City Council grants appeal, reverses lot-line adjustment approval for Studio City subdivision

The Los Angeles City Council on May 24 voted 9-4 to grant an appeal of a lot-line adjustment that would have reconfigured parcels in a Studio City subdivision, reversing the committee recommendation and halting the ministerial approval the developer sought.

The vote concerned a parcel map exemption — commonly called a lot-line adjustment — that would reduce 14 lots to six and is tied to a previously approved private street. Proponents for the property owner said the change is a ministerial action under the Subdivision Map Act and must be granted if the resulting parcels conform to zoning and building codes; opponents said the map and related approvals circumvented required scrutiny and left access and safety questions unresolved.

Ben Resnick, who represented the property owner Howard Stone, told the council the lot-line adjustment “is a ministerial action” under state and city rules and argued the council cannot condition or deny it if the parcels conform with building and zoning laws. Resnick said the disputed lots are “legal lots” and certificates of compliance were issued in 1989.

Opponents said the controversy stems from earlier discretionary approvals of a private street and that errors and incomplete reviews at that stage left neighbors with unresolved safety and access concerns. Alan Dimon, a resident who said he lives downhill from the development, urged the council to “uphold the appeal and vote no,” arguing the lots lacked the required physical access. Alan Schuman, a consultant for adjacent homeowners, said incorrect information was presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals and that the affected homeowners were forced to pursue the issue in court to obtain full review.

Council members split over legal risk and neighborhood impacts. Councilman Bernstein, chairing the committee that reviewed the matter, acknowledged residents’ concerns but recited the advice from the City Attorney’s Office: under the Subdivision Map Act the council’s review of a lot-line adjustment is limited to whether the resulting parcels conform to local zoning and building ordinances. Assistant City Attorney Gail Weingard told the council, “The only thing that is before you is a lot line adjustment. That is the only thing,” and said the law restricts the council’s discretion under the facts presented.

Councilman Wax argued the council should grant the appeal to give neighbors a remedy short of forcing them into court, saying in his remarks that the lot-line adjustment “is a lot more than just some technical thing” and that the approval could enable an unsafe development. Other council members, including Councilman Berson and Councilman Bernstein, urged caution and stressed the city faces potential takings claims and other litigation risk if it reverses actions in ways that the City Attorney says it cannot defend.

The council’s final action approved Councilman Wax’s substitute motion to grant the appeal by a 9-4 vote. The committee had recommended denying the appeal and allowing the lot-line adjustment to proceed; the substitute motion reverses that recommendation. The City Attorney had warned that denying a required ministerial lot-line adjustment could expose the city to liability, but the council majority voted to grant the appeal.

What remains unresolved is that the lot-line adjustment decision addresses only parcel lines. Several council members and staff noted that discretionary actions related to grading and issuance of a grading permit remain separate and can be appealed or reviewed later: Councilwoman Misakowski pointed out a revised map approved on Oct. 15, 1999, and said the grading permit — which had not been issued — is a future discretionary event that could still be subject to review. Misakowski also said the revised map reduced earth export to “only a thousand cubic yards.”

Next steps: Council action to grant the appeal does not by itself prohibit future permitting or grading reviews. Developers and property owners retain administrative and legal options, including pursuing certificates of compliance or litigation. The council record indicates both sides expect the dispute may move into court.

Votes at a glance - Substitute motion by Councilman Wax to grant the appeal (reverse the committee recommendation): approved, 9 ayes, 4 noes.

(Statements in this report are drawn from council remarks and public testimony at the May 24, 2000 Los Angeles City Council meeting. The city attorney’s legal advice — summarized at the hearing as applying the Subdivision Map Act’s limits on local discretion — was a central element of the debate.)