RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_05_20_02_Change_General_Plan_Land_Use_DesignationCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: May 20, 2014
Subject: General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Initiation Request to
Change the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations
for a Vacant Lot at 5656 Crest Road to Allow Subdivision of the Lot
into Two Separate Lots (Case No. ZON2014-00055)
Subject Property: 5656 Crest Road
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Associate Planner Kim
4. Public Testimony:
Applicant: Tomaro Architecture
Appellant: N/A
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
2-1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COM MUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNI ELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MAY 20, 2014
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE INITIATION
REQUEST TO CHANGE THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR A VACANT LOT AT
5656 CREST ROAD TO ALLOW SUBDIVISION OF THE LOT
INTO TWO SEPARATE LOTS (CASE NO. ZON2014-00055).
REVIEWED: CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGE ~
Project Manager: So Kim, Associate Planner ~
RECOMMENDATION
Review the proposal and affirm Staff's concerns with the proposed General Plan Land Use
and Zoning designation changes for the vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road.
BACKGROUND
On February 4, 2014, applications (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Initiation
Requests) were submitted to the Planning Division requesting General Plan land use and
Zoning designation changes for a vacant property located at 5656 Crest Road. After
preliminary review, the application was deemed incomplete on February 11, 2014.
Additional information was submitted by the applicant and the application was deemed
complete on April 17, 2014 .
Pursuant to City Council Policy No. 33 (attached) and Development Code Chapter 17.68
(Zone Changes), notice of the request was published in the Peninsula News and sent to all
persons owning property within 500' radius of the subject site on April 24, 2014. Staff
received one email in objection to the proposal (attached) which is addressed under
'Additional Information' below .
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD./ RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275-5391
PLANNING & CODE ENFORC EMENT DIVIS ION (310) 544-5 228 I BU ILDING & SAFETY DIVI SION (310) 265-7800 I DEPT. FAX (310) 544-5293
E-MA IL: PLANNING@RPV.CO M I WWWPALOSV ERDES .COM/RPV 2-2
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject site is a 20,468ft2 rectangular lot located at the southeast corner of Crest Road
and Whitley Collins Drive. This property was formally a Unocal service station which was
demolished in 1993 and all necessary corrective/remediation actions were completed for
the underground storage tank(s) in 2012. As shown in the attached aerial, the subject site
is surrounded by detached, single-family residences (Mesa Palos Verdes and The Island
View) to the north, east and south, and Hilltop Nursery School in a converted, former
Chevron service station to the west at 5702 Crest Road. The existing General Plan land
use and zoning designations for the site are R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS-
2/Automotive Service Station Overlay (Single-Family Residential 2 du/ac), respectively.
-The proposed request is to change the General Plan land use and zoning designations of
the property from R1-2 (Residential 1-2 du/ac) and RS-2 (Single-Family Residential 2
du/ac) to R2-4 (Residential 2-4 du/ac) and RS-4 (Single-Family Residential 4 du/ac). The
purpose of the requested change is to potentially subdivide the single lot into two separate
lots, for the development of a single-family residence on each lot.
DISCUSSION
Review Process
A proposed change in a General Plan land use designation is governed by City Council
Policy No. 33 which was adopted by the City Council on May 6, 1997. City Council Policy
No. 33 establishes the process for General Plan Amendment Initiation Requests.
A proposed change in zoning is governed by Chapter 17.68 of the City's Municipal Code.
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.68.030(C), "Any person having an interest in land
may file an application with the City Council for a change of zone and/or an amendment to
this title upon submission to the Director of an initiation application and payment of a filing
fee, as established by the City Council. The City Council shall review an accepted initiation
application to determine if the requested amendment and/or change is necessary or
desirable."
The initiation request process is a procedure that allows the applicant to gauge the
Council's general outlook on the proposed request prior to submitting more costly General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications along with the preparation of any
necessary studies. Because the information provided by an applicant in an initiation
request is general, at the meeting, the 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 the formal General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change applications regardless of the 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. Subsequently, the Planning Commission will forward a formal
2-3
recommendation on the proposal to the City Council for a final decision. The applicant also
has the ability to submit subdivision and actual development applications to be processed
concurrently with the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests.
While the current land use and zoning designation would only allow for the development of
one dwelling unit on the subject property, the proposal re-designation and rezoning could
allow for a subdivision and the development of two dwelling units. In preliminarily reviewing
the proposed concept of subdivision and the development of two separate lots, Staff has
the following initial comments:
Potential Pros:
Visual compatibility from the street when comparing the development at the four corners
intersecting Whitley Collins and Crest Road since the two corners to the north is part of a
residential tract already developed and zoned RS-4. More specifically, the proposed two
new lots on the subject property would match what is already existing at the northwest and
northeast corner of said intersection, with relation to lot layout, density, lot coverage, and
setbacks.
Staff does not anticipate substantial increase in traffic as a result of two additional dwelling
units. According to Trip Generation 5th Edition written by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (1997), the average rate of trip generation for a single-family detached housing
is 9.57. With the proposed development of two homes, the average weekday trip
generation will be 19. Additionally, since there are existing utilities in the area, Staff does
not anticipate adverse impacts to utilities from two additional residential developments.
Potential Cons :
Incompatibility with the abutting residential tract to the south (referred to as 'The Ridge'),
related to density, open space and lot size. While the properties to the north of Crest Road
are denser as they are zoned RS-4 allowing for increased lot coverage, properties within
The Ridge residential tract provide for more open space as they are less dense, zoned RS-
2. More specifically, the properties to the north are limited to 50% lot coverage, while The
Ridge properties are limited to 40%. Below is an aerial of the two neighborhoods as a
visual comparison of the lot sizes and zoning designations.
2-4
In relation to lot sizes, The Ridge properties mostly have substandard lot sizes which are
less than the required minimum of 20,000ft2 for the underlying RS-2 zoning district.
However, it should be noted that Residential Planned Developments generally allow for
smaller lot sizes for providing common open space areas. For example, the lot sizes for
The Ridge properties range from approximately 12,000ft2 to 20,000ft2. The proposed new
lot sizes on the subject lot will be approximately 10,000ft2 in size, which will be even
smaller than what exists in The Ridge and half of what is required for new lots in the RS-2
zoning district.
The required minimum lot width and depth for new lots within the RS-4 zoning district is 90'
and 120', respectively. The lot width and depth of the two lots is proposed to be 67.5' by
120', respectively. As a result, approval of a Variance application would be required to
create the new substandard lots with non-conforming lot widths. Given that the existing lot
currently meets the lot size, width and depth of the underlying zoning designation of RS-2,
which is also consistent with the abutting RS-2 residential tract, Staff has concerns with the
proposal as the appropriate findings in support of a Variance application to create
substandard lots may not able to be made by the Planning Commission.
Staff's Position
Staff has some preliminary concerns with the proposal. Specifically, creating 1) an
inconsistent land use and zoning designation on a single property to allow for a higher RS-
4 density in an area directly adjacent to existing lower density of RS-2; 2) new residential
lots with open space, lot size and density that would be incompatible with the abutting
residential tract; and 3) new residential lots with non-conforming lot widths which would
require a Variance application that may not obtain Planning Commission's approval. Staff
is recommending that the Council affirm these concerns and allow the applicant to decide
whether they want to pursue the formal application process.
2-5
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
Mr. Don Rendowitz residing at 29625 Whitley Collins Drive, submitted the attached email
objecting to the proposed land use and zone change requests. He expresses in his email
that the proposed changes are inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood and will
decrease property values.
FISCAL IMPACT
Should the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications be submitted, the
fees collected for the applications would offset the cost of processing the applications.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternative is available for the City
Council's consideration:
1. 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; or,
2. Despite Staff's concerns, provide the applicant positive feedback and encourage them
to submit the formal applications; or,
3. Maintain a neutral position and allow the applicant's decide whether or not to pursue
the formal applications.
ATTACHMENTS
• Public Correspondence
• City Council Policy No. 33
• Preliminary Plans
2-6
Public Correspondence
2-7
So Kim
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dear Mr. Kim,
Pilotdon4 < pilotdon4@aol.com>
Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:43 PM
So Kim
Jerry Duhovic; Jim Knight; Susan Brooks; Brian Campbell; Anthony Misetich;
PlanningCommission
General Plan Revision
Flag for follow up
Completed
This is to express my complete objection to the proposed change (case No. 2014-00055). The proposed change is
completely inconsistent with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood. My home is in the Mesa Palos Verdes tract, an
entity that has existed for over forty years. This tract of over 75 homes, as well as the new tract on Whitley Collins are in
full compliance with the present zoning . Modifying the zoning for this one lot is satisfying the desires of one Corporation at
the expense of these surrounding homes, resulting in a loss of property value to us all . Other than to Union Oil, I see no
positive benefit to anyone in the community .
I moved to RPV in 197 4, at a time that this type of" lets get the most bucks for out land" was prevalent and was in fact a
major factor in creating the City of RPV,to pre ventt this type of action I hope that you will act appropriately to protect our
city and our neighborhood
Sincerely,
Don Renkowitz
29625 Whitley Collins Dr .
Rancho Palos Verdes
email: Pilotoon4@gmail.com
1
2-8
City Council Policy No. 33
2-9
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 GPAJR 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.
2-10
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.
2-11
111' Ill I sn ~ i 0 h ~ 0 ~ ~11 ~~~ i ~ ~~1 ~ h I~ ~ < !l i
~~ ~~
I
~ [ll
~
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-15