CC 20170117 01 Avana AptsCITY OF4�iRANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: January 17, 2017
Subject: Consideration and Possible Action to Initiate a General Plan Land
Use Amendment and a Zone Change for an Apartment Complex
(Case No. ZON2016-00543)
Subject Property: 6568 and 6660 Beachview and 32636 Nantasket Drive
1. Report of Notice Given: Acting City Clerk Takaoka
2. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Campbell
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Assistant Planner Anaya
4. Public Testimony:
Appellant: N/A
Applicant: GS Palos Verdes LLC
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Council Deliberation:
8. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Campbell
9. Council Action:
Cover Page
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: 01/17/2017
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
Consideration and possible action to initiate a General Plan Land Use Amendment and
a Zone Change for an apartment complex located at 6568 and 6660 Beachview Drive
and 32636 Nantasket Drive (Case No. ZON2016-00543).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Consider the applicant's initiation request to proceed with formal applications to
amend the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map, respectively, to
change the current designations of Residential 6-12 du/ac and RS -4 (Single -
Family Residential, 4 du/ac), respectively, to Residential 12-22 du/ac and RM -22
(Multiple -Family Residential, 22 du/ac), respectively, for an existing apartment
complex located at 6568 and 6660 Beachview Drive and 32636 Nantasket Drive
(Case No. ZON2016-00543).
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Irving Anaya, Assistant Planner
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development;;
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Application Request (page A-1)
B. City Council Policy No. 33 (page B-1)
C. General Plan Land Use Map (page C-1)
D. Zoning Map (page D-1)
E. Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map (page E-1)
F. Public Correspondence (page F-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The subject property is approximately 5.56 acres is size and is located at the southeast
corner of Beachview Drive and Nantasket Drive. The site is improved with a 216 -unit
apartment complex consisting of seven (7) detached, multi -story buildings and 314
parking spaces (135 underground parking spaces, 30 carport parking spaces, and a
149 -space lot within a terraced parking structure). The property improvements also
1
include a tennis court, swimming pool, and other ancillary site amenities (i.e. fountains,
walkways, etc.).
In 1970, the existing apartment complex, (now known as Avana Apartments, formerly
known as The Villas and the Porto Verde Apartments), was entitled and constructed
under the County of Los Angeles' jurisdiction. When the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
("City") incorporated in 1973, the existing apartment complex was designated as a
Residential land use (R6-12 du/ac) and Single -Family Residential zoning district (RS -4).
This is because at the time, the City wanted any future new development on the subject
property to be low-density single-family residences. As a result, the existing multi -family
use became legal nonconforming as it was newly -designated as a single-family
residential district.
The complex was recently acquired by a new owner (GS Palos Verdes, LLC), who has
approached the City with plans to upgrade the existing structures and amenities at the
site as summarized below:
• Construct of a new, 2 -story leasing office;
• Remodel the existing rooftop common area to providing additional amenities
(i.e., play equipment, barbeques, dog run, fire pits, and cabanas);
• Install roof -mounted propane tanks to fuel the proposed barbeques and fire pits;
and,
• Convert 24 existing three-bedroom units into 48 new one -bedroom units.
However, due to the legal -nonconforming land use and zoning designations, the
property owner was informed that the proposed site improvements are not permitted
unless a Variance is processed (due to structure heights and roof -mounted equipment).
Alternatively, if the existing land use and zoning designations are amended to be
consistent with the current land use, it would allow the applicant to pursue the desired
site improvements with the processing of a Conditional Use Permit, which is more
flexible in its standards and findings, and provides the ability for the City to apply more
appropriate and customized conditions of approval.
On November 10, 2016, GS Palos Verdes, LLC submitted applications (Attachment A)
to initiate a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to change the General Plan
land use and Zoning designations from R6-12 (Residential 6-12 du/ac) and RS -4
(Single -Family Residential, 4 du/ac) to R12-22 (Residential 12-22 du/ac) and RM -22
(Multiple -Family Residential 22 du/ac), respectively. The purpose of the requested
amendment would provide consistency with the existing multi -family use and its density
within the subject site, thereby eliminating the legal nonconforming status.
City Council Policy No. 33 establishes the process for General Plan Amendment
Initiation Requests (Attachment B) and Chapter 17.68 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC) establishes the process for zone changes. The initiation
request process is a procedure that allows the applicant to gauge the City Council's
general outlook on the proposed request prior to submitting a more costly General Plan
2
Amendment and Zone Change applications along with any necessary studies.
Because the information provided by an applicant in an initiation request is conceptual,
the City Council only needs to provide general feedback to the applicant on his/her
proposal. Whatever feedback the City Council provides is not binding as the applicant
has the ability to file or not file formal General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
applications regardless of the City Council's feedback. Should the applicant ultimately
decide to move forward with the formal application process, the land use and zone
change requests will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and
consideration, who will subsequently forward a recommendation to the City Council for
consideration.
In considering the applicant's request, changing the existing land use and zoning
designations to match the existing multi -family use would result in the subject property
remaining incompatible with the density of the surrounding properties, as depicted in
the aerial image below. It should be noted that the density for the subject property on
the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map is 2-4 du/ac (Attachment E). However, at this
time the applicant is not asking to amend the Coastal Specific Plan Land Use Map. In
the event the applicant proceeds with the proposal to increase the complex's density
(i.e., splitting the 3 -bedroom units), a Coastal Permit will be processed and a
"consistency finding" with the Coastal Specific Plan will have to be made by the
Planning Commission and City Council.
3
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 33 and RPVMC Chapter 17.68, notice of the
request was published in the Peninsula News and sent to all persons owning property
within a 500' radius of the subject site on December 15, 2016. At this time, Staff
received one comment letter (Attachment F) expressing concerns with the proposed
change to the zoning that will potentially increase the density and result in adverse
impacts to the surrounding neighborhood (i.e., increased traffic, speeding vehicles,
increased street parking, increased trash and debris, etc.).
Based upon the existing development characteristics, Staff believes that changing the
General Plan land use and zoning designations for the subject site is reasonable and
would result in: 1) consistency with the existing use of the site, thereby eliminating the
non -conforming use; and 2) providing the property owner the ability to improve the
existing site through a standard entitlement process typical of similar developments in
the City without having to apply for a Variance.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council's consideration:
Identify additional issues of concern not identified by Staff and continue
the request to a future meeting to allow Staff and/or applicant to provide
additional information.
2. Take no action and allow the applicant to decide whether or not to pursue
the formal application process.
11
City of LQ�M�
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION ZON X016 — OOS93
APPLICANTICONTRACTOR: LANDOWNER (proposing zone change):
Sean Lynch
(Name)
17885 Von Karman Ave, #450
(Address)
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 554-3733
Email slynch@greystar.com
GS Palos Verdes, LLC
(Name)
18 Broad Street Ste 300
(Address)
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: 843-579-9400
jcarper@greystar.com with cc to
Email ewa ieldDg-=star.com;kbicketlZgLoystar.com
Project Location: 6600 Beachview Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Description of Property: _ 215 apartment units; approximately 241,494 totalsquare feet
Lot and Tract No: Tract: 30339; Lots: 17,18,19 & 20 Zoning: RS -4
Assessor's Book, Page, and Parcel Numbers: Book 746, Pages 85-88, Parcels: 7573-017-022, 023 & 024
"Legal Description and Legal Plat must also be submitted. **
GENERAL
• Describe the zone change requested: (Include current and proposed zoning)
We are requesting changing from current single-family zoning RS -4 to multifamily zoning RS -22
• Explain in detail why this zone change is requested, why the change is necessary.
The current use is Legal Nonconforming due to changes in the Zoning Code subsequent to
development. We would like to expand amenity offerings for the Property's tenants through
renovation of common area space. In order to do so, we need zoning to reflect current multifamily use
A-1
HAZARDOUS WASTE & SUBSTANCE STATEMENT (REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS)
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5(f), before a city can accept as complete an application for
any development project which will be used by any person, the applicant shall consult the lists sent to the
appropriate city or county and shall submit a signed statement to the city indicating whether the project and any
alternatives located on a site that is included on any of the lists compiled and shall specify any list.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) has compiled lists of Hazardous Waste and Substances
Sites for the entire State of California, which identifies the following site in Rancho Palos Verdes (as of 8/22/2012):
30940 Hawthorne Blvd_1 City Hall / Civic Center Envirostor ID 19970023
I have consulted the most current lists compiled pursuance to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code and hereby
certify that the development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on these
lists.
Property Owner Signature:_ y
PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materials submitted with this application
are true and correct.
Landowner Signature
Date 11/9/2016
A-2
CITY COUNCIL POLICY
NUMBER: 33
DATE ADOPTED/AMENDED: 05/06/97
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment Initiation Request Procedure
POLICY:
It shall be the policy of the City Council that the General Plan Amendment
Initiation Request (GPAIR) process shall be an optional process to be followed at
the discretion of an applicant. In the event that an optional General Plan
Amendment Initiation Request (GPAIR) application is filed, the following
requirements shall be adhered to:
1. The applicant shall submit the required application, associated
information, materials, and fees.
2. Notification of the pending City Council consideration of the request shall
be provided to all owners of properties within 500 feet of the subject
property, as well as all Homeowners Associations for properties within 500
feet of the subject property. The notice shall be provided a minimum of
fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the City Council meeting at which the
item will be considered.
3. Notification of the Council consideration of the request shall be published
in an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation a minimum of fifteen
(15) days prior to the date of the City Council meeting at which the item
will be considered.
4. Decisions on any GPAIR shall be tentative and advisory only, and shall
not be construed as any form of obligation that the City Council will grant
or deny an ensuing General Plan Amendment (GPA) application.
5. GPAIR applications shall be accepted and processed at any time during
the calendar year.
Nothing in this policy requires that any applicant file a GPAIR, and any person or
entity may submit a GPA application for consideration by the Council regardless
of whether a GPAIR has been filed and/or acted on by the Council. In the event
that the Council denies a GPAIR, the applicant shall be entitled to apply for a
GPA at the applicant's discretion.
Nothing in this policy shall preclude the City Council from directing staff to
commence any General Plan Amendment with or without a related General Plan
Amendment Initiation Request, and this Policy shall supersede the January 6,
1976, minute order previously establishing the General Plan Amendment
process.
In the event that a Pre-screening Workshop is held for a particular project, the
project applicant shall not have the option of filing a GPAIR since the GPAIR
process is substantially the same as that of the Pre-screening Workshop. In the
case that a rescreening Workshop has been held and a GPA is necessary, the
project applicant shall proceed directly with the GPA application.
It shall also be the policy of the City Council to generally approve resolutions
amending the General Plan three times per year, during the months of April,
August, and December, to ensure that the maximum number of amendments
allowed each year, four (4), is not exceeded in a given year. To achieve that
goal, one or more applications to amend the General Plan may be combined into
a single Resolution of approval. This policy is only a guideline, and the Council,
at its discretion, may approve resolutions amending the General Plan at any
time, so long as the maximum number does not exceed four (4) in any given
calendar year.
BACKGROUND:
The original General Plan Amendment process, as established by the City
Council on January 6, 1976, included a requirement for an Initiation Request
prior to proceeding with an actual GPA. In the past this process was effective in
conveying the general disposition of the Council, given the nature of the specific
request. The process as it relates to the current issues in the City creates
concerns with respect to lack of public notice, lack of detailed information for
Council consideration in conjunction with such requests, that requests are
accepted and processed only twice per year, and that the applicants should have
the ability to apply directly for a GPA without first going through the GPAIR
process. A benefit of the original process is that the applicant can, with a low
fee, gauge the Council's outlook on a particular proposal without preparation of
detailed studies as would be required for a GPA.
The City Council has determined that a required GPAIR process is not
necessary. However, an optional GPAIR process is beneficial to applicants and
the public. In order to ensure that the community is aware of any requested
change in the General Plan, notification as stipulated above shall be provided for
all GPAIR applications. Council determinations on such applications will be
advisory in nature, and the applicant can thereafter proceed with a GPA proposal
as desired.
natural environment/hazard
Q hazard areas
urban environment
%)idential
:51 d.u./5 acres
:51 d.u./acre
1-2 d.u./acre
2-4 d.u./acre
4-6 d.u./acre,
6-12 d.u./acre
12-22 d.u./acre
commercial
retail
office
recreational
recreational
active
passive
institutional
educational
public
religious
urban
:. socio -cultural
• • • • •
s7_ }� natural
specific plan
8 specific plan district
D
.
• • ' jTi tL C l
•
•
ON,
CDC, ,
, %Mw
general
Fes`• ��O' � ��
°e4
O
O
O Ct CO �r
L�
pian
map
adopted june 26, 1975
loft
w:
z1
"r
r 1,
3
■
O
O
O Ct CO �r
L�
pian
map
adopted june 26, 1975
C-1
loft
w:
z1
"r
r 1,
3
w
[,1 it r •...
N .
C-1
"r
3
r
• • a
,
• r •
C-1
Official Zoning Map
"`-"'-- -`- "-los Verdes
a
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000
Feet
I I11u — — vel Lily LIl— �III� ,IIS ti lll�lul ��Illlly I.IuN — —Ly UI I -1-11W I ul— —1-. ,
California.
City Clerk
Date of Adoption
D-1
111 IUlu!
417109
10!6109
10/21/08
6129110
9121110
8116111
LUIV zuu r-uu 1J
ZON2008-00649
ZON2009-00053
ZON2007-00072
ZON2007-00377
ZON2008-00074
ZON2009-00053
adopted Zone Changes
ordinancelresolution no.
change made
Ordinance No. 93
RS -4 to RM -22
Ordinance No. 110
RS -4 to RM -22
Ordinance No. 117
Coastal Specific Plan
Ordinance No. 122
1 to RS -3 & RS -4
Ordinance No. 133
CP to CN
Ordinance No. 149
Agricultural to CR
Ordinance No. 159
Ito RS -1 RPD
Ordinance No. 160
1 to RS -3
Ordinance No. 185
CN to RM -8
Ordinance No. 184
Eastview annex
Ordinance No. 236
RS -5 to CL
Ordinance No. 303
CSL at 16 Seacove
Ordinance No. 321
RS -4 to CP & I
Ordinance No. 331
RS -A-5 to RS -5
Ordinance No. 360
CSL at 42 Seacove
Ordinance No. 393
CL to RS -4
Ordinance No. 428
OH to RS -2
Ordinance No. 464
OH to RS -3
Ordinance No. 486U & 487
OH to I
Ordinance No. 496
RS -2 to RS -5
Resolution No. 2008-102
Annex to RM -22
Ordinance No. 510
RS -4 to RS -5
Resolution No. 2010-87
CR to RS -3
Ordinance No. 523
RS -2 to RS -5
verde$ ester
city of
christmas tree
cove
*:
■ n r
sandy pt.ell
,•�.' •••
1S Ci 0.;
iSirr • u C.�.. `.
C 14
�1 �y'.
CEJ r
t
abalone
`�..
cave
neptuns
cove �.
_JYr
!�• .y1, v�:;;
W
pt, vicente
golden N
cove
shopping
center
city hall
pt. vicente park
I �. EM subregion boundary
controistricts
R
n
atural
* urban
socio/cultural
the entire coastal area is designated
wits the above two districts
salvation army
lEmg pt.
ural environment /hazard
hazard areas
'"- bluff setback line
a r
agriculture
porti'guese bend
Com nunity
portuguese pt.
O O d
O
O L1! C N
inspiration pt.
portuguebsNe
idential
<_ 1 d.u./ac.
1-2 d. u./ac.
2-4 d. u./ac.
4-6 d. u. /ac.
mmercial
recreational
retail
titut0 onai
public
religious
educational
astructure
primary corridor
secondary corridor
bluff road
Facility
�� 4•p•• •� �.7 11 ,C.1 •..) 'S� �i'3 k 4 -�
h..A j 1 l ." I� � * � 1 .; J 1 i 7 7 ": f .�.- [. ., C> ' C, .� . �• CJ
•�3_ h;� C -� t%`I .3 w t-1 t' _ ��` `i � c.? *� � � L3 ■ "<r.J� ` `i`5 CJ C
i 1�
c
halfway pt.
,�z t' _•I
C,
friendship park
1®ll,�ll
E-1
,•�.' •••
�1 �y'.
CEJ r
t
abalone
`�..
cave
_JYr
portuguese pt.
O O d
O
O L1! C N
inspiration pt.
portuguebsNe
idential
<_ 1 d.u./ac.
1-2 d. u./ac.
2-4 d. u./ac.
4-6 d. u. /ac.
mmercial
recreational
retail
titut0 onai
public
religious
educational
astructure
primary corridor
secondary corridor
bluff road
Facility
�� 4•p•• •� �.7 11 ,C.1 •..) 'S� �i'3 k 4 -�
h..A j 1 l ." I� � * � 1 .; J 1 i 7 7 ": f .�.- [. ., C> ' C, .� . �• CJ
•�3_ h;� C -� t%`I .3 w t-1 t' _ ��` `i � c.? *� � � L3 ■ "<r.J� ` `i`5 CJ C
i 1�
c
halfway pt.
,�z t' _•I
C,
friendship park
1®ll,�ll
E-1
Steve Sikes
Laura Gray
6400 Sealpoint Ct.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
(310) 541-3730 (H)
(562) 256-1834 (W)
igotabooboo2CaD-yahoo. com
December 31, 2016
Irving Anaya, Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
RE: 6600 & 6568 Beachview Dr.
32636 Nantasket Dr.
Dear Mr. Anaya,
RECEIVED
JAN 0 9 REC'U
C0MMUNITY; KV,EI:QPM_f4'+
DEPAR�TKENl'
I live within one block from the above-mentioned addresses and would like to voice my
opposition to the proposal to change the zoning from R1 (single family residential) to a
higher density zoning RM -22.
A change in zoning and an increase in density of the apartments on Beachview and
Nantasket Dr. will impact the already busy traffic and parking on our neighborhood streets.
Some of the apartment dwellers speed through our neighborhood, especially up Seahill
Dr. which is the only ingress/egress street exiting the neighborhood going westbound on
Palos Verdes Dr. South.
The Avana apartments rent to some tenants who do not maintain the same pride of
ownership as the homeowners across the street in the planned urban developments and
the single family homes on Sea Cove Dr. Increasing the number of units will further
exacerbate this problem. Parking is heavily impacted along Nantasket Dr., trash is
frequently found littering the sidewalks along the four empty lots on Nantasket Dr. and dog
poo not picked up by tenants. The Avana apartments do not limit the size or the number
of the dogs residing in the units. I have seen several apartments with one and two large
dogs on the balconies.
If you are also considering a zoning change for the four empty lots (11-41 Nantasket Dr.)
located across the street I would be vehemently opposed to that as well.
Sincerely,
Laura Gray
F-1