w ;::. 'I:(' ;:: ! ~ < ~ " , t~l 1 ,I F() , - 'XrAIL D~ ...../1 tAR ~ .. 'kIN Pi. I!NNETT Pi ~ ,... c:r ~ it ~ <5 5 4J ~ .:t' "- ~ :;: l[ 'Po. 00 "0~ ~\S' ~o ~ 'l(" ~ i3 ff <!) -0 :J>-s,. ,,- /~ \;)' -s. 0..... "" ~ 'J>. ~<<.- <v~ .s-V 4'~ . ~ ~ r:Cl ~ f-I Z ~ u "v ~ ~ ~ ~ 01 M C'I ~&; C(~ ~ Z o t-I ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~fP <v~ ~ I ... S= ... ... ~ ~ >< ~ ~,)' ~ 0/0 ,5 ;ij ~ ~~! <I1l~.\.'1nlOIl" r.Mt:l1.' ~J'n; ..~~~ lJ 5~ ,... :;., -' .., -c ~ . ZUl! '. ~ -, 8~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~O 5 ~ ~[E ~ ~ ~~ - z !~ ~ u " 1(. 1':'. '~~ ~ ,~ I ~ ~ t- ~ r: g lot .. ~ ~ ~ on ;: 0 0\ .-.: ;" .., ~. '" 2 # tI) .. ~ " ... rt. :t ... 0\ .- ~ Z 0 Jo-I ~ Z E 0 ~ Iooof :: Ul! ~ ~ ::t ~ Q ~ ~ I Ul! ..... .... ~ Jo-I .... 0 .... ~ t= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >< r.:! LARKINIWINNETT NEIGHBORHOOD BEFORE SUBDIVISION CONSISTENT PATTERN OF LARGE PROPERTIES AVG. PROPERTY SIZE FOR 16 PROPERIES - 14400SF tARXIN Pl <4- LARKIN PL. PROPERTlES SAN VICENTE PROP~ \\rJ:NNEIT PL. PROPER1US Q ~, <. >' w ~..J ~; 0' tQ w: E- Z: W ~': :> - PROPOSED 5IJBl)lVISION IN 3 LOTS EXIITBIT "J"- SUBDIVISION AT 939 SAN VICENTE BLVD. SUBDIVISION INCREASESL~KLN PL. PROPERTIES FROM ~IXf6} TO NINE {9J S.IZf: OF, NE\VLOTS L~CONS'ISTENT '\\'lTH NEIGlmOR]fOOD PATTERN I URKI:"i Fl. LOTI URKJ~ PL. LOT I L~RKJ~ "l. tOI I J0810S.f URK1:\' n..l.Of lAA:MlN i'lli' O~'Gt:Si' l.l \' t1:"1in, 0 (tn 19<100Sf 1,01' 81$1 Sf I. 0 IZ i~Sf 1.01 I ORIGINAL 741'" Sf DiTRA.'iCr ... IURKl."'; P1.. LOt' I St.'BDIUDED ;~,f.\"'lCl'.\'rE: l or I ,',"Dj(! n p\ ~ ~ fZ S o ~ u - ... z <- r:J} EXHIBITnK"- SUBDIVISION AT 939 SAN VICENTE BLVD.