The URL can be used to link to this page

RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_02_07_04_Status_On_Proposal_To_Develop_A_FAR_For_Residential_PropCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM UNCIL MEMBERS L P NT DIRECTOR HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY C JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DE FEBRUARY 7,2012 STATUS ON THE PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR")FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (ZON2010-00332)I Citywide ~ '«.,)~CL. REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAG~r/7 - Project Manager:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Plan~ RECOMMENDATION TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Receive a status update on the Planning Commission's discussion on developing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)for residential property,and provide direction to Staff and the Planning Commission whether to continue with said FAR proposal. BACKGROUND Prior to 1997,the City's Development Code did not impose a maximum structure size for single-family residential structures.Rather,structure size was constrained by the Development Code's requirements for height,setbacks and open space.In 1997,a comprehensive update to the City's Development Code was completed.The 1997 update established a maximum structure size for single-family residences.However,the rigidity of having an absolute structure size created a number of hardships for applicants.For instance,some small additions required the approval of an expensive and time consuming Variance permit for them to proceed.As a result,in 2000,the City Council replaced the maximum structure size requirement with the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement to allow structure size to be controlled on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis;thus providing property owners with more flexibility. The existing Neighborhood Compatibility review process typically involves the submittal of detailed project plans,the construction of a project silhouette,certification of the silhouette, the issuance of a public notice with a minimum 15-day comment period,site visits by staff 4-1 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Status on Code Amendment Regarding Floor Area Ratio February 7,2012 to address issues raised by the public and the preparation of a Staff Report that analyzes the proposal in the context of its compatibility with the closest 20 properties.Neighborhood Compatibility is presently used to analyze a myriad of projects that includes one-story and two-story additions,new residences that replace existing structures on developed parcels, and new residences on vacant parcels. In 2003,the City Council formed the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC).The RDSSC was charged with the task to review the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing construction trends. Although there was no specific discussion regarding the establishment of a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)to control maximum structure size,the RDSSC discussed the possibility of re- establishing a maximum structure size for each lot.The consensus of the Steering Committee,however,was not to pursue a maximum size requirement since it concluded that re-establishing a maximum structure size was not warranted. On June 1,2010,then-Councilmember Long presented an item to the City Council,where he raised a concern that the Municipal Code does not have a stated maximum structure size or FAR.An FAR is a maximum structure size that is expressed as a ratio of structure size to lot size.Councilmember Long expressed that without a maximum square footage limitation,incremental increases to the average structure size within an immediate neighborhood will continue to increase and will thereby alter the character of residential neighborhoods.As a result,the City Council directed staff to present the issue of Floor Area Ratio to the Planning Commission for its independent review and recommendation to be brought back to the Council for its consideration.Provided below is a summary of the Planning Commission's review of the FAR issue. DISCUSSION In response to the Council's direction,Staff conducted research on the topic and presented the issue of developing a Floor Area Ratio or other structure size limit to the Planning Commission.The Commission considered the issue at their meetings on October 26, 2010,January 11,2011 and January 25,2011 (excerpted Minutes attached).As a result, the Planning Commission recommended that a FAR or other maximum structure size limit not be imposed since the City's current regulations and Neighborhood Compatibility review process work to regulate residential construction and preserve the character of existing neighborhoods.Subsequently,the Planning Commission directed Staff to forward their recommendation to the City Council. On March 15,2011,Staff reported back to the City Council on the discussion and recommendation by the Planning Commission regarding the development of a FAR (Staff Reports and Minutes,attached). Planning Commission Chair Tomblin and Commissioner Gerstner were also present at the City Council meeting,and summarized how the Planning Commission came to their decision to support staff's recommendation that the neighborhood compatibility review process works well to preserve the character of existing 4-2 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Status on Code Amendment Regarding Floor Area Ratio February 7,2012 neighborhoods;that development has not occurred uncontrolled and structures fit in with the neighborhoods that they are located in.They also explained how FAR could create homes that are not compliant with the intent of the code due to varying lot sizes in the City. After Council deliberation and notwithstanding the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council directed Staff and the Planning Commission to further study establishing a FAR to augment the Neighborhood Compatibility process. As a result,Staff conducted further research,obtaining citywide information on lot and structure sizes,queried said information by zoning district,and reviewed Neighborhood Compatibility applications that were approved by the Planning Commission or Director from January 2007 thru July 2011.Further,with the use of the City's GIS data,which is obtained from the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's Office,Staff was able to identify the structure size and lot size for each lot within the City and developed several tables to illustrate and compare existing FAR information in the City.The additional research, various methods and FARs were presented to the Planning Commission on September 27, and November 22,2011 (Staff Reports attached).Included for the Planning Commission's consideration were options for establishing a Citywide FAR;establishing an FAR based on individual neighborhoods;and/or establishing an FAR for each zoning district.The Commission also expressed different methods of including an FAR standard into the review process. As a result of the additional public hearings,the Planning Commission continued to conclude that establishing an equitable FAR is not sensible due to the diversity in development patterns,lot sizes and structures sizes found throughout the City; implementing a FAR would result in non-conforming residences;and,ultimately,the City's current regulations and Neighborhood Compatibility review process work well to regulate residential construction and preserve the character of existing neighborhoods.A more detailed explanation of the Planning Commission's position on this issue is provided below. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION: As specified above,the Planning Commission has considered numerous alternatives to limiting structure size,including implementing a Floor Area Ratio into the Neighborhood Compatibility process as suggested by then-Council member Long.Although no alternative is without flaw,the Planning Commission concluded that retaining the existing Neighborhood Compatibility process addresses the issues of equity that resulted from the maximum structure size that was used previously by the City. Although the current Neighborhood Compatibility process can be ambiguous to property owners since the Development Code does not specify a maximum structure size for residential structures,the process provides flexibility since it does not bind property owners to a maximum limit.Instead,the size of a proposed project is compared to the average structure size of the immediate neighborhood.Additionally,the Neighborhood 4-3 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Status on Code Amendment Regarding Floor Area Ratio February 7,2012 Compatibility analysis considers several other components,which includes architectural style,scale,mass and bulk.Thus,although a proposed project size can be larger than what is evident in a neighborhood,mitigating factors such as the project's design,location, height,articulation,fac;ade treatments and appearance,and topography all playa role in the visibility of the structure and its related size,mass and bulk. The Neighborhood Compatibility process addresses concerns that were the basis for eliminating the previous maximum structure size and addresses the desire to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods.By assessing the scale of the surrounding residences against a residence proposing a significant expansion,Staff and/or the Planning Commission is able to determine whether the proposed addition or structure will result in a structure ·that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood or not.If it is determined that the structure is too large,Staff and/or the Planning Commission will recommend that the project be scaled down and reduced in size.As such,as evident by the residences approved by the Planning Commission,using the current Neighborhood Compatibility analysis to determine residential structure sizes does not result in a problem, nor is there any evidence that residential development is out of control. While the current Neighborhood Compatibility process does not establish a limit on the size of residences,the size of proposed residences within neighborhoods is being controlled through the process.On the other hand,if a maximum structure size or FAR is established,given the City's experience with applicants seeking to maximize their property's potential,many applicants will likely pursue projects at the maximum allowed. As a result,rather than structures increasing incrementally,neighborhoods could experience a more abrupt situation as applicants will incessantly push for the maximum allowable structure size.Further,based upon Staff's research of the FAR for residences in neighborhoods where Neighborhood Compatibility analyses were conducted,the Planning Commission agreed that there is no consistent pattern or governing trend that could lead to recommending or suggesting a particular FAR for each zone.Thus,establishing a FAR would result in properties being considered legal non-conforming structures that would require Variance applications to construct additions. In summary,the Planning Commission identified some serious difficulties with applying an FAR equitably based upon the lot size in regards to tying the home size maximums to the lot size,and believes that there are difficulties in applying the FAR across the City.As such,given that the direction to study the implementation of an FAR was provided by the previous City Council,the Planning Commission agreed to seek direction from the current City Council on whether to continue to proceed with this issue. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: 4-4 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Status on Code Amendment Regarding Floor Area Ratio February 7,2012 1.Direct Staff and the Planning Commission to no longer pursue a Code Amendment that would incorporate a FAR. 2.Direct Staff and the Planning Commission to continue its work on drafting an Ordinance to implement an FAR for residential properties. 3.Agree to no longer pursue a Code Amendment that would implement an FAR,but direct Staff to amend the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook to include a "FAR- like"criteria (structure size to lot size ratio)for reviewing projects under the City's existing Neighborhood Compatibility analysis. Attachments: •Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 22,2011,with attachments o Various Tables with statistical information o Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 27,2011 •Planning Commission Minutes (excerpts)for the September 27 and November 22, 2011 Planning Commission meetings •City Council Staff Report dated March 15,2011,with attachments o PC Staff Report dated January 25,2011,with attachments •Exhibit A -January 11,2011 Staff Report •Exhibit B -New Single-Family Residences constructed since November 2002 that were subject to Neighborhood Compatibility review by the Planning Commission •Exhibit C -Lot Coverage vs.Perceived Size Table (by Commissioners Knight and Leon) •Exhibit D -October 26,2010 Staff Report (with attachments) •Exhibit A -1997 Development Standards •Exhibit B -Neighborhood Compatibility tables for projects considered by the Planning Commission between January 2008 and July 2010 o Planning Commission Minutes (excerpts)for the October 26,2010,January 11,2011,and January 25,2011 meetings. •City Council Minutes (excerpts)for the March 15,2011 City Council meeting 4-5 PPLLAANNNNIINNGG CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN SSTTAAFFFF RREEPPOORRTT DDAATTEEDD NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 2222,, 22001111,, WWIITTHH AATTTTAACCHHMMEENNTTSS 4-6 CITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN &MEMBERS OF THE PL NING COM ISSION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOP ECTOR NOVEMBER 22,2011 PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP A FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (ZON2010- 00332)I Citywide ~ Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Plann~ RECOMMENDATION Discuss the additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR)information for Residential property and,if appropriate,direct Staff to proceed with drafting an Ordinance to implement a Floor Area Ratio. BACKGROUND This item is being brought back to the Planning Commission for further consideration of a Code Amendment to establish a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)as directed by the City Council in 2010.As the Commission will recall,Staff presented the issue of developing a Floor Area Ratio or other structure size limit to the Planning Commission during public hearings on October 26,2010,January 11,2011 and January 25,2011.As a result of the Planning Commission's review,the Commission recommended that a FAR or other maximum structure size limit not be imposed since the City's current regulations and Neighborhood Compatibility review process work to regulate residential construction and preserve the character of existing neighborhoods. On March 15,2011,Staff reported back to the City Council on the discussion and recommendation by the Planning Commission regarding the development of a FAR. However,after Council deliberation and notwithstanding the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council directed Staff and the Planning Commission to further study establishing a FAR to augment the Neighborhood Compatibility process. 4-7 Case No.ZON201 0-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) November 22,2011 As a result,Staff conducted additional research and identified different methods and FARs for consideration,which was presented to the Planning Commission on September 27, 2011.Included for the Planning Commission's consideration were establishing a Citywide FAR;establishing an FAR based on individual neighborhoods;and establishing an FAR for each zoning district.The Commission also expressed different methods of including an FAR standard into the review process.However,after discussing the item,the Planning Commission continued the item to a future date. DISCUSSION During the Planning Commission's discussion at the September 2ih meeting,it was evident that a single uniform Citywide FAR should not be pursued as it was not a sensible method due to the diversity in development patterns,lot sizes and structures sizes found throughout the City.It was also evident that an FAR based upon neighborhoods was not viable due to the logistics in identifying and establishing such neighborhoods. Notwithstanding,it did appear that the Commission may be open to exploring implementing some form of an FAR.Therefore,based on the Commission's previous discussion,Staff has provided the following alternatives: FLOOR AREA RA TlO BASED ON IMMEDIA TE NEIGHBORHOODS: The Commission discussed an FAR method based upon immediate neighborhoods, consistent with the determination of immediate neighborhoods dictated by the City's existing Neighborhood Compatibility process. Pros:An FAR based upon this method would ensure that proposed additions and/or new residences would maintain a size that could be more in line with the neighborhood. Cons:This method would produce a constantly changing standard (depending upon what constitutes the immediate neighborhood)that could prove to be too fluid and would not give a prospective applicant a tangible maximum square footage for a residence.The City Council has raised an issue that the current Development Code standards do not state a blatant maximum square footage for residences.As such,this method may continue to provide an ambiguous response when asked "How large can I build my residence?",since it would be based upon an analysis of the immediate neighborhood. While implementation of this method appears to be easy since it would be done through the existing Neighborhood Compatibility process,there could be instances where a Neighborhood Compatibility process is not required for a specific addition that does not trigger the Neighborhood Compatibility process.Typically,an immediate neighborhood is identified through a formal Neighborhood Compatibility application and process.However, in these instances,the immediate neighborhood must still be identified so that a maximum FAR can be determined.As a result,the review/processing time would increase because Staff could not process such additions over the counter;rather,these applications would 4-8 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) November 22,2011 have to be taken in for a more comprehensive review.Further,the fee for processing any minor addition would increase due to processing time by Staff. ESTABLISH FLOOR AREA RA TlO AT THE 90TH PERCENTILE FOR EACH ZONING DISTRICT: Another approach discussed is to create FARs that are at the 90 th percentile of the applicable Zoning District.Staff has modified the figures for the RS-2 Zone,which was skewed due to the inclusion of the Portuguese Bend Club community1.Thus,afterfurther extrapolation of the data,Staff has recalculated the Floor Area Ratio (FAR)range,FAR Mean and FAR Median for the RS-2 Zone.Table No.1 below illustrates the FAR information for each zoning district. Table No 1 I Zoolog • FAR Range Average/Mean FAR(with Garage)(wI garage) rs-1 0.150 -0.520 0.195 rs-2 0.014 -0.451 0.168 (DreviDUsly 0.014·1.046)(Dreviously 0.179) rs-3 0.047 -0.684 0.246 rs-4 0.060 -0.658 0.292 rs-5 0.058 -0.742 0.268 Based upon the Commission's discussion to explore an FAR at the 90 th percentile for each zoning district,Staff has conducted additional statistical calculations and has compiled Table NO.2 below,which illustrates the FARs at the 90 th percentile for each Zoning District. Table No 2 Zoning FAR Range FAR set at the FAR set at the FAR set at the (With Garage)90 th Percentile 80 th Percentile 75th Percentile RS-1 0.150 -0.520 0.333 0.285 0.274 RS-2 0.014 -0.451 0.256 0.224 0.213 RS-3 0.047 -0.684 0.360 0.305 0.289 RS-4 0.060 -0.658 0.392 0.347 0.328 RS-5 0.058 -0.742 0.369 0.326 0.311 1 The Portuguese Bend Club is zoned RS-2;however,the lot sizes are well below the Zone's minimum standards,which has resulted in a number of Variance applications to construct additions primarily for setback reductions and exceeding lot coverage. 4-9 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) November 22,2011 Pros:An FAR based upon the Percentile appears to be a better indicator for each Zoning District.Further,the number of resulting legal non-conforming structures would decrease using a higher Percentile as the FAR standard. Since the Commission had expressed perhaps using the 90 th percentile,Staff conducted additional analysis as to how previous approvals compare to such an FAR standard at the 90th percentile.Staff used the same methodology as before,concentrating on additions and new residences approved by the Director and the Planning Commission between January 2007 and July 2011,and divided into 4 categories:1)Planning Commission approved new single-family residences on vacant parcels;2)Planning Commission approved additions,including tear-down/rebuilds;3)Director approved new single-family residences on vacant parcels;and,4)Director approved additions,including tear- down/rebuilds. There have been a total of 172 applications involving Neighborhood Compatibility that have been approved by the Director and Planning Commission.The FARs resulting from these approvals compared to an FAR at the Zone's 90 th percentile yields the data illustrated in Table No.3 below. Table No 3 Zone Total FAR over the FAR under the applications 90 th Percentile 90 th Percentile PC Approved New Sinqle-Familv Residences RS-1 5 0 5 RS-2 18 8 10 RS-3 2 0 2 RS-4 6 4 2 RS-5 2 1 1 Director Approved New Sinqle-Famil\Residences RS-1 0 -- RS-2 11 1 10 RS-3 1 0 1 RS-4 4 3 1 RS-5 0 ---- PC Approved Additions RS-1 0 ---- RS-2 17 2 15 RS-3 15 2 13 RS-4 22 12 10 RS-5 9 6 3 Director Approved Additions RS-1 4 0 4 RS-2 26 10 16 RS-3 5 0 5 RS-4 14 3 11 4-10 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) November 22.2011 Zone Total FAR over the FAR under the applications 90th Percentile 90th Percentile RS-5 11 1 10 Total 172 53 119 When comparing the FARs resulting from these approvals to the 90 th Percentile FAR in Table No.2 above,69%(119 applications)of the resulting FARs were less than zones'90 th Percentile FAR.This method increases the number of applications where the resulting FARs would be less than the zones'90 th Percentile FAR;however,31 %of the applications would have been overthe 90 th Percentile FAR.It is important to note that all the approved projects were found to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood in which they are located. Cons:Although this method minimizes the number of legal non-conforming residences, FARs at the 90 th Percentile would result in over 1,100 residential structures citywide that would be classified as legal non-conforming residences (the number of residences that are in the upper 10 th percentile). Further,this method does not have a progressive pattern associated with the Zoning District.For example,of the cities Staff researched that use FAR,the FARs increase as the zoning becomes denser.Utilizing such a progressive pattern would render an FAR for the RS-1 Zone that would be the smallest,then progressively increasing along the Zoning spectrum whereby the RS-5 Zone would be the largest.However,as illustrated in Table No.2 above,there is no pattern. CONCLUSION Staff believes that any FAR should substantially minimize the number of resulting nonconforming structures to the fullest extent possible.Implementing almost any FAR will result in legal nonconforming structures.In these instances,a property owner would be required to submit a Variance to exceed or further exceed the maximum FAR,which requires a notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission in addition to a current $4,209 application fee for the Variance request.Further,specific findings must also be made in order to grant a Variance,which includes a material hardship finding that is difficult to make in order to justify a deviation from the Development Code. Nonetheless,based upon the Commission's discussion regarding this issue and the information provided above,Staff is requesting feedback from the Planning Commission on a fair and appropriate FAR.Some of the questions that arise for discussion and consideration are the following: •Is an FAR at the 90 th Percentile appropriate and/or fair? •Are there other alternatives that the Planning Commission would like to pursue and/or is there additional information needed from Staff? 4-11 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) November 22,2011 •Considering that a newly seated Council will be taking the dais next month,should the Planning Commission and Staff bring this item back to the City Council for direction? As such,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR)information for Residential property;and,if appropriate,direct Staff to proceed with drafting an Ordinance to implement a Floor Area Ratio. ATTACHMENTS •Various Tables with statistical information •Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 27,2011,with attachments •Exhibit A -January 25,2011 Staff Report •Exhibit B -January 11,2011 Staff Report •Exhibit C -New Single-Family Residences constructed since November 2002 that were subject to Neighborhood Compatibility review by the Planning Commission •Exhibit D -Lot Coverage vs.Perceived Size Table (by Commissioners Knight and Leon) •Exhibit E -October 26,2010 Staff Report (with attachments) o Exhibit A -1997 Development Standards o Exhibit B -Neighborhood Compatibility tables for projects considered by the Planning Commission between January 2008 and July 2010 4-12 P LA N N I N G C OM M I S S I O N A P P R O V E D N E W S IN G L E -F AM I L Y R ES I D E N C E S O N V A C A N T P A R C E L S B E T W E E N J AN U A R Y 20 0 7 TH R U J UL Y 20 1 1 C OM P A R E D A T T H E 90 TH P ER C E N T I L E Ad d r e s s Zo n e Lo t S i z e St r u c t u r e Si z e FA R FA R a t th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e Pr o j e c t F A R ov e r t h e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? 33 0 4 P a l o V i s t a D r i v e rs - 1 33 , 0 0 5 4, 6 3 0 0. 1 4 0 0. 3 3 3 N 38 1 5 P V D S rs - 1 77 , 5 3 7 7, 6 9 1 0. 0 9 9 0. 3 3 3 N 30 6 3 7 C a l l e D e S u e n o s rs - 1 37 , 0 2 6 8, 8 6 8 0. 2 4 0 0. 3 3 3 N 32 3 1 P V D S rs - 1 43 , 5 5 1 8, 4 7 9 0. 1 9 5 0. 3 3 3 N 29 2 3 V i s t a D e l M a r rs - 1 23 , 9 3 6 7, 3 4 8 0. 3 0 7 0. 3 3 3 N 42 S e a C o v e rs - 2 31 , 4 7 4 9, 2 4 4 0. 2 9 4 0. 2 5 6 Y 34 6 6 V i a C a m p e s i n a rs - 2 55 , 7 5 7 5, 4 2 2 0. 0 9 7 0. 2 5 6 N 38 6 7 C r e s t R o a d rs - 2 57 , 7 0 0 5, 4 9 5 0. 0 9 5 0. 2 5 6 N 44 H e a d l a n d D r i v e rs - 2 45 , 7 3 8 4, 6 2 0 0. 1 0 1 0. 2 5 6 N 4 Y e l l o w B r i c k R o a d rs - 2 21 , 6 5 0 7, 5 6 3 0. 3 4 9 0. 2 5 6 Y 30 1 2 0 C a r t i e r D r i v e rs - 2 15 , 0 8 9 4, 9 0 2 0. 3 2 5 0. 2 5 6 Y 29 6 7 C r e s t R o a d rs - 2 14 , 0 4 8 5, 9 3 1 0. 4 2 2 0. 2 5 6 Y 5 ½ R o c k i n g h o r s e R d rs - 2 20 , 5 3 0 4, 7 0 3 0. 2 2 9 0. 2 5 6 N 30 3 7 5 D i a m o n t e L a n e rs - 2 23 , 9 5 8 5, 3 9 7 0. 2 2 5 0. 2 5 6 N 75 N a r c i s s a D r i v e rs - 2 87 , 1 2 0 4, 7 4 9 0. 0 5 5 0. 2 5 6 N 31 5 4 D e l u n a D r i v e rs - 2 20 , 9 0 0 4, 8 8 0 0. 2 3 3 0. 2 5 6 N 58 A v e n i d a C o r o n a rs - 2 25 , 1 5 2 4, 2 8 0 0. 1 7 0 0. 2 5 6 N 17 M a r t i n g a l e D r i v e rs - 2 21 , 1 0 0 2, 8 2 2 0. 1 3 4 0. 2 5 6 N 11 C l i p p e r R o a d rs - 2 9, 1 0 0 4, 4 9 4 0. 4 9 4 0. 2 5 6 Y 30 1 5 6 C a r t i e r rs - 2 15 , 2 1 0 5, 9 0 9 0. 3 8 8 0. 2 5 6 Y 30 1 4 8 C a r t i e r rs - 2 15 , 4 4 0 4, 4 7 7 0. 2 9 0 0. 2 5 6 Y 59 0 3 C l i n t rs - 2 23 , 2 9 0 5, 4 7 2 0. 2 3 5 0. 2 5 6 N 27 5 9 1 P V D E rs - 2 21 , 1 1 3 6, 2 2 2 0. 2 9 5 0. 2 5 6 Y 43 6 9 D a u n t l e s s D r i v e rs - 3 16 , 4 7 8 3, 7 9 4 0. 2 3 0 0. 3 6 0 N 4-13 Ad d r e s s Zo n e Lo t S i z e St r u c t u r e Si z e FA R FA R a t th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e Pr o j e c t F A R ov e r t h e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? 33 2 4 S e a c l a i r e D r i v e rs - 3 12 , 9 9 4 3, 7 2 0 0. 2 8 6 0. 3 6 0 N 10 C l i p p e r R o a d rs - 4 8, 4 4 0 3, 5 4 8 0. 4 2 0 0. 3 9 2 Y 5 P a c k e t R o a d rs - 4 9, 6 9 0 4, 2 8 0 0. 4 4 2 0. 3 9 2 Y 70 2 6 B r o o k f o r d D r i v e rs -4 9, 1 1 6 32 1 4 0. 3 5 3 0. 3 9 2 N 30 0 5 7 V i a V i c t o r i a rs - 4 14 , 1 0 5 5, 9 9 8 0. 4 2 5 0. 3 9 2 Y 30 0 6 5 V i a V i c t o r i a rs - 4 10 , 0 5 7 3, 4 8 0 0. 3 4 6 0. 3 9 2 N 30 8 3 1 R u e L a n g l o i s rs - 4 11 , 2 0 0 5, 4 6 5 0. 4 8 8 0. 3 9 2 Y 29 1 1 8 H i g h m o r e A v e rs - 5 * 6, 2 9 1 3, 6 8 6 0. 5 8 6 0. 3 6 9 Y 3 Y a c h t H a r b o r D r i v e rs - 5 /r s - 2 58 2 , 3 9 7 15 , 4 2 5 0. 0 2 6 0. 3 6 9 N *P r o p e r t y i n t h e E a s t v i e w a r e a t h a t w a s r e z o n e d f r o m R S - 4 t o R S - 5 4-14 P LA N N I N G C OM M I S S I O N A P P R O V E D A DD I T I O N S B E T W E E N J AN U A R Y 20 0 7 T H R U J UL Y 20 1 1 (IN C L U D E S T E A R -DO W N /RE B U I L D S ) C OM P A R E D A T T H E 90 TH P ER C E N T I L E Ad d r e s s Zo n e Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n FA R a t th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e Pr e - P r o j e c t FA R o v e r th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r 90 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? 24 2 2 C o l t R o a d rs - 2 25 3 9 0 0. 1 4 1 0. 1 6 3 0. 2 5 6 N N 15 H e a d l a n d D r i v e rs - 2 43 5 6 0 0. 0 9 0 0. 2 2 9 0. 2 5 6 N N 65 0 5 P V D E rs - 2 28 7 5 0 0. 0 7 9 0. 2 3 2 0. 2 5 6 N N 53 3 5 R o l l i n g R i d g e rs - 2 32 7 4 3 0. 1 0 0 0. 2 5 3 0. 2 5 6 N N 53 2 1 M i d d l e c r e s t R d rs - 2 20 1 9 8 0. 1 3 8 0. 1 8 9 0. 2 5 6 N N 24 2 2 C o l t R o a d rs - 2 24 2 4 0 0. 1 4 8 0. 1 7 0 0. 2 5 6 N N 54 R o c k i n g h o r s e rs - 2 26 5 4 1 0. 1 3 1 0. 1 9 5 0. 2 5 6 N N 86 y a c h t h a r b o r rs - 2 50 4 0 0. 4 3 3 0. 6 2 0 0. 2 5 6 Y Y 30 6 2 9 P V D E rs - 2 30 9 3 0 0. 1 4 4 0. 2 0 6 0. 2 5 6 N N 73 H e a d l a n d D r rs - 2 26 0 9 5 0. 1 0 7 0. 2 4 7 0. 2 5 6 N N 27 9 2 1 P V D E rs - 2 43 6 0 4 0. 1 0 2 0. 1 7 2 0. 2 5 6 N N 64 8 0 P V D E rs - 2 68 8 2 4 0. 1 2 8 0. 1 0 9 0. 2 5 6 N N 27 2 3 S a n R a m o n rs - 2 72 5 5 0. 4 2 5 0. 5 4 7 0. 2 5 6 Y Y 58 A v e n i d a C o r o n a rs - 2 25 1 5 2 0. 1 5 7 0. 1 7 0 0. 2 5 6 N N 8 T o p r a i l L a n e rs - 2 34 1 2 4 0. 0 9 4 0. 1 2 9 0. 2 5 6 N N 28 7 3 C o l t R o a d rs - 2 63 5 6 0 0. 0 5 6 0. 0 7 3 0. 2 5 6 N N 5 D i a m o n t e rs - 2 26 5 7 0 0. 1 3 4 0. 2 2 9 0. 2 5 6 N N 32 2 2 8 S c h o o n e r rs - 3 12 6 3 0 0. 1 8 4 0. 2 6 2 0. 3 6 0 N N 30 5 6 3 C a l l e d e S u e n o s rs - 3 26 8 8 0 0. 0 9 4 0. 1 8 4 0. 3 6 0 N N 40 0 8 M i r a l e s t e D r i v e rs - 3 12 4 2 0 0. 1 5 3 0. 2 0 9 0. 3 6 0 N N 41 2 5 M i r a l e s t e D r i v e rs - 3 80 2 0 0. 3 0 8 0. 4 0 3 0. 3 6 0 N Y 30 6 7 5 V i a L a C r e s t a rs - 3 15 6 3 0 0. 1 8 2 0. 2 5 2 0. 3 6 0 N N 5 V i a C i e g a rs - 3 33 5 7 5 0. 0 7 7 0. 1 7 9 0. 3 6 0 N N 21 C a y u s e L a n e rs - 3 20 5 0 0 0. 1 7 4 0. 2 6 5 0. 3 6 0 N N 30 4 3 9 C a l l e d e S u e ñ o s rs - 3 17 1 1 5 0. 1 8 4 0. 2 3 1 0. 3 6 0 N N 42 4 9 D a u n t l e s s rs - 3 14 4 7 0 0. 1 4 1 0. 2 3 4 0. 3 6 0 N N 34 4 4 G u l f c r e s t rs - 3 42 2 5 0 0. 0 6 6 0. 1 1 6 0. 3 6 0 N N 42 0 4 M i r a l e s t e rs - 3 17 7 9 1 0. 2 1 8 0. 2 9 7 0. 3 6 0 N N 34 4 4 G u l f c r e s t rs - 3 42 2 5 0 0. 0 6 6 0. 1 1 6 0. 3 6 0 N N 4-15 Ad d r e s s Zo n e Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n FA R a t th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e Pr e - P r o j e c t FA R o v e r th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r 90 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? 33 2 4 S e a c l a i r e rs - 3 12 9 9 4 0. 2 0 9 0. 2 8 6 0. 3 6 0 N N 36 6 7 G r e v e rs - 3 14 4 5 0 0. 1 5 6 0. 2 2 2 0. 3 6 0 N N 32 4 1 5 N a u t i l u s rs - 3 13 7 1 5 0. 3 8 0 0. 5 2 4 0. 3 6 0 Y Y 21 C r e s t w i n d D r i v e rs - 4 25 6 9 0 0. 1 4 3 0. 1 5 6 0. 3 9 2 N N 28 9 2 6 D o v e r r i d g e R d rs - 4 98 6 3 0. 4 3 5 0. 4 8 2 0. 3 9 2 Y Y 28 8 1 6 R o t h r o c k D r rs - 4 17 1 8 0 0. 1 0 8 0. 1 7 8 0. 3 9 2 N N 69 3 0 H e d g e w o o d D r rs - 4 82 0 3 0. 3 3 1 0. 5 1 0 0. 3 9 2 N Y 43 1 9 P V D S rs - 4 10 9 2 5 0. 2 6 5 0. 3 0 8 0. 3 9 2 N N 67 5 2 E d d i n g h i l l D r rs - 4 93 0 0 0. 2 6 9 0. 3 3 2 0. 3 9 2 N N 28 8 2 0 C e d a r b l u f f D r rs - 4 18 , 1 6 0 0. 1 5 0 0. 1 8 5 0. 3 9 2 N N 4 A v e n i d a d e A z a l e a rs - 4 11 6 1 3 0. 3 4 9 0. 4 3 1 0. 3 9 2 N Y 26 7 1 2 H a w k h u r s t D r rs - 4 89 7 5 0. 3 6 4 0. 4 6 1 0. 3 9 2 N Y 29 4 0 3 W h i t l e y C o l l i n s rs - 4 89 6 3 0. 3 0 0 0. 4 4 1 0. 3 9 2 N Y 13 S e a C o v e D r i v e rs - 4 82 1 1 0. 3 1 2 0. 5 5 8 0. 3 9 2 N Y 28 0 4 5 E l l a R o a d rs - 4 16 9 7 0 0. 1 5 2 0. 2 1 8 0. 3 9 2 N N 67 7 4 V e r d e R i d g e rs - 4 69 3 0 0. 4 5 3 0. 5 6 6 0. 3 9 2 Y Y 65 2 7 E d d i n g h i l l rs - 4 80 7 1 0. 2 4 3 0. 4 9 6 0. 3 9 2 N Y 28 8 3 9 T r a i l r i d e r s rs - 4 10 4 8 0 0. 2 9 8 0. 3 3 3 0. 3 9 2 N N 69 1 3 M a y c r o f t rs - 4 74 8 0 0. 3 2 0 0. 5 0 1 0. 3 9 2 N Y 64 0 8 S e a b r y n rs - 4 91 8 0 0. 4 3 6 0. 4 4 7 0. 3 9 2 Y Y 28 4 4 5 L o m o rs - 4 71 4 0 0. 4 0 1 0. 4 4 8 0. 3 9 2 Y Y 70 2 6 B r o o k f o r d rs - 4 91 1 6 0. 1 7 4 0. 3 5 3 0. 3 9 2 N N 29 1 0 5 D o v e r r i d g e rs - 4 96 7 6 0. 2 9 6 0. 3 7 2 0. 3 9 2 N N 1 S e a c o v e D r i v e rs -4 16 9 8 8 0. 1 2 1 0. 2 9 0 0. 3 9 2 N N 69 3 0 H e d g e w o o d rs - 4 82 0 3 0. 3 3 1 0. 5 0 7 0. 3 9 2 N Y 55 0 1 S h o r e v i e w D r rs - 5 13 2 3 0 0. 1 6 3 0. 3 5 1 0. 3 6 9 N N 53 3 8 B a y r i d g e R d rs - 5 76 1 0 0. 2 5 2 0. 4 5 8 0. 3 6 9 N Y 27 5 1 3 L o n g h i l l rs - 5 71 4 3 0. 2 9 4 0. 6 2 1 0. 3 6 9 N Y 26 1 3 3 B a s s w o o d A v e rs - 5 75 9 0 0. 2 6 7 0. 5 7 1 0. 3 6 9 N Y 26 3 4 1 B a s s w o o d rs - 5 75 6 0 0. 2 6 1 0. 5 0 1 0. 3 6 9 N Y 53 2 9 B a y r i d g e rs - 5 94 7 2 0. 1 8 9 0. 4 8 6 0. 3 6 9 N Y 29 1 1 8 H i g h m o r e rs - 5 * 62 9 1 0. 2 1 9 0. 5 8 6 0. 3 6 9 N Y 20 4 9 J a y b r o o k rs - 5 * 64 4 7 0. 1 5 7 0. 2 2 8 0. 3 6 9 N N 18 7 2 H o m e w o r t h rs - 5 * 12 4 2 0 0. 0 8 1 0. 2 6 7 0. 3 6 9 N N 4-16 *P r o p e r t y i n t h e E a s t v i e w a r e a t h a t w a s r e z o n e d f r o m R S - 4 t o R S - 5 4-17 D IR E C T O R A P P R O V E D N E W S IN G L E -F AM I L Y R ES I D E N C E S O N V A C A N T P A R C E L S B E T W E E N J AN U A R Y 20 0 7 T H R U J UL Y 20 1 1 C OM P A R E D A T T H E 90 TH P ER C E N T I L E Ad d r e s s Zo n e Lo t S i z e St r u c t u r e Si z e FA R FA R a t t h e 90 th Pe r c e n t i l e Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? 28 9 5 5 P V D E rs - 2 40 9 5 0 60 2 0 0. 1 4 7 0. 2 5 6 N 30 2 0 0 C a r t i e r rs - 2 15 2 8 0 66 8 9 . 2 0. 4 3 8 0. 2 5 6 Y 33 4 0 V i a C a m p e s i n a rs - 2 20 0 2 5 24 5 9 0. 1 2 3 0. 2 5 6 N 27 C i n n a m o n rs - 2 49 1 0 0 40 1 6 0. 0 8 2 0. 2 5 6 N 37 C i n n a m o n rs - 2 33 2 5 3 34 9 6 0. 1 0 5 0. 2 5 6 N 10 S w e e t b a y rs - 2 34 1 2 7 40 2 2 0. 1 1 8 0. 2 5 6 N 3 F r u i t T r e e rs - 2 28 0 3 0 38 2 0 0. 1 3 6 0. 2 5 6 N 53 N a r c i s s a rs - 2 24 3 6 0 42 2 1 0. 1 7 3 0. 2 5 6 N 33 C i n n a m o n rs - 2 62 7 5 0 45 6 8 0. 0 7 3 0. 2 5 6 N 8 F r u i t T r e e rs - 2 25 3 3 0 39 0 8 0. 1 5 4 0. 2 5 6 N 29 C i n n a m o n rs - 2 39 8 2 0 30 1 7 0. 0 7 6 0. 2 5 6 N 63 0 1 V i a C o l i n i t a rs - 3 13 6 5 0 45 2 2 0. 3 3 1 0. 3 6 0 N 7 S e a C o v e rs - 4 10 0 9 0 47 2 5 0. 4 6 8 0. 3 9 2 Y 30 5 0 4 P V D W rs - 4 13 3 5 0 49 1 3 0. 3 6 8 0. 3 9 2 N 30 0 3 9 V i a V i c t o r i a rs - 4 10 4 2 5 51 8 4 0. 4 9 7 0. 3 9 2 Y 30 0 5 1 V i a V i c t o r i a rs - 4 11 9 7 1 54 1 9 0. 4 5 3 0. 3 9 2 Y 4-18 D IR E C T O R A P P R O V E D A DD I T I O N S B E T W E E N J AN U A R Y 20 0 7 T H R U J UL Y 20 1 1 (IN C L U D E S T E A R -DO W N /RE B U I L D S ) C OM P A R E D A T T H E 90 TH P ER C E N T I L E Ad d r e s s Zo n e Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n FA R a t th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e Pr e - P r o j e c t FA R o v e r th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r 90 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? 18 S w e e t b a y rs - 1 32 8 9 0 0. 0 8 9 0. 1 2 6 0. 3 3 3 N N 24 N a r c i s s a rs - 1 37 5 4 5 0. 0 5 8 0. 0 7 3 0. 3 3 3 N N 2 F i g t r e e rs - 1 35 4 0 0 0. 0 8 2 0. 1 1 6 0. 3 3 3 N N 2 F i g t r e e rs - 1 35 4 0 0 0. 0 8 2 0. 1 0 5 0. 3 3 3 N N 1 C r e s t w i n d rs - 2 19 7 5 0 0. 1 8 6 0. 2 8 5 0. 2 5 6 N Y 33 4 8 C r o w n v i e w rs - 2 21 5 1 3 0. 1 3 0 0. 2 0 5 0. 2 5 6 N N 28 1 9 1 P V D E rs - 2 22 3 5 5 0. 1 1 1 0. 1 4 8 0. 2 5 6 N N 31 4 0 4 M a r n e rs - 2 15 0 0 0 0. 2 1 0 0. 2 7 2 0. 2 5 6 N Y 38 C i n n a m o n rs - 2 24 0 5 0 0. 1 5 9 0. 1 5 9 0. 2 5 6 N N 61 6 2 A r r o w r o o t rs - 2 15 5 0 0 0. 1 7 6 0. 2 2 0 0. 2 5 6 N N 30 8 7 C r o w n v i e w rs - 2 20 1 6 7 0. 1 4 5 0. 2 7 0 0. 2 5 6 N Y 31 3 3 5 M a r n e rs - 2 15 9 1 0 0. 2 6 3 0. 3 4 6 0. 2 5 6 Y Y 62 7 2 V i a C a n a d a rs - 2 15 5 6 0 0. 1 8 0 0. 2 2 0 0. 2 5 6 N N 15 S a d d l e rs - 2 19 1 6 0 0. 1 6 0 0. 2 2 9 0. 2 5 6 N N 30 4 3 7 R h o n e rs - 2 15 1 1 0 0. 2 7 1 0. 3 9 9 0. 2 5 6 Y Y 30 2 2 5 R h o n e rs - 2 21 8 4 0 0. 1 6 7 0. 2 3 1 0. 2 5 6 N N 63 2 1 V i a C o l i n i t a rs - 2 90 6 0 0. 3 1 2 0. 4 2 0 0. 2 5 6 Y Y 6 F r u i t T r e e rs - 2 22 4 7 1 0. 0 9 1 0. 1 2 2 0. 2 5 6 N N 24 5 3 D a l a d i e r rs - 2 19 1 5 0 0. 1 1 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 2 5 6 N N 32 0 3 9 S e a R i d g e C i r c l e rs - 2 19 4 0 0 0. 2 9 8 0. 3 0 5 0. 2 5 6 Y Y 2 M o o n m i s t rs - 2 19 1 6 0 0. 2 1 5 0. 2 7 1 0. 2 5 6 N Y 26 6 2 9 N o k o m i s rs - 2 77 0 0 0. 3 9 4 0. 5 0 2 0. 2 5 6 Y Y 10 A m b e r S k y rs - 2 20 1 0 8 0. 1 4 6 0. 2 4 4 0. 2 5 6 N N 28 8 5 6 C r e s t r i d g e rs - 2 23 8 7 0 0. 0 9 4 0. 1 3 1 0. 2 5 6 N N 30 7 0 6 T a r a p a c a rs - 2 12 0 0 0 0. 1 9 7 0. 2 8 7 0. 2 5 6 N Y 28 9 5 1 P V D E rs - 2 44 4 3 1 0. 1 6 6 0. 2 0 7 0. 2 5 6 N N 4-19 Ad d r e s s Zo n e Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n FA R a t th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e Pr e - P r o j e c t FA R o v e r th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r 90 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? 39 R o c k i n g h o r s e rs - 2 25 5 5 0 0. 1 7 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 2 5 6 N N 36 C i n n a m o n rs - 2 22 2 7 5 0. 0 9 3 0. 1 3 1 0. 2 5 6 N N 19 S t i r r u p rs - 2 28 6 6 0 0. 1 1 1 0. 1 5 5 0. 2 5 6 N N 21 0 5 D a l a d i e r rs - 2 17 3 9 3 0. 1 4 0 0. 2 2 2 0. 2 5 6 N N 43 1 3 M i r a l e s t e rs - 3 11 0 8 0 0. 1 9 1 0. 3 0 4 0. 3 6 0 N N 29 9 0 2 A v e n i d a R e f i n i d a rs - 3 24 3 5 0 0. 1 9 5 0. 3 2 9 0. 3 6 0 N N 68 8 3 C r e s t rs - 3 27 9 4 0 0. 1 1 2 0. 1 3 1 0. 3 6 0 N N 31 0 5 9 H a w k s m o o r rs - 3 81 8 9 3 0. 0 5 0 0. 0 5 5 0. 3 6 0 N N 65 2 8 V i a C o l i n i t a rs - 3 92 6 1 0. 2 3 1 0. 2 8 5 0. 3 6 0 N N 70 3 0 B e e c h a m rs - 4 11 1 3 0 0. 1 9 7 0. 2 6 3 0. 3 9 2 N N 29 5 4 7 B e r n i c e rs - 4 71 0 9 0. 3 1 8 0. 3 7 6 0. 3 9 2 N N 30 5 1 5 R u e d e l a P i e r r e rs - 4 12 8 6 0 0. 1 8 1 0. 2 6 9 0. 3 9 2 N N 40 2 0 L o r r a i n rs - 4 17 3 6 7 0. 1 8 0 0. 2 1 3 0. 3 9 2 N N 74 0 1 A l i d a P l a c e rs - 4 19 8 3 9 0. 2 8 6 0. 4 0 3 0. 3 9 2 N Y 28 8 0 2 C e d a r b l u f f rs - 4 10 2 7 1 0. 2 0 4 0. 2 8 7 0. 3 9 2 N N 43 1 8 E x u l t a n t rs - 4 12 0 1 9 0. 2 0 3 0. 3 2 3 0. 3 9 2 N N 28 2 1 7 T r a i l r i d e r s rs - 4 75 9 0 0. 2 5 3 0. 3 7 8 0. 3 9 2 N N 65 1 9 E d d i n g h i l l rs - 4 81 0 7 0. 3 0 6 0. 4 9 7 0. 3 9 2 N Y 43 8 0 D a u n t l e s s rs - 4 12 0 5 0 0. 2 1 7 0. 3 1 2 0. 3 9 2 N N 28 3 3 6 L u n a d a R i d g e rs - 4 98 6 0 0. 2 8 0 0. 3 9 0 0. 3 9 2 N N 28 5 0 5 C o v e c r e s t rs - 4 99 5 0 0. 3 1 8 0. 3 7 6 0. 3 9 2 N N 28 2 1 6 L o m o rs - 4 76 7 0 0. 2 8 6 0. 4 2 8 0. 3 9 2 N Y 28 8 0 4 L e a h C i r c l e rs - 4 10 5 5 1 0. 3 1 6 0. 3 7 8 0. 3 9 2 N N 27 5 3 6 H a l e s c o r n e r rs - 5 77 3 0 0. 2 6 0 0. 3 4 1 0. 3 6 9 N N 53 0 6 B a y r i d g e rs - 5 14 0 5 0 0. 1 7 0 0. 2 1 7 0. 3 6 9 N N 26 7 4 6 M e n o m i n e e rs - 5 13 2 7 0 0. 1 7 0 0. 2 7 0 0. 3 6 9 N N 53 4 6 I r o n w o o d rs - 5 92 9 0 0. 1 8 2 0. 3 0 4 0. 3 6 9 N N 26 6 3 3 L i g h t f o o t rs - 5 11 5 0 0 0. 1 7 1 0. 2 5 7 0. 3 6 9 N N 55 3 1 S h o r e v i e w rs - 5 88 6 0 0. 2 2 6 0. 3 3 8 0. 3 6 9 N N 60 0 2 M o s s b a n k rs - 5 11 2 4 0 0. 2 1 4 0. 2 5 0 0. 3 6 9 N N 4-20 Ad d r e s s Zo n e Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n FA R a t th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e Pr e - P r o j e c t FA R o v e r th e 9 0 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r 90 th Pe r c e n t i l e ? 55 4 1 G r a y l o g rs - 5 95 2 0 0. 2 4 0 0. 3 1 1 0. 3 6 9 N N 26 6 3 6 I n d i a n P e a k rs - 5 80 3 1 0. 2 3 9 0. 3 1 0 0. 3 6 9 N N 60 2 6 F l a m b e a u rs - 5 75 5 4 0. 2 6 2 0. 3 2 0 0. 3 6 9 N N 20 1 1 V e l e z rs - 5 * 68 3 0 0. 3 1 7 0. 4 2 0 0. 3 6 9 N Y *P r o p e r t y i n t h e E a s t v i e w a r e a t h a t w a s r e z o n e d f r o m R S - 4 t o R S - 5 4-21 4-22 Case No. ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) September 27, 2011 located in. They also explained how FAR could create homes that are not compliant with the intent of the code due to varying lot sizes in the City. After Council deliberation and notwithstanding the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the City Council directed Staff and the Planning Commission to further study establishing a FAR to augment the Neighborhood Compatibility process. As a result, Staff has conducted additional research by obtaining citywide information on lot and structure sizes, queried said information by zoning district, and reviewed Neighborhood Compatibility applications that were approved by the Planning Commission or Director from January 2007 thru July 2011. Further, with the use of the City’s GIS data, which is obtained from the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor’s Office, Staff was able to identify the structure size and lot size for each lot within the City and has developed several tables that illustrate and compare existing FARs in the City. DISCUSSION Given the City Council’s March 15th direction, Staff assessed several approaches to establishing a FAR. These approaches, along with their pros and cons are as follows: CITYWIDE FLOOR AREA RATIO One approach is to create a single uniform FAR that would be applicable to all single-family zoning districts based upon the average FAR in the City. Of over 11,000 units surveyed, Table No. 1 below describes what an average FAR could be: Table No. 1 Citywide Averages Lot Size (Average) 12,738 square feet Living Area (Average) 2,554 square feet FAR (Average) 0.223 Structure Size (w/ garage)* (Average) 2,775 FAR (w/ garage)* (Average) 0.259 *The Los Angeles County Tax Assessor’s information includes living area sizes, and does not include garage area. As such, to account for garage area, 360 square feet was added to the living area sizes to establish the “structure size”. It was determined that basing a FAR on citywide averages would not be sensible due to the diversity in development patterns, lot sizes and structures sizes found throughout the City. For example, if using a 0.259 FAR for all lots, an RS-1 lot of one acre (43,560) would permit 4-23 Case No. ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) September 27, 2011 an 11,282 square foot structure, which is significantly larger than most structures within the RS-1 Zone. Further, a 0.259 FAR for a RS-5 lot could limit the structure size to 2,072 square feet, which is less than what would typically be found in the RS-5 Zone. Further, this approach would result in a significant number of nonconformities. FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS OR DISTRICTS: Another approach is to create FARs that are applicable to specific neighborhoods and/or districts. However, identifying and establishing neighborhoods would require a consensus by the various stakeholders, including the Planning Commission and Staff. Further, it would require developing standards and criteria for what constitutes a neighborhood or district. Lastly, implementation of neighborhood FARs would require a greater overhaul of the City’s Development Code in order to identify each neighborhood or district along with their applicable FARs. As such, Staff believes that such an approach may not be feasible due to the logistics involved in developing and implementing such an approach. FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR EACH ZONING DISTRICT Another approach would be to develop a FAR specific to each zoning district. Staff conducted additional analyses based upon the various single-family zoning districts in the City. To get a better understanding of the existing development in each zone, Staff created Table No. 2 below, which illustrates the range of structure size, Mean structure size and Median structure size found in each of the City’s zoning districts. Table No. 2 Zoning Structure size range (w/ garage) Average/Mean structure size (w/ garage) Median structure size (w/ garage) Standard Deviation rs-1 1,785 – 13,201 5,546 sf 5,251 sf 1,854 sf rs-2 936 – 8,466 3,328 sf 3,140 sf 1,080 sf rs-3 1,492 – 7,094 3,028 sf 2,890 sf 847 sf rs-4 1,632 – 7,188 2,717 sf 2,658 sf 630 sf rs-5 1,101 – 7,602 2,209 sf 2138 sf 490 sf The above calculations for structure size are based LA County Assessor’s information plus the garage area for a 2-car garage, which was calculated based on the Development Code’s requirement for a 2-car garage of 360 square feet (18’x20’). As illustrated in Table No. 2 above, there is a great difference in the structure sizes in each zone. The greatest disparity occurs in the RS-1 Zone, where there is an 11,416 square foot difference between the smallest residence and the largest residence. In contrast, the least disparity occurs in the RS-4 Zone, where there is a 5,556 square foot difference between the smallest residence and the largest residence. 4-24 Case No. ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) September 27, 2011 Based upon the data in the table above, Staff calculated the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range, FAR Mean and FAR Median for each zoning district using the average lot size for each zone. The FAR information for each zoning district is illustrated in Table No. 3 below. Table No. 3 Zoning FAR Range (with Garage) Average/Mean FAR (w/ garage) Median FAR (w/ garage) Standard Deviation rs-1 0.150 - 0.520 0.195 0.190 0.104 rs-2 0.014 - 1.046 0.179 0.164 0.086 rs-3 0.047 - 0.684 0.246 0.233 0.089 rs-4 0.060 - 0.658 0.292 0.285 0.091 rs-5 0.058 - 0.742 0.268 0.261 0.079 As an indicator to understand how past developments would fare in comparison to the FAR information in Table No. 3, Staff researched additions and new residences approved by the Director and the Planning Commission between January 2007 and July 2011. Staff felt that this time frame was a good representation of the development trend in the City. The information is attached at the end of this Staff Report (due to the size and configuration of the tables), and divided into 4 categories: 1) Planning Commission approved new single- family residences on vacant parcels; 2) Planning Commission approved additions, including tear-down/rebuilds; 3) Director approved new single-family residences on vacant parcels; and, 4) Director approved additions, including tear-down/rebuilds. Based upon the data in the attached tables, there have been a total of 172 applications involving Neighborhood Compatibility that have been approved by the Director and Planning Commission. When comparing the FARs resulting from these approvals to the FAR Means in Table No. 3 above, 36% (62 applications) of the resulting FARs were less than zones’ FAR Means, as illustrated in Table No. 4 on the following page. With regards to FAR Medians, as indicated in Table No. 3 above, there were also 9 applications where the resulting FARs were less than the zones’ FAR Mean but exceeded the zones’ FAR Medians. As a result, this reduces the number of applications where the resulting FARs were less than the zone Median to 30.8%. Notwithstanding, it is important to note that all the approved projects were found to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood in which they are located. 4-25 Case No. ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) September 27, 2011 Table No. 4 Zone Total applications FAR over Zone Mean FAR under Zone Mean PC Approved New Single-Family Residences RS-1 5 3 2 RS-2 18 12 6* RS-3 2 1 1 RS-4 6 6 0 RS-5 2 1 1 Director Approved New Single-Family Residences RS-1 0 -- -- RS-2 11 1 10* RS-3 1 1 0 RS-4 4 4 0 RS-5 0 -- -- PC Approved Additions RS-1 0 -- -- RS-2 17 10 7*** RS-3 15 7 8* RS-4 22 17 5* RS-5 9 7 2* Director Approved Additions RS-1 4 0 4 RS-2 26 20 6 RS-3 5 2 3 RS-4 14 10 4* RS-5 11 8 3 Total 172 110 62 ***asterisks represent the number of applications where the resulting FAR exceeds the Zone Median, but were less than the Zone Mean A further analysis of the data contained in Table No. 4 reveals a minor trend where Zoning Districts RS-2, RS-4, and RS-5 typically (with exception to RS-2 Director approved new single-family residences) contain substantially more approvals that have resulted in projects exceeding the zone Mean and Median. As an option in establishing a FAR, a starting point could be the zone Means. However, as evidenced above, although all of the projects were found to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood, using the Mean and/or Median as the FAR standard for each zone would have resulted in many projects requiring a Variance application or being reduced in size. To minimize the number of resulting nonconforming structures, and if the Planning Commission agrees with developing different FARs for different zoning districts, Staff would 4-26 Case No. ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) September 27, 2011 suggest that each zoning district’s FAR be greater than the Means and Medians identified in Table No. 3. The question is by how much? One option is to base each zoning district’s FAR on the zone’s average FAR plus the zone’s standard deviation. Staff used the attached tables to compare the 172 previous approvals with how they would fare if FARs were based on the zone’s average plus the zone’s standard deviation. This option would result in an increase in the number applications that would be less than the FAR maximum. Specifically, it would result in an increase from 36% (62 applications) to 67.4% (116 applications). Another option would be to base it on the zone’s average FAR plus 50%. Again, Staff used the attached tables to compare the 172 previous approvals with how they would fare if FARs were based on the zone’s average plus 50%. This option too would result in an increase in the number applications that would be less than the FAR maximum. Specifically, this option results in an increase from 36% (62 applications) to 73.8% (127 applications). A last option that Staff has identified is to create a FAR by zone that is set at the maximum FAR range identified in Table No. 3 above, and specifically illustrated in Table No. 5 below. Table No. 5 Zoning FAR Range (with Garage) Proposed FAR rs-1 0.150 - 0.520 0.52 rs-2 0.014 - 1.046 1.046* rs-3 0.047 - 0.684 0.684 rs-4 0.060 - 0.658 0.658 rs-5 0.058 - 0.742 0.742 This approach would create the least number of legal nonconformities since the range has been based upon the structure sizes obtained from the County Tax Assessor’s data, with an additional allowance to account for a typical 2-car garage. Further, this approach would address the City Council’s direction to implement a maximum cap on structure sizes. Although the FARs appear high, it is important to note that projects would continue to be subject to the Neighborhood Compatibility process, which will ensure that the structure is compatible with its immediate neighborhood. If the Planning Commission believes that the maximum FAR for each zone should be set at the maximum of each range and directs Staff to pursue it as a FAR standard, then Staff believes that the RS-2 range must be modified. The current maximum of the range is skewed because the RS-2 Zoning District includes the Portuguese Bend Club. The 4-27 Case No. ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) September 27, 2011 Portuguese Bend Club includes Spindrift Drive, Seascape Road, Sea Urchin Road, Seawall Road, Maritime Road and Yacht Harbor Drive. The lots in this community typically range in size between approximately 2,300 square feet and 5,000 square feet, and contain residences that range in size between approximately 635 square feet and 2450 square feet. Thus, these smaller lots with “average” size structures impacts the data and skews the results. As such, Staff would need to identify each of these structures and delete them from the data, and report back with the statistical results. In fairness, Staff believes that any FAR should substantially minimize the number of resulting nonconforming structures to the fullest extent possible. Implementing almost any FAR will result in legal nonconforming structures. In these instances, a property owner would be required to submit a Variance to exceed or further exceed the maximum FAR, which requires a notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission in addition to a current $4,209 application fee for the Variance request. Further, specific findings must also be made in order to grant a Variance, which includes a material hardship finding that is difficult to make in order to justify a deviation from the Development Code. Since a Variance procedure may be difficult to approve and serve very costly to many residents, if an FAR procedure is developed, Staff would recommend implementing an easier application process, such as a Minor Exception Permit process (which currently has a $1,707 application fee. CONCLUSION Based upon the information provided above information and options, the supporting data and the attached tables, Staff is requesting feedback from the Planning Commission on a fair and appropriate FAR. Some of the questions that arise for discussion and consideration are the following: • What is an appropriate FAR? • Should different FARs be developed for each Zoning District? • What should the FAR be based on? • The Zone’s FAR Mean, Zone FAR Median, or the Zone’s top range? • Besides a Variance application, should there be another avenue to deviate from any FAR? • What are the impacts to entitlement processing? As such, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) information for Residential property; and, if appropriate, direct Staff to proceed with drafting an Ordinance to implement a Floor Area Ratio. ATTACHMENTS • Various Tables with statistical information • Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 25, 2011, with attachments 4-28 Case No. ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment – Floor Area Ratio (FAR) September 27, 2011 • Exhibit A – January 11, 2011 Staff Report • Exhibit B – New Single-Family Residences constructed since November 2002 that were subject to Neighborhood Compatibility review by the Planning Commission • Exhibit C – Lot Coverage vs. Perceived Size Table (by Commissioners Knight and Leon) • Exhibit D – October 26, 2010 Staff Report (with attachments) o Exhibit A – 1997 Development Standards o Exhibit B – Neighborhood Compatibility tables for projects considered by the Planning Commission between January 2008 and July 2010 4-29 Zo n i n g Av e r a g e Lo t S i z e Lo t S i z e R a n g e Av e r a g e Li v i n g A r e a Li v i n g Ar e a R a n g e FA R Av e r a g e Av e r a g e st r u c t u r e si z e ( w / ga r a g e ) FA R Ra n g e FA R Av e r a g e (w / g a r a g e ) FA R R a n g e (w i t h Ga r a g e ) rs - 1 36 , 7 6 9 12 , 0 1 0 - 1 5 3 , 7 6 6 5, 1 8 6 14 2 5 - 1 2 8 4 1 0. 1 8 3 55 4 6 0. 0 2 1 - 0 . 4 9 1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 5 0 - 0 . 5 2 0 rs - 2 21 , 8 1 2 2, 4 5 0 - 3 0 2 , 3 0 6 2, 9 7 3 57 6 - 8 1 0 6 0. 1 5 9 33 2 8 0. 0 1 2 - 0 . 9 0 9 0. 1 7 9 0. 0 1 4 - 1 . 0 4 6 rs - 3 13 , 4 0 9 4, 9 3 0 - 8 1 , 8 9 3 2, 6 7 0 11 3 2 - 6 7 3 4 0. 2 1 6 30 2 8 0. 0 4 1 - 0 . 6 1 1 0. 2 4 6 0. 0 4 7 - 0 . 6 8 4 rs - 4 9, 7 9 9 1, 0 0 0 - 4 7 , 7 3 0 2, 3 6 0 12 7 2 - 6 8 2 8 0. 2 5 3 27 1 7 0. 0 5 1 - 0 . 6 1 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 0 6 0 - 0 . 6 5 8 rs - 5 8, 7 7 1 5, 0 0 0 - 4 4 , 4 3 0 1, 8 4 9 74 1 - 7 2 4 2 0. 2 2 4 22 0 9 0. 0 4 8 - 0 . 6 8 0. 2 6 8 0. 0 5 8 - 0 . 7 4 2 Th e a b o v e c a l c u l a t i o n s f o r s t r u c t u r e s i z e a r e b a s e d L A C o u n t y A s s e s s o r ’ s i n f o r m a t i o n . Av e r a g e L o t S i z e C i t y w i d e = 1 2 , 7 3 8 s q u a r e f e e t Av e r a g e L i v i n g A r e a C i t y w i d e = 2 , 5 5 4 s q u a r e f e e t Av e r a g e F A R C i t y w i d e = 0 . 2 2 3 Av e r a g e S t r u c t u r e S i z e ( w / g a r a g e ) C i t y w i d e = 2 , 7 7 5 Av e r a g e F A R ( w / g a r a g e ) C i t y w i d e = 0 . 2 5 9 To t a l u n i t s u s e d = 1 1 , 0 0 6 4-30 FAR (Living Area Only) Zoning FAR Range Average/Mean FAR Median FAR Standard Deviation rs-1 0.021 - 0.491 0.183 0.177 0.100 rs-2 0.012 - 0.909 0.159 0.145 0.077 rs-3 0.041 - 0.611 0.216 0.204 0.084 rs-4 0.051 - 0.614 0.253 0.244 0.085 rs-5 0.048 - 0.68 0.224 0.216 0.072 Living Area Zoning Living Area Range Average/Mean Living Area Median Living Area Standard Deviation rs-1 1425 – 12841 5,186 4891 1854 rs-2 576 – 8106 2,973 2781 1075 rs-3 1132 – 6734 2,670 2530 845 rs-4 1272 – 6828 2,360 2298 626 rs-5 741 – 7242 1,849 1778 490 FAR (Total Structure Size) Zoning FAR Range (with Garage*) Average/Mean FAR (w/ garage) Median FAR (w/ garage) Standard Deviation rs-1 0.150 - 0.520 0.195 0.190 0.104 rs-2 0.014 - 1.046 0.179 0.164 0.086 rs-3 0.047 - 0.684 0.246 0.233 0.089 rs-4 0.060 - 0.658 0.292 0.285 0.091 rs-5 0.058 - 0.742 0.268 0.261 0.079 Total Structure Size Zoning Structure size range (w/ garage*) Average/Mean structure size (w/ garage) Median Structure size (w/ garage) Standard Deviation rs-1 1785 - 13201 5546 5251 1854 rs-2 936 - 8466 3328 3140 1080 rs-3 1492 – 7094 3028 2890 847 rs-4 1632 – 7188 2717 2658 630 rs-5 1101 – 7602 2209 2138 490 4-31 RS-5 Total Living Area Total Land Area FAR Living Area SFR+garage FAR total area Mean/Average 1849 8771 0.224 2209 0.268 Standard Deviation 490 2897 0.072 490 0.079 Median 1778 8000 0.216 2138 0.261 RS-4 Total Living Area Total Land Area FAR Living Area SFR+garage FAR total area Mean/Average 2360 9799 0.253 2717 0.292 Standard Deviation 626 2910 0.085 630 0.091 Median 2298 9210 0.244 2658 0.285 RS-3 Total Living Area Total Land Area FAR Living Area SFR+garage FAR total area Mean/Average 2670 13409 0.216 3028 0.246 Standard Deviation 845 5341 0.084 847 0.089 Median 2530 12370 0.204 2890 0.233 RS-2 Total Living Area Total Land Area FAR Living Area SFR+garage FAR total area Mean/Average 2973 21812 0.159 3328 0.179 Standard Deviation 1075 14160 0.077 1080 0.086 Median 2781 20104 0.145 3140 0.164 RS-1 Total Living Area Total Land Area FAR Living Area SFR+garage FAR total area Mean/Average 5186 36769 0.183 5546 0.195 Standard Deviation 1854 26337 0.100 1854 0.104 Median 4891 29939 0.177 5251 0.190 4-32 P LA N N I N G C OM M I S S I O N A P P R O V E D N E W S IN G L E -F AM I L Y R ES I D E N C E S O N V A C A N T P A R C E L S B E T W E E N J AN U A R Y 20 0 7 TH R U J UL Y 20 1 1 Ad d r e s s Lo t S i z e St r u c t u r e Si z e FA R Zo n e Zo n e FA R Me a n / Av e r a g e Zo n e FA R Me d i a n Zo n e St a n d a r d De v i a t i o n Pr o j e c t F A R ov e r Z o n e Me a n ? Pr o j e c t F A R ov e r Z o n e Me d i a n ? 33 0 4 P a l o V i s t a D r i v e 33 , 0 0 5 4, 6 3 0 0. 1 4 0 rs - 1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 N N 38 1 5 P V D S 77 , 5 3 7 7, 6 9 1 0. 0 9 9 rs - 1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 N N 30 6 3 7 C a l l e D e S u e n o s 37 , 0 2 6 8, 86 8 0. 2 4 0 rs - 1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 Y Y 32 3 1 P V D S 43 , 5 5 1 8, 4 7 9 0. 1 9 5 rs - 1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 = Y 29 2 3 V i s t a D e l M a r 23 , 9 3 6 7, 3 4 8 0. 30 7 rs - 1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 Y Y 42 S e a C o v e 31 , 4 7 4 9, 2 4 4 0. 2 9 4 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 34 6 6 V i a C a m p e s i n a 55 , 7 5 7 5, 4 2 2 0. 09 7 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 38 6 7 C r e s t R o a d 57 , 7 0 0 5, 4 9 5 0. 0 9 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 44 H e a d l a n d D r i v e 45 , 7 3 8 4, 6 2 0 0. 10 1 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 4 Y e l l o w B r i c k R o a d 21 , 6 5 0 7, 5 6 3 0. 3 4 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 30 1 2 0 C a r t i e r D r i v e 15 , 0 8 9 4, 9 0 2 0. 3 2 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 29 6 7 C r e s t R o a d 14 , 0 4 8 5, 9 3 1 0. 4 2 2 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 5 ½ R o c k i n g h o r s e R d 20 , 5 3 0 4, 7 0 3 0. 2 2 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 30 3 7 5 D i a m o n t e L a n e 23 , 9 5 8 5, 3 9 7 0. 2 2 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 75 N a r c i s s a D r i v e 87 , 1 2 0 4, 7 4 9 0. 0 5 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 31 5 4 D e l u n a D r i v e 20 , 9 0 0 4, 8 8 0 0. 23 3 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 58 A v e n i d a C o r o n a 25 , 1 5 2 4, 2 8 0 0. 17 0 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N Y 17 M a r t i n g a l e D r i v e 21 , 1 0 0 2, 8 2 2 0. 1 3 4 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 11 C l i p p e r R o a d 9, 1 0 0 4, 4 9 4 0. 4 9 4 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 30 1 5 6 C a r t i e r 15 , 2 1 0 5, 9 0 9 0. 3 8 8 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 30 1 4 8 C a r t i e r 15 , 4 4 0 4, 4 7 7 0. 2 9 0 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 59 0 3 C l i n t 23 , 2 9 0 5, 4 7 2 0. 2 3 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 27 5 9 1 P V D E 21 , 1 1 3 6, 2 2 2 0. 2 9 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 43 6 9 D a u n t l e s s D r i v e 16 , 4 7 8 3, 7 9 4 0. 2 3 0 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N 4-33 Ad d r e s s Lo t S i z e St r u c t u r e Si z e FA R Zo n e Zo n e FA R Me a n / Av e r a g e Zo n e FA R Me d i a n Zo n e St a n d a r d De v i a t i o n Pr o j e c t F A R ov e r Z o n e Me a n ? Pr o j e c t F A R ov e r Z o n e Me d i a n ? 33 2 4 S e a c l a i r e D r i v e 12 , 9 9 4 3, 7 2 0 0. 2 8 6 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 Y Y 10 C l i p p e r R o a d 8, 4 4 0 3, 5 4 8 0. 4 2 0 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 5 P a c k e t R o a d 9, 6 9 0 4, 2 8 0 0. 44 2 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 70 2 6 B r o o k f o r d D r i v e 9, 1 1 6 32 1 4 0. 35 3 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 30 0 5 7 V i a V i c t o r i a 14 , 1 0 5 5, 9 9 8 0. 4 2 5 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 30 0 6 5 V i a V i c t o r i a 10 , 0 5 7 3, 4 8 0 0. 3 4 6 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 30 8 3 1 R u e L a n g l o i s 11 , 2 0 0 5, 4 6 5 0. 48 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 29 1 1 8 H i g h m o r e A v e 6, 2 9 1 3, 6 8 6 0. 5 8 6 rs - 5 * 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 Y Y 3 Y a c h t H a r b o r D r i v e 58 2 , 3 9 7 15 , 4 2 5 0. 0 2 6 rs - 5/ r s - 2 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N *P r o p e r t y i n t h e E a s t v i e w a r e a t h a t w a s r e z o n e d f r o m R S - 4 t o R S - 5 4-34 P LA N N I N G C OM M I S S I O N A P P R O V E D A DD I T I O N S B E T W E E N J AN U A R Y 20 0 7 T H R U J UL Y 20 1 1 (IN C L U D E S T E A R -DO W N /RE B U I L D S ) Ad d r e s s Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n Zo n e Zo n e FA R Me a n / Av e r a g e Zo n e FA R Me d i a n Zo n e St a n d a r d De v i a t i o n Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me a n ? Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R ov e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R ov e r Zo n e Me a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R ov e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? 24 2 2 C o l t R o a d 25 3 9 0 0. 1 4 1 0. 1 6 3 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N No No 15 H e a d l a n d D r i v e 43 5 6 0 0. 0 9 0 0. 2 2 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 65 0 5 P V D E 28 7 5 0 0. 0 7 9 0. 2 3 2 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 53 3 5 R o l l i n g R i d g e 32 7 4 3 0. 1 0 0 0. 2 5 3 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 53 2 1 M i d d l e c r e s t R d 20 1 9 8 0. 1 3 8 0. 1 8 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 24 2 2 C o l t R o a d 24 2 4 0 0. 1 4 8 0. 1 7 0 rs -2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N Y 54 R o c k i n g h o r s e 26 5 4 1 0. 1 3 1 0. 1 9 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 86 y a c h t h a r b o r 50 4 0 0. 4 3 3 0. 6 2 0 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 30 6 2 9 P V D E 30 9 3 0 0. 1 4 4 0. 2 0 6 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 73 H e a d l a n d D r 26 0 9 5 0. 1 0 7 0. 2 4 7 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 27 9 2 1 P V D E 43 6 0 4 0. 1 0 2 0. 1 7 2 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N Y 64 8 0 P V D E 68 8 2 4 0. 1 2 8 0. 1 0 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 27 2 3 S a n R a m o n 72 5 5 0. 4 2 5 0. 5 4 7 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 58 A v e n i d a C o r o n a 25 1 5 2 0. 1 5 7 0. 1 7 0 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N Y 8 T o p r a i l L a n e 34 1 2 4 0. 0 9 4 0. 1 2 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 28 7 3 C o l t R o a d 63 5 6 0 0. 0 5 6 0. 0 7 3 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 5 D i a m o n t e 26 5 7 0 0. 1 3 4 0. 2 2 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 32 2 2 8 S c h o o n e r 12 6 3 0 0. 1 8 4 0. 2 6 2 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N Y Y 30 5 6 3 C a l l e d e S u e n o s 26 8 8 0 0. 0 9 4 0. 18 4 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 40 0 8 M i r a l e s t e D r i v e 12 4 2 0 0. 1 5 3 0. 20 9 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 41 2 5 M i r a l e s t e D r i v e 80 2 0 0. 3 0 8 0. 4 0 3 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 Y Y Y Y 30 6 7 5 V i a L a C r e s t a 15 6 3 0 0. 1 8 2 0. 2 5 2 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N Y Y 5 V i a C i e g a 33 5 7 5 0. 0 7 7 0. 1 7 9 rs -3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 21 C a y u s e L a n e 20 5 0 0 0. 1 7 4 0. 2 6 5 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N Y Y 30 4 3 9 C a l l e d e S u e ñ o s 17 1 1 5 0. 1 8 4 0. 23 1 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 42 4 9 D a u n t l e s s 14 4 7 0 0. 1 4 1 0. 2 3 4 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N Y 34 4 4 G u l f c r e s t 42 2 5 0 0. 0 6 6 0. 1 1 6 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 42 0 4 M i r a l e s t e 17 7 9 1 0. 2 1 8 0. 2 9 7 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N Y Y 34 4 4 G u l f c r e s t 42 2 5 0 0. 0 6 6 0. 1 1 6 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 33 2 4 S e a c l a i r e 12 9 9 4 0. 2 0 9 0. 2 8 6 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N Y Y 4-35 Ad d r e s s Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n Zo n e Zo n e FA R Me a n / Av e r a g e Zo n e FA R Me d i a n Zo n e St a n d a r d De v i a t i o n Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me a n ? Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R ov e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R ov e r Zo n e Me a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R ov e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? 36 6 7 G r e v e 14 4 5 0 0. 1 5 6 0. 2 2 2 rs -3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 32 4 1 5 N a u t i l u s 13 7 1 5 0. 3 8 0 0. 5 2 4 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 Y Y Y Y 21 C r e s t w i n d D r i v e 25 6 9 0 0. 1 4 3 0. 15 6 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N N 28 9 2 6 D o v e r r i d g e R d 98 6 3 0. 4 3 5 0. 4 8 2 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 28 8 1 6 R o t h r o c k D r 17 1 8 0 0. 1 0 8 0. 1 7 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N N 69 3 0 H e d g e w o o d D r 82 0 3 0. 3 3 1 0. 5 1 0 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 43 1 9 P V D S 10 9 2 5 0. 2 6 5 0. 3 0 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N Y Y 67 5 2 E d d i n g h i l l D r 93 0 0 0. 2 6 9 0. 3 3 2 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N Y Y 28 8 2 0 C e d a r b l u f f D r 18 , 1 6 0 0. 1 5 0 0. 18 5 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N N 4 A v e n i d a d e A z a l e a 11 6 1 3 0. 3 4 9 0. 4 3 1 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 26 7 1 2 H a w k h u r s t D r 89 7 5 0. 3 6 4 0. 4 6 1 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 29 4 0 3 W h i t l e y C o l l i n s 89 6 3 0. 3 0 0 0. 4 4 1 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 13 S e a C o v e D r i v e 82 1 1 0. 3 1 2 0. 55 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 28 0 4 5 E l l a R o a d 16 9 7 0 0. 1 5 2 0. 2 1 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N N 67 7 4 V e r d e R i d g e 69 3 0 0. 4 5 3 0. 5 6 6 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 65 2 7 E d d i n g h i l l 80 7 1 0. 2 4 3 0. 4 9 6 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N Y Y 28 8 3 9 T r a i l r i d e r s 10 4 8 0 0. 2 9 8 0. 3 3 3 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 69 1 3 M a y c r o f t 74 8 0 0. 3 2 0 0. 5 0 1 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 64 0 8 S e a b r y n 91 8 0 0. 4 3 6 0. 4 4 7 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 28 4 4 5 L o m o 71 4 0 0. 4 0 1 0. 4 4 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 70 2 6 B r o o k f o r d 91 1 6 0. 1 7 4 0. 3 5 3 rs -4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N Y Y 29 1 0 5 D o v e r r i d g e 96 7 6 0. 2 9 6 0. 3 7 2 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 1 S e a c o v e D r i v e 16 9 8 8 0. 1 2 1 0. 2 9 0 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N Y 69 3 0 H e d g e w o o d 82 0 3 0. 3 3 1 0. 5 0 7 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 55 0 1 S h o r e v i e w D r 13 2 3 0 0. 1 6 3 0. 3 5 1 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 53 3 8 B a y r i d g e R d 76 1 0 0. 2 5 2 0. 4 5 8 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 27 5 1 3 L o n g h i l l 71 4 3 0. 2 9 4 0. 6 2 1 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 Y Y Y Y 26 1 3 3 B a s s w o o d A v e 75 9 0 0. 2 6 7 0. 5 7 1 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N Y Y Y 26 3 4 1 B a s s w o o d 75 6 0 0. 2 6 1 0. 5 0 1 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N = Y Y 53 2 9 B a y r i d g e 94 7 2 0. 1 8 9 0. 4 8 6 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 29 1 1 8 H i g h m o r e 62 9 1 0. 2 1 9 0. 5 8 6 rs - 5 * 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 20 4 9 J a y b r o o k 64 4 7 0. 1 5 7 0. 2 2 8 rs - 5 * 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N N N 18 7 2 H o m e w o r t h 12 4 2 0 0. 0 8 1 0. 2 6 7 rs - 5 * 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N N Y 4-36 *P r o p e r t y i n t h e E a s t v i e w a r e a t h a t w a s r e z o n e d f r o m R S - 4 t o R S - 5 4-37 D IR E C T O R A P P R O V E D N E W S IN G L E -F AM I L Y R ES I D E N C E S O N V A C A N T P A R C E L S B E T W E E N J AN U A R Y 20 0 7 T H R U J UL Y 20 1 1 Ad d r e s s Lo t S i z e St r u c t u r e Si z e FA R Zo n e Zo n e F A R Me a n / Av e r a g e Zo n e F A R Me d i a n Zo n e St a n d a r d De v i a t i o n Pr o j e c t F A R ov e r Z o n e Me a n ? Pr o j e c t F A R ov e r Z o n e Me d i a n ? 28 9 5 5 P V D E 40 9 5 0 60 2 0 0. 1 4 7 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 30 2 0 0 C a r t i e r 15 2 8 0 66 8 9 . 2 0. 4 3 8 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y 33 4 0 V i a C a m p e s i n a 20 0 2 5 24 5 9 0. 1 2 3 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 27 C i n n a m o n 49 1 0 0 40 1 6 0. 0 8 2 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 37 C i n n a m o n 33 2 5 3 34 9 6 0. 1 0 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 10 S w e e t b a y 34 1 2 7 40 2 2 0. 1 1 8 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 3 F r u i t T r e e 28 0 3 0 38 2 0 0. 1 3 6 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 53 N a r c i s s a 24 3 6 0 42 2 1 0. 1 7 3 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N Y 33 C i n n a m o n 62 7 5 0 45 6 8 0. 0 7 3 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 8 F r u i t T r e e 25 3 3 0 39 0 8 0. 1 5 4 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 29 C i n n a m o n 39 8 2 0 30 1 7 0. 0 7 6 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N 63 0 1 V i a C o l i n i t a 13 6 5 0 45 2 2 0. 3 3 1 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 Y Y 7 S e a C o v e 10 0 9 0 47 2 5 0. 4 6 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 30 5 0 4 P V D W 13 3 5 0 49 1 3 0. 3 6 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 30 0 3 9 V i a V i c t o r i a 10 4 2 5 51 8 4 0. 4 9 7 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 30 0 5 1 V i a V i c t o r i a 11 9 7 1 54 1 9 0. 4 5 3 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y 4-38 D IR E C T O R A P P R O V E D A DD I T I O N S B E T W E E N J AN U A R Y 20 0 7 T H R U J UL Y 20 1 1 (IN C L U D E S T E A R -DO W N /RE B U I L D S ) Ad d r e s s Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n Zo n e Zo n e FA R Me a n / Av e r a g e Zo n e FA R Me d i a n Zo n e St a n d a r d De v i a t i o n Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me a n ? Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? 18 S w e e t b a y 32 8 9 0 0. 0 8 9 0. 1 2 6 rs -1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 N N N N 24 N a r c i s s a 37 5 4 5 0. 0 5 8 0. 0 7 3 rs - 1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 N N N N 2 F i g t r e e 35 4 0 0 0. 0 8 2 0. 1 1 6 rs -1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 N N N N 2 F i g t r e e 35 4 0 0 0. 0 8 2 0. 1 0 5 rs -1 0. 1 9 5 0. 1 9 0 0. 1 0 4 N N N N 1 C r e s t w i n d 19 7 5 0 0. 1 8 6 0. 2 8 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 33 4 8 C r o w n v i e w 21 5 1 3 0. 1 3 0 0. 2 0 5 rs -2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 28 1 9 1 P V D E 22 3 5 5 0. 1 1 1 0. 1 4 8 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 31 4 0 4 M a r n e 15 0 0 0 0. 2 1 0 0. 2 7 2 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 38 C i n n a m o n 24 0 5 0 0. 1 5 9 0. 1 5 9 rs -2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 61 6 2 A r r o w r o o t 15 5 0 0 0. 1 7 6 0. 2 2 0 rs -2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N Y Y Y 30 8 7 C r o w n v i e w 20 1 6 7 0. 1 4 5 0. 2 7 0 rs -2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 31 3 3 5 M a r n e 15 9 1 0 0. 2 6 3 0. 3 4 6 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 62 7 2 V i a C a n a d a 15 5 6 0 0. 1 8 0 0. 2 2 0 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 15 S a d d l e 19 1 6 0 0. 1 6 0 0. 2 2 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 30 4 3 7 R h o n e 15 1 1 0 0. 2 7 1 0. 3 9 9 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 30 2 2 5 R h o n e 21 8 4 0 0. 1 6 7 0. 2 3 1 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N Y Y Y 63 2 1 V i a C o l i n i t a 90 6 0 0. 3 1 2 0. 4 2 0 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 6 F r u i t T r e e 22 4 7 1 0. 0 9 1 0. 1 2 2 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 24 5 3 D a l a d i e r 19 1 5 0 0. 1 1 5 0. 1 9 0 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 32 0 3 9 S e a R i d g e C i r c l e 19 4 0 0 0. 2 9 8 0. 3 0 5 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 2 M o o n m i s t 19 1 6 0 0. 2 1 5 0. 2 7 1 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 26 6 2 9 N o k o m i s 77 0 0 0. 3 9 4 0. 5 0 2 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 10 A m b e r S k y 20 1 0 8 0. 1 4 6 0. 2 4 4 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 28 8 5 6 C r e s t r i d g e 23 8 7 0 0. 0 9 4 0. 1 3 1 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 30 7 0 6 T a r a p a c a 12 0 0 0 0. 1 9 7 0. 2 8 7 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 Y Y Y Y 28 9 5 1 P V D E 44 4 3 1 0. 1 6 6 0. 2 0 7 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N Y Y Y 39 R o c k i n g h o r s e 25 5 5 0 0. 1 7 5 0. 1 9 0 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N Y Y Y 4-39 Ad d r e s s Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n Zo n e Zo n e FA R Me a n / Av e r a g e Zo n e FA R Me d i a n Zo n e St a n d a r d De v i a t i o n Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me a n ? Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? 36 C i n n a m o n 22 2 7 5 0. 0 9 3 0. 1 3 1 rs -2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 19 S t i r r u p 28 6 6 0 0. 1 1 1 0. 1 5 5 rs -2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N N N 21 0 5 D a l a d i e r 17 3 9 3 0. 1 4 0 0. 2 2 2 rs - 2 0. 1 7 9 0. 1 6 4 0. 0 8 6 N N Y Y 43 1 3 M i r a l e s t e 11 0 8 0 0. 1 9 1 0. 3 0 4 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N Y Y 29 9 0 2 A v e n i d a R e f i n i d a 24 3 5 0 0. 1 9 5 0. 3 2 9 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N Y Y 68 8 3 C r e s t 27 9 4 0 0. 1 1 2 0. 1 3 1 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 31 0 5 9 H a w k s m o o r 81 8 9 3 0. 0 5 0 0. 0 5 5 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N N N 65 2 8 V i a C o l i n i t a 92 6 1 0. 2 3 1 0. 2 8 5 rs - 3 0. 2 4 6 0. 2 3 3 0. 0 8 9 N N Y Y 70 3 0 B e e c h a m 11 1 3 0 0. 1 9 7 0. 2 6 3 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N N 29 5 4 7 B e r n i c e 71 0 9 0. 3 1 8 0. 3 7 6 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 30 5 1 5 R u e d e l a P i e r r e 12 8 6 0 0. 1 8 1 0. 2 6 9 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N N 40 2 0 L o r r a i n 17 3 6 7 0. 1 8 0 0. 2 1 3 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N N 74 0 1 A l i d a P l a c e 19 8 3 9 0. 2 8 6 0. 4 0 3 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N Y Y Y 28 8 0 2 C e d a r b l u f f 10 2 7 1 0. 2 0 4 0. 2 8 7 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N N Y 43 1 8 E x u l t a n t 12 0 1 9 0. 2 0 3 0. 3 2 3 rs -4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N Y Y 28 2 1 7 T r a i l r i d e r s 75 9 0 0. 2 5 3 0. 3 7 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N Y Y 65 1 9 E d d i n g h i l l 81 0 7 0. 3 0 6 0. 4 9 7 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 43 8 0 D a u n t l e s s 12 0 5 0 0. 2 1 7 0. 3 1 2 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N Y Y 28 3 3 6 L u n a d a R i d g e 98 6 0 0. 2 8 0 0. 3 9 0 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N N Y Y 28 5 0 5 C o v e c r e s t 99 5 0 0. 3 1 8 0. 3 7 6 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 28 2 1 6 L o m o 76 7 0 0. 2 8 6 0. 4 2 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 N Y Y Y 28 8 0 4 L e a h C i r c l e 10 5 5 1 0. 3 1 6 0. 3 7 8 rs - 4 0. 2 9 2 0. 2 8 5 0. 0 9 1 Y Y Y Y 27 5 3 6 H a l e s c o r n e r 77 3 0 0. 2 6 0 0. 3 4 1 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 53 0 6 B a y r i d g e 14 0 5 0 0. 1 7 0 0. 2 1 7 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N N N 26 7 4 6 M e n o m i n e e 13 2 7 0 0. 1 7 0 0. 2 7 0 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 53 4 6 I r o n w o o d 92 9 0 0. 1 8 2 0. 3 0 4 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 26 6 3 3 L i g h t f o o t 11 5 0 0 0. 1 7 1 0. 2 5 7 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N N N 55 3 1 S h o r e v i e w 88 6 0 0. 2 2 6 0. 3 3 8 rs -5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 60 0 2 M o s s b a n k 11 2 4 0 0. 2 1 4 0. 2 5 0 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N N N 55 4 1 G r a y l o g 95 2 0 0. 2 4 0 0. 3 1 1 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 4-40 Ad d r e s s Lo t S i z e FA R pr e ad d i t i o n FA R po s t ad d i t i o n Zo n e Zo n e FA R Me a n / Av e r a g e Zo n e FA R Me d i a n Zo n e St a n d a r d De v i a t i o n Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me a n ? Pr e - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me a n ? Po s t - Pr o j e c t FA R o v e r Zo n e Me d i a n ? 26 6 3 6 I n d i a n P e a k 80 3 1 0. 2 3 9 0. 3 1 0 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N N Y Y 60 2 6 F l a m b e a u 75 5 4 0. 2 6 2 0. 3 2 0 rs - 5 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 N Y Y Y 20 1 1 V e l e z 68 3 0 0. 3 1 7 0. 4 2 0 rs - 5 * 0. 2 6 8 0. 2 6 1 0. 0 7 9 Y Y Y Y *P r o p e r t y i n t h e E a s t v i e w a r e a t h a t w a s r e z o n e d f r o m R S - 4 t o R S - 5 4-41 PPLLAANNNNIINNGG CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN MMIINNUUTTEESS ((EEXXCCEERRPPTTSS)) FFOORR TTHHEE SSEEPPTTEEMMBBEERR 2277 AANNDD NNOOVVEEMMBBEERR 2222,, 22001111 PPLLAANNNNIINNGG CCOOMMMMIISSSSIIOONN MMEEEETTIINNGGSS 4-42 3. Miscellaneous Code amendment (Case No. ZON2011-00023) Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report explaining that at a previous meeting the Planning Commission had requested modified language to some of the proposed amendments and had requested further information from staff. In addition, staff forwarded these proposed code amendments to the City Attorney, who recommended additional changes to some of the language, as discussed in the staff report. She stated staff is recommending that if the Planning Commission finds the proposed code amendments acceptable, they adopt the resolution included in the staff report, thereby recommending the City Council approve the recommended miscellaneous code amendments. The Commission reviewed and discussed the different sections of the proposed code amendments. Commissioner Lewis referred to paragraph B on page 7, concerning authority, and felt that paragraph should be deleted. Associate Planner Mikhail agreed, noting the change was made in the Resolution. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the miscellaneous code amendments are recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Knight. PC The motion was approved, and PC Resolution 2011-32 was adopted without objection. 4. FAR Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00332) Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, giving a brief history of this item and explained the City Council’s directive that staff and the Planning Commission further assess establishing an FAR and attempt to augment it through the neighborhood compatibility process. As a result, staff has conducted additional research and obtained city-wide information on lot and structure sizes. He discussed the different approaches staff looked at in regards to an FAR which included creating a single uniform FAR to be applicable citywide, developing an FAR for neighborhoods or districts, and developing an FAR based on each specific zoning district. He referred to a Table distributed by staff and explained that staff looked at approvals of neighborhood compatibility projects that were reviewed and approved by either the Director or the Planning Commission for a 4 ½ year time span, which totaled approximately 172 applications. He also discussed the various options that staff considered in developing an FAR as well as the non- conformities that would be created by implementing an FAR. Finally, he discussed an option by which the FAR would be created by zone but to set the FAR at the maximum of the FAR range discussed in a previous table. He noted that the FAR would set a cap that may appear high, but the project would still be subject to neighborhood compatibility. He stated that based on the numbers provided in the staff report, staff is 4-43 seeking feedback from the Commission as to what can be established and what could be considered a fair and appropriate FAR throughout the City. Commissioner Lewis asked staff, beginning with the premise that the City Council thinks there is a problem with incremental creep in neighborhoods, and if the limits were set so that there would be no legal non-conformities, would this then address the issues that the City Council has with neighborhood creep. Senior Planner Schonborn acknowledged that the City Council was concerned with neighborhood creep, but they also wanted to see some sort of cap. He stated that cap is up for discussion, but from staff’s perspective setting the cap at the maximum is the least impactful as it does not create nonconformities and there is still the neighborhood compatibility process which staff will base their recommendations on, irrespective of the FAR. Commissioner Leon felt that doing something like that will have a terrible result and will encourage people to mcmansionize the entire community as it will be encouraging residents to increase the size of houses by four and five times compared to what the houses are today. He felt the problem was with the approach of using the zoning districts and the neighborhoods are not arranged by those zoning districts. He did not think, therefore, that this was meaningful as a useful FAR. He felt it would make more sense to have a neighborhood based FAR as opposed to a zoning based FAR. He felt that the entire concept of an FAR is really telling people what they can do inside their house, whereas he felt the community has a right to what people do outside their house. He did not think that how people divide up the rooms of their home, such as it creates square footage in the house, is any of the City’s business. From that standpoint, the whole concept of using FAR not only fails from the standpoint of how to administer it without encouraging people to mcmansionize the City, it also tells people how to design the interior of their homes. Commissioner Knight questioned if the City currently has regulations in place that set upper limits on what can be developed. Director Rojas answered that if the City applies lot coverage and setbacks as well as open space hazard areas then an upper limit does exist. However, one of the arguments driving the push for an FAR is that many lots have unusable area and therefore a project’s actual lot coverage doesn’t come close to what the maximum lot coverage allowed. Commissioner Knight asked staff how basements are calculated in the FAR. Senior Planner Schonborn explained that basements are included in the FAR calculation. He added that the Commission may want to be specific in defining what should be counted towards the FAR. 4-44 Commissioner Knight asked if accessory structures are also included in the FAR calculation. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that accessory structures are part of the FAR calculation. Director Rojas added that the Commission can amend the process to allow second units to be exempt from an FAR cap. Commissioner Lewis did not think an absolute cap would achieve what City Council wants to achieve, which is to avoid creep. He suggested that, instead of sending the City Council a cap on structure size based on FAR, sending them a proposal whereby the FAR is somehow incorporated into the neighborhood compatibility process and makes it more difficult for the applicant to overcome the findings and get approval for the larger residence. Vice Chairman Tetreault explained that the City Council seems to want some sort of a cap to be as an adjunct to the neighborhood compatibility analysis. He felt the assumption has to be that the City Council does not think neighborhood compatibility does an adequate job in limiting the size of homes. If that is a reasonable assumption, the next assumption would be that neighborhood compatibility has allowed some homes to be built or added upon which shouldn’t have been approved because they are too big, and therefore neighborhood compatibility failed. If that is the case, the proposed FAR shouldn’t be the largest home, but rather something smaller so that it would prevent any homes reaching the size of those largest homes. He felt the difficulty is in assigning that number, as each number picked is increasing or decreasing the number of non-conformities. He also noted that the community is so diverse, with canyons and slopes and hazard areas, that he didn’t know how a number would be achieved. He noted that an FAR confuses people, as there will then be an objective standard, the FAR, and a subjective standard, being neighborhood compatibility. He felt that residents will come to the City with the belief they should be entitled to build a house at the maximum FAR calculation, when in fact that is not the case. He felt that an FAR will not solve the problem and the best tool is neighborhood compatibility. He stated he is against the FAR and would not be able to support a recommendation to the City Council recommending inclusion of an FAR. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he also wrestles with the objective and subjective issue, though right now the City only has subjective in the terms of neighborhood compatibility. He felt a subjective number would be helpful. He liked Commissioner Lewis’ idea of a standard and would suggest the standard be the 90th percentile. He understood the Commission’s concern with a mandatory standard, which is why he suggested starting with an advisory standard and have an adjunct to neighborhood compatibility as opposed to a mandate. He felt that doing it this way will meet part of the desire of the City Council without setting the City up for failure. 4-45 Commissioner Gerstner commented there may currently be a problem with people asking to build homes bigger than they should be. However he did not think there was a problem with actual approvals, and that what actually gets approved and built is compatible with the neighborhood. He also did not believe there is a problem with mansionization in the City, and has yet to see an example of this problem. In regards to creep, he felt that a slow and controlled change is a much better way for a community to thrive, because if you don’t change some the community may wither and die. He also had an issue with establishing an FAR, however if the City Council is looking for an absolute cap he would suggest setting the FAR somewhere near or at the largest structure in that zone that has been built. He did not like the idea of telling a resident their home is now legal non-conforming, especially if the home has gone through neighborhood compatibility. He also believed that by setting an objective standard the City is going to indirectly encourage an argument that people are going to want to build to the objective standard. Commissioner Lewis questioned if the problem is that the City Council feels buildings have been approved that shouldn’t have been approved; or if the problem is that the neighborhood creep and the buildings that have been recently approved, will have set a trend so that in twenty years the homes that are approved will get past neighborhood compatibility. If it is the latter, then staff has appropriately set the FAR at the outer range. He thought the Planning Commission might help the City Council by just using the FAR as a number or additional column in the neighborhood compatibility process that would somehow tighten and give more teeth to the neighborhood compatibility process for those homes that exceed whatever FAR number is determined. He explained that he is very close to voting against any type of FAR, however he also wants to be of service to the City Council. Commissioner Leon felt it will be very difficult to find houses that meet the objective standards but fail the subjective standards, and he felt the City will be digging themselves a big hole. He stated he would not support an FAR in this City, and did not think there was a rational way to have an FAR apply across all of the different neighborhoods and have the desired affect. Commissioner Knight felt the intent of the City Council was to try to look years down the road and put a maximum size on the houses in the City. However, he did not think this was the right way to go about it, as he felt this route creates more problems than it solves. He felt it is this objective number that creates a difficulty for the Commission to go forth with the subjective neighborhood compatibility. He also felt an FAR would actually make a neighborhood change faster than with the current process. Chairman Tomblin felt all of the Commissioners were wrestling with the situation where they are respectful of the City Council’s direction, but are having trouble implementing this direction. He stated he could not support an FAR as he did not think it would get the City to where they want to be at. He also felt that if an FAR is set at a higher limit then residents will want to build to that higher limit. He questioned if the Planning Commission, based on everything they have discussed should give a status update 4-46 report to the City Council saying that the Commission has some very serious concerns about implementing an FAR in the City. He also questioned if the Planning Commission should continue going down the path of meeting the City Council’s desires and recommend some type of FAR. He felt, however, that in doing so it will create a very poor piece of legislation. Commissioner Gerstner was in favor of taking the time to try to come up with something to present to the City Council, even if all of the Commissioners don’t agree with it. He felt staff and the Commission should exhaust every possible reasonable approach. He felt that whatever the Commission decides should be part of the neighborhood compatibility process. He referred to Table 5 in the staff report and stated that would be more the side he would err on and felt the Commission should ask staff what would happen without the Portuguese Bend area. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt that an FAR is just one approach to try to limit the size of a structure and that there are other approaches that could be researched, including changes to neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Leon agreed, noting that there should be a more organized approach to the way in which the City may allow more square footage within a neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser appreciated staff’s efforts, noting that every idea that staff has suggested has not been satisfactory to the Commission. He suggested the Commission might look into a subcommittee approach consisting of two Commission members who would meet with staff on this issue. Chairman Tomblin felt the Commission has given staff quite a bit of information to work with and suggested staff take time to come back to the Commission with different options. Commissioner Knight explained to staff that he would like to explore not only the twenty closest in terms of FAR but also in terms of pure square footage of the homes. He would like to see if there is a way to incorporate some type of maximum formula based on square footage rather than FAR. Director Rojas stated that at one time there was a maximum structure size, however it didn’t work and was taken out of the Code. Director Rojas agreed that there staff can present additional information to the Commission and that the Commission should continue this public hearing to a date certain. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he is not in favor of recommending anything with an FAR to the City Council. However, if the Commission can come up with something that would impose a maximum size on home structures in some way that doesn’t involve an FAR he would be open to a discussion on that. 4-47 Commissioner Knight moved to approve the request as recommended by staff with the change to Condition No. 2 as noted by staff, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. PC Resolution 2011-38 was adopted without objection. 5. FAR Code Amendment (Case No. ZON2010-00332) Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report, explaining that at the September 27th meeting several alternatives had been discussed in regards to the FAR and the Commission had directed staff to conduct additional analysis. He explained that staff looked at FAR based on neighborhood districts as well as establishing the FAR at the 90th percentile for each zoning district, and discussed staff’s findings as noted in the staff report. He stated that staff was asking the Planning Commission to consider whether or not an FAR at the 90th percentile is appropriate and/or fair, if there were other alternatives that the Commission would like to pursue, and if any additional information was needed from staff. He also reminded the Commission that a newly elected Council will be seated and asked the Commission to consider whether or not the Commission and staff should bring this item back to the City Council for their direction. Commissioner Knight asked staff to walk the Commission through an example using the FAR 90th percentile chart in the staff report, with an acre sized RS2 lot somewhere in the Colt Road area. He asked what the maximum structure size would be using this example. Senior Planner Schonborn calculated the maximum structure size would be approximately 11,000 square feet. Commissioner Knight stated that many of these lots have open space hazard zoning and therefore only one half to one quarter of the lot is buildable. He asked if the full 11,000 square foot structure be allowed on the buildable area as a result of applying the FAR. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that the full 11,000 square foot structure would be allowed as long as it fits onto the buildable area. Commissioner Knight questioned how the city would interplay the FAR with neighborhood compatibility in situations such as this. He was concerned that with an FAR an applicant may have a sense of entitlement when its very impractical to apply the FAR in certain situations. Director Rojas agreed, noting staff has been trying to reconcile how this will work. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt the City Council charge to the Planning Commission, with respect to developing some type of an FAR, was an expression of concern over the future of how creeping home sizes could impact the community and to put some upper limits on how large homes could get. He didn’t sense from the City Council a concern 4-48 that the Planning Commission or the city was allowing mansionization to take over, but rather this would be something that would be beneficial to put a limit on how big a home could get in a specific neighborhood. However, he did not see how the various types of FAR formulas that have been developed and proposed by staff actually accomplish that goal. He questioned if adding some type of FAR category into the neighborhood compatibility findings would be helpful. Since there will be a new City Council seated, he would also be in favor of this new Council being apprised of the work that has been done by staff and the Planning Commission in regards to the FAR and see if they are still of the mind that this is something that is beneficial to the community. Commissioner Emenhiser asked for some clarifications to the tables in the staff report, and agreed with the Vice Chairman in that the charge to this Commission was given by a City Council that won’t exist in a couple of weeks. Therefore he agreed that the Commission may want to consider seeking guidance from the new City Council on the FAR issue. Commissioner Leon explained that in the City of Los Angeles applicants are required to get the setbacks of all of the properties on their block and submit them to staff, who will then determine the applicant’s required setback. He therefore felt the City could have a process which allows for an objective standard of the immediate neighborhood with respect to a FAR and put a burden of the work on the applicant as opposed to staff. He agreed that this issue should go before the next City Council for guidance and that the Commission should categorically state that using a FAR with our zoning districts doesn’t make any sense. He also felt that if the City wants to use a FAR and create a more objective standard, then something else needs to be used such as looking at the nearest homes in the neighborhood. Commissioner Knight felt alternatives to the FAR should be explored, noting that the Mayor’s original intent in this was to set some type of upper limit to structure size on lots. He felt that is quite possible that our current Code has the mechanisms by which the City can control the size of homes to a maximum, and it may only be a matter of modifying some of the elements such as lot coverage and setbacks. Chairman Tomblin discussed his issues with the FAR and his feeling that neighborhood compatibility works so well because of the willingness of staff and the Commission to work with applicants and the neighborhood to approve an acceptable project. He agreed that it would be beneficial to bring these issues before the new City Council to see if this new Council wants to continue with finding an FAR or if they have other directions for the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt a number of the Planning Commissioners were in favor of getting a sense of the new City Council in terms of the FAR. However, he felt the new City Council might want to hear the Planning Commission’s opinion on the FAR and how it will work. He stated that he cannot see a FAR working as the definition as the definition of floor to area ratio in regards to square footage of a lot and limiting the square footage of the home because of all of the reasons the Commission has 4-49 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2011 Page 7 discussed. He felt that the message to City Council should be , that as hard as the Commission has tried, there are so many variables and such varied neighborhoods, that the FAR doesn’t work. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the new City Council to review the concept of an FAR; that in light of staff’s analysis of the FAR proposals and the alternative ways of calculating the FAR, the Planning Commission has serious difficulties with applying the FAR equitably based upon the lot size in regards to tying the home size maximums to the lot size; there is difficulty in applying the FAR across the City; and seeks direction from the City Council on how to proceed, seconded by Commissioner Leon. Approved, (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. Minutes of October 11, 2011 Commissioner Emenhiser moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Approved, (4-0-1) with Chairman Tomblin recused because he was absent from that meeting. 7. Minutes of October 25, 2011 Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Commissioner Knight. Approved (3-0-2) with Chairman Tomblin and Commissioner Leon recused since they were absent from that meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS Chairman Tomblin asked that staff give the Commission an update on the Annenberg project at the next meeting, as well as an update on the exterior lighting at the new Point Vicente Animal Hospital. 8. Pre-Agenda for the meeting on December 13, 2011 The pre-agenda was reviewed and accepted. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 4-50 CCIITTYY CCOOUUNNCCIILL SSTTAAFFFF RREEPPOORRTT DDAATTEEDD MMAARRCCHH 1155,, 22001111 WWIITTHH AATTTTAACCHHMMEENNTTSS 4-51 CITY OF MEMORANDUM ,RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS,COMMUN~LOPMENT DIRECTOR MARCH 15,2011 .U-\7 .... PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A FLOOR AREA RATIO ("FAR") FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.(ZON201 0-00~32)I Citywide REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER@)-{5r <:l... Project Manager:Eduardo Schonborn.Ale?,Senior Plann~ RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)or other maximum structure size limit not be imposed since the City's current regulations and Neighborhood Compatibility review process works to regulate residential construction and helps preserve the character of eXisting neighborhoods. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In June 2010,Councilmember Long raised concerns that without a maximum square footage limitation on residential properties,incremental increases to the average structure size within an immediate neighborhood will continue and could alter the character of residential neighborhoods.As a result,the City Council directed staff to present the issue of Floor Area Ratio to the Planning Commission for its independent review and recommendation to be brought back to the Council for its consideration.As such,the Planning Commission conducted 3 public hearings on the matter,commencing in October 2010.The purpose of this Staff Report is to report back to the City Council on the discussion and recommendation by the Planning Commission regarding the development of a Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 4-52 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Consideration of Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio March 15,2011 BACKGROUND Prior to 1997,the City's Development Code did not state a maximum structure size for single-family residential structures.Rather,structure size was constrained by the Development Code's requirements for height,setbacks and open space.In 1997,a comprehensive update to the City's Development Code was completed.The 1997 update included a maximum structure size for single-family residences.In general,the maximum structure size was based upon when the lot was created;either prior to the City's incorporation (or prior to annexation for the Eastview area),or after incorporation/annexation.Pursuant to the development standards at that time,for lots created prior to incorporation/annexation,structures were limited to a size equivalent to a 100%expansion of the original structure size or a structure size equivalent to the maximum open space percentage allowed for the residential zoning district,whichever was less.For lots created by the City (either after incorporation or annexation),the structures were limited to a specified size established for each zoning district.As such,if a residential structure complied with the Development Code standards,then the project could be approved. In 2000,the City Council replaced the maximum structure size requirement with the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement to allow property owners more flexibility.The existing Neighborhood Compatibility review process typically involves the submittal of detailed project plans,the construction of a project silhouette,certification ofthe silhouette, the issuance of a public notice with a minimum 15-day comment period,site visits by staff to address issues raised by the public and the preparation of a Staff Report that analyzes the proposal in the context of the closest 20 properties.Neighborhood Compatibility has since been used to analyze a myriad of projects that includes one-story and two-story additions,new residences that replace existing structures on developed parcels,and new residences on vacant parcels. In 2003,the City Council formed the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC).The RDSSC was charged with the task to review the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing construction trends.The Council also agreed that the RDSSC should,at a minimum,review items such as setback, lot area,and lot coverage requirements.Although there was no discussion regarding establishing a FAR,the RDSSC discussed the possibility of re-establishing a maximum structure size for each lot.The consensus of the Steering Committee,however,was not to pursue a maximum size requirement since it concluded that re-establishing a maximum structure size was not warranted. On June 1,2010,Councilmember Long presented an item to the City Council,where he raised a raised concern that the Municipal Code does not have a stated maximum structure size.Councilmember Long expressed that without a maximum square footage limitation, incremental increases to the average structure size within an immediate neighborhood will continue to increase and will thereby alter the character of residential neighborhoods.As a 4-53 Case No.ZON201 0-00332 Consideration of Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio March 15,2011 result,the City Council directed staff to present the issue of Floor Area Ratio to the Planning Commission for its independent review and recommendation to be brought back to the Council for its consideration. In response to the Council's direction,Staff conducted research on the topic and presented the issue of developing a Floor Area Ratio or other structure size limit to the Planning Commission.The Commission considered the issue at their meetings on October 26, 2010,January 11,2011 and January 25,2011. DISCUSSION OCTOBER 26,2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On October 26,2010,Staff presented an item to the Planning Commission which sought direction from the Commission on the issue of implementing a FAR,or other method to limit residential structure size.As illustrated in the attached October 26,2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission,Staff i(lcluded a table of other South Bay cities and their methodologies to limit residential structure size,which includes using a defined maximum structure size,using a floor area ratio (FAR),or using a hybrid of FAR.The October 26th Staff Report also presented 4 alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider to limit structure size,which included the following: Alternative 1:Maintain the existing Neighborhood Compatibility Process to determine structure size Pursuant to Section 17.02.030(B)of the RPVMC,an analysis of Neighborhood Compatibility shall be required for the following residential development projects: 1.'~new residence that is proposed to be developed on a vacant lot; 2.A new residence that is proposed to replace an existing residence; 3.An existing residence that is proposed to be remodeled or renovated such that fifty percent orgreater ofany eXisting interior and exterior walls or eXisting square footage is demolished; 4.An addition to an eXisting single-family residence or the construction of any new detached structure that individually,or when combined with prior additions cumulatively, results in greater than:(i)750 square feet ofadditional floor area,or (ii)a 25%expansion of the total square footage of all of the original structures constructed on the property, including the main residence,the garage,and all detached structures; 5.The construction of,or an addition to,a new second story or higher story;pursuant to Chapter 17.02 of the Development Code; 6.Projects that result in lot coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed in Chapter 17.02 of the Development Code; 7.The construction of,or an addition of a deck,balcony or roof deck to a second story or higher story if the total area of the deck,balcony,or roof deck is eighty (80)square feet or larger or projects more than six (6)feet from the existing building;and, 4-54 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Consideration of Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio March 15,2011 8.An addition of a mezzanine to an existing structure that modifies the exterior of the structure other than the placement of flush mounted doors and windows." Although there is no maximum structure size limit associated with the current Neighborhood Compatibility review process,the process does evaluate the size of a proposed project in comparison to the average structure size of the immediate neighborhood,which is defined to include at least the twenty closest homes to the subject property within the same zoning district.In most cases,it is common for a proposed project to be larger than the average structure size and sometimes even larger than the largest home within the immediate neighborhood.However,it is important to note that structure size is only one of several components evaluated when assessing a projecfs compatibility with the immediate neighborhood.Other components that are evaluated include a project's architectural style,scale,mass and bulk.As such,although a proposed project may be larger than the homes in the immediate neighborhood,it does not automatically result in a determination that the proposal is not compatible.Rather,factors sucha.s the project's.design,location,height,articulation,fa9ade treatments and appearance,and topography also Rlay a roleinthevisibilityofthe structure and its related size,.mass.andbutk.. Further,although it is acknowledged that incremental increaseslo the average structure size within an immediate neighborhood may lead .tolarger structures in the future, ultimately structure size is limited by other development standards,such as·height, setbacks,lot coverage,.design,and grading ..Furthermore,Staff also acknowledges that neighborhoods will change,and the Neighborhood Compatibility process provides a safeguard to ensure that the change does not occur rapidly and is architecturally in line with the established character of the·immediate neighborhood. In processing applications,Staff has found that the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis addresses concerns that were the basis for eliminating the maximum ~tructure size as well as addressing the desire to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods.By assessing the scale of the surrounding residences against a residence proposing a significant expansion,Staff is able to determine whether the proposed addition or structure will result in a structure that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood or not.If it is determined that the structure is too large,Staff and/or the Planning Commission will recommend to the applicant that the project be scaled down and reduced in size. Alternative 2:Incorporate the Development Code's previous Maximum Structure Size As mentioned above,prior to the City's current Neighborhood Compatibility process,the Development Code established a maximum structure size for single-family residences. The methodology used to establish a maximum structure size for lots prior to incorporation/annexation was a 1DO-percent expansion of the original structure size or equivalent to the Residential Zoning District open space percentage ofthe existing lot area, whichever is less.In summary,for lots created after incorporation/annexation,there was a maximum structure size indicated for each Residential Zoning District that was derived by 4-55 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Consideration of Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio March 15.2011 multiplying the maximum lot coverage percentage for each Zone by the minimum lot size for each Zone,then rounding to the nearest thousand. For example,in the RS-5 Zoning District,the zone's minimum lot size (8,OOOsf)is multiplied by the zone's maximum lot coverage percentage (52%),and then rounded to the nearest thousand,which results in a maximum structure size of 4,000 square feet.[8,000 x .52 = 4,160,rounded to 4,000]. For the RS-3 Zoning District,the zone'sminimum lot size (13,OOOsf)was multiplied by the zone's maximum lot coverage percentage (45%),and then rounded to the nearest thousand,which results in a maximum structure size of 6,000 square feet..[13,000 x .45 = 5,850,rounded to 6,000]. It should be noted that in 2000 when the Planning Commission and City Council were considering applying the Neighborhood Compatibility process to new residences and major additions,a concern was raised with the inequity of the then Maximum Structure Size. Since the Maximum Structure.Size requirement for lots created prior to incorporation/annexation did not account for the area of a lot,but rather the footprint of a structure when it was first constructed,this had the potential to penalize lots that were developed prior to incorporation/annexation by restricting opportunity to renovate or expand toa greater degree than lots ..creat-ed after incorporation/annexation.Furthermore, additional concerns with the then MaximumStructure Size was that it did not account for. neighborhoods thatwere not developed as part of a larger tract with similar structures, changes in a family's lifestyle,and did not provide a fair ratio of structure to lot area. Lastly,because there were many instances where applications received by the Planning Division exceeded the maximum Structure Size requirements,many variance applications were necessary to process the requested project. Alternative 3:Develop a Floor Area Ratio This alternative includes establishing a maximum structure size that is based on a Floor Area Ratio (FAR),as suggested by Council member Long.A FAR limitation would mean that for every square foot of lot area,a lot may have "x"number of total structure square footage. In assessing the South Bay cities that use a FAR,the FAR formula is typically greater than 0.5,which is typical amongst cities where the minimum lot sizes are far less than the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.A more comparable city is the City of Palos Verdes Estates, which regulates structure size using FAR and square footage depending on lot size.Palos Verdes Estates'FAR is either 0.3 plus 1,750 square feet,or 0.5,whichever results in a smaller square footage. To determine how Rancho Palos Verdes would implement a FAR,Staff reviewed the 23 Planning Commission approvals for projects that reqUired a Neighborhood Compatibility 4-56 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Consideration of Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio March 15,2011 analysis between January 2008 and July 2010 (please refer to attachments to the October 26th Staff Report).Staff calculated the FAR for each property listed as part of the immediate neighborhood,including the resulting FARs of the new residences,and identified the zoning district for each residence.Based upon the resulting information,the Staff found no consistency,pattern or governing trend that could lead Staff to recommend or suggest a FAR for each zone. Alternative 4:Modify the Neighborhood Compatibility Process to incorporate a Floor Area Ratio or Maximum Structure Size This alternative includes maintaining the existing Neighborhood Compatibility process,but augments it by incorporating either a FAR or a fixed Maximum Structure Size to regulate structure size.This,however,is based on the premise that a FAR or Maximum Structure Size can be established. After discussing the various alternatives,the Planning Commission continued the item to January 11,2011. JANUARY 11 !2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Between the October 26,2010 meeting andthe January 11,2011 meeting,Staff compiled a list of new residences that have been constructed after being approved by the Planning Commission as being compatible with the 'immediate neighborhood.The list is part of the January 11 th Staff Report,which has also been·attached to this Staff Report. The intent·of such list was to gauge the effectiveness of the current Neighborhood Compatibility process and to determine if the process creates any type of problem with the end product (i.e.,the resulting new residence). All the properties on the list were visited by Staff to determine if the appearance of the resulting structure was out of character with the immediate neighborhood.Based'upon these "windshield"observations,Staff concluded that it is evident these structures are new, especially within established neighborhoods;however,their appearances blend with the neighborhoods in which they are in through architectural styles,exterior materials including fagade treatments and roof materials.The residences are typically two-story,but due to articulation,height and appearance,the residences do not dominate their neighborhoods and do not appear bulky or massive in the context of their respective neighborhoods. Commissioners Knight and Leon also visited these properties and distributed a table with a list of comments regarding these properties at the January 11 th meeting,including the properties'house coverage and perceived sizes (attached).Their table led to a Commission discussion regarding the visibility and perception of these houses in their respective neighborhoods.Also discussed was the number of new houses approved by the Commission in relation to the total number of single-family residences in the City. 4-57 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Consideration of Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio March 15.2011 In reviewing Staff's list of 29 completed projects that have gone through the Neighborhood Compatibility process,it was noted that the list was limited to only new single-family residences approved by the Planning Commission.This raised a question as to how many total projects have gone through the Neighborhood Compatibility review process.As a result,the Planning Commission continued discussion to the January 25,2011 meeting. JANUARY 25.2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Staff conducted additional research to determine how many total applications have been submitted to the Community·.Development Department that reqljired Neighborhood Compatibility review.These projects included one-story additions where the Director is typically the decision·making body;and,two-story (or second-story)additions and new residences,where the decision making body is either the Director or the Planning Commission,which is based on the .specificsofthe project.It is important to note that regardless of which body makes the decision on the application,the.silhouetting requirement,public notice requirements,and review criteria are all the same. As indicated to the Planning Commission,there have been a totalof653 cases submitted tothe Department thatinvolved·a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis.Of the 653 total cases,the Director made decisions on 412 cases,while the Planning Commission made decisions on 241 cases.To putthisinperspective,.according to the Cc;:llifornia Department of Finance there are 12,276 detachedsingle..familyunits within the City of RanchoPalos Verdes.This would seem to indicate that thedevelof changeJn residential neighborhoods, which includes new residences as well as remodels and additions,is not occurring at a rapid pace but is·occurring in a relatively controUedmanner.. PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION AND RECOMMENDATION: As specified above,the Planning Commission considered a variety of alternatives to limiting structure size,including implementing a •Floor Area Ratio as suggested by Councilmember Long.Although no alternative is without flaw,the Planning Commission concluded that retaining the existing Neighborhood Compatibility process addresses the issues of equity that resulted from the maximum structure size that was used preViously by the City,as indicated in the attached October 26th Staff Report.In summary,on a 6-1 vote (with Commissioner Emenhiser dissenting),the Planning Commission concluded that imposing a FAR or other type of maximum structure size limit was not warranted for the reasons stated in the discussion that follows. Although the current Neighborhood Compatibility process can be ambiguous to property owners since the Development Code does not specify a maximum structure size for residential structures,the process proVides flexibility since it does not bind property owners to a maximum limit.Instead,the size of a proposed project is compared to the average structure size of the immediate neighborhood.However,the Neighborhood Compatibility 4-58 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Consideration of Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio March 15,2011 analysis considers several other components,which includes architectural style,scale, mass and bulk..Thus,although a proposed project size can be larger than what is evident in a neighborhood,mitigating factors such as the project's design,location,height, articulation,fayade treatments and appearance,and topography all playa role in the visibility of the structure and its related size,mass and bulk. The Neighborhood Compatibility process addresses concerns that were the basis for eliminating the previous maximum structure size and addresses the desire to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods.By assessing the scale of the surrounding residences against a residence proposing a significant expansion,Staff and/or the Planning Commission Is able to determine whetherthe proposed addition orstructure will resultin a structure that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood or not.If it is determined that·the structure is too large,Staff and/or the Planning Commission will recommend that the project bescaleddownand reduced in size.As such,as evident by the residences approved by the Planning Commission,using the current Neighborhood .Compatibility analysisto.determine residential structure sizes does not result in a problem, nor is there anyevidencethatresidentialdevelopment is outofcontroI. While the currenfNeighborhoodCompatibility process does not limit the size of residences, the size of proposedresidenc.eswithinneighborhoods .isbeing controlled ..through ·the process.··On the other hand,if a maximumstructuresize'orFARis established,given the Cify'sexperience withapplic~nts seeking to maximize their property's potential,many applicants will likely pursue projects at the maximum allowed .As a result,rather than structures increasing incrementally,neighborhoods<could experience a more abrupt situation as applicants Will incessantly push for the maximum allowable structure size. Further,based upon Staff's·research ofthe FAR for residences in neighborhoods where Neighborhood Compatibility analyses were conducted,the Planning Commission agreed that there is no consistent pattern orgoverning trend that could lead to recommending or suggesting a particular FAR for each zone.Thus,establishing a FAR would result in properties being consideredlegal non-conforming structures that would require Variance applications to construct·additions. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion above,which summarizesthe Planning Commission's review of this issue on October 26,2010,January 11,2011 and January 25,2011,the Planning Commission has determined that using the current Neighborhood Compatibility analysis to determine residential structure sizes does not result in a problem,nor is there any evidence that residential development is out of control.As such,the Planning Commission recommends that a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)or other maximum structure size limit not be imposed since the City's current regulations and review procedure for residential projects are appropriate and there is no need to impose additional regulations. 4-59 Case No.ZON2010-o0332 Consideration of Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio March 15,2011 FISCAL IMPACT None. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: 1.If there is consensus with limiting structure size,then direct Staff to proceed with drafting an Ordinance to implement a preferred alternative and drafting the appropriate environmental documentation. 2.Identify any issues of concern with the Planning Commission's recommendation and remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Attachments: •PC Staff Report dated January 25,2011,with attachments o Exhibit A -January 11,2011 Staff Report o Exhibit 8 - New Single-Family Residences cc:mstructed since November 2002 that were subjeCt to Neighborhood Compatibility review by the Planning Commission o Exhibit C -Lot Coverage vs.Perceived Size Table (by Commissioners Knight and Leon) o Exhibit 0 -October 26,2010 Staff Report (with attachments) •Exhibit A -1997 Development Standards •Exhibit 8 -Neighborhood Compatibility tables for projects considered by the Planning Commission between January 2008 and July 2010 •Planning Commission Minutes (excerpts)for the October 26,2010,January 11, 2011,and January 25,2011 meetings. 4-60 PC STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 25,2011, WITH ATTACHMENTS o Exhibit A -January 11,2011 Staff Report o Exhibit B -New Single-Family Residences constructed since November 2002 that were subject to Neighborhood Compatibility review by the Planning Commission o Exhibit C -Lot Coverage vs.Perceived Size Table (by Commissioners Knight and Leon) o Exhibit D -October 26,2010 Staff Report (with attachments) •Exhibit A -1997 Development Standards •Exhibit B -Neighborhood Compatibility tables for projects considered by the Planning Commission between January 2008 and July 2010 4-61 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM CHAIRMAN &MEMBER,S,·F THEPLANNINGCOMMIS$ION JOEL ROJAS,CQJVlMUNIT·V'O.~Vln.. JANVARY 25,..20t1 CONSIDERATION OFA PROPOSED CODe AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP A FLOQRAREA RATIO (FAR)F RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (ZQN2010~00332)I Citywide Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Sebohborn,AlcP,Senior PlanrJ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION ConolUde dJsclJssionofth~altemativestolimiting strljcture size on Resid~ntiarprqperty and if there is Gonsensus with limiting structure size,then direct Staff to proceed with drafting an.Ordinance to implement a·.preferred alternative and.drafting the approprIate environmental dOGumentation.Alternatively,if the Planning Commission believes there is nO need fora,fegLilafion,thEHl directStafftp infqnTI the City Council as such~ BACKGROUND At the October 26,2010 Planning Commission meeting,Staff presented a list.of other Squth SaY citieS .and rnethq<:lQlogi~s J.,l$ed to limit r~sidEi}nti~1 structure slz;e.$t~ff also presentedvarioUsoptions ftlrth~Comrnission tooonsidEi}r,inoludinga defined maximum struoture size,a floor area ratio (FAR),and a hybrid of FAR After discussing the variousaltern~tives,the Planning CommissIon continued the item to January 11,2011,during whioh time Slaff would oompile a lisl of residenoes that have been construoted after being oonsidered by the Planning Commission through the Neighborhood CornpatibiHtyprocess.The intent was to gauge the effectiveness of the cUrrent Neighborhood Compatibility process and to deterrnineif the prooess creates any type of problem with the end product (i.e.,the reSUlting newresidenoe). At the January 11th meeting~Staff presented the list of new residences along With their respective approved lot coverages (attached).SlncetherewereCommissionersabsenton January t 1ul,after limited discussion on theilem,fhePlanning CommiSSion continued the 4-62 Case No.ZON.2010..0033.2 Code Amendment ....FloorArea Ratio (FAR) Jaliuary25,.2011 hegringto the Janljg!y 25,2011 meeting to allow all C;ommissioners the opportunity to discus the matter, DISCUSSION As indicated above,.Staff presented a..list of new constructed residences$lnce November 2002 th@t were approved by the PIi3nning Commissionandinvolved@ NeighborhoOd CompatibiHtyanalysis.At the request of Commissioner Leon,the list included lot size., strUcture size,and lotcbverage information.As specIfieditl the attached January 11,20t1 $taff.Report,..anthepropertIeson thelistwere visited rodetermine ifthe appearance of the resultingstnJcture wi3sout of ohi3racterwith the immediate neighborhood.Based upon these "windshleld"obselvations StaffbeHeves that it is evIdent that these structures are hew,especially within established neighborhoods;however,theIrappearances blend with the neighborhoods in which they ate in througharctJitectural styles,exterior materials inclucUnQjfagade treatments and roof materials.The residences are typicaJly'tWo-story,.but due to ·articulation heIght and apPearance;the residences do not dominate their neIghborhoods al1d·donc)tappeEJfb.ulky orma.ssiveJh thecohtextoftheif neighporhoods, Commissioners KnIght and Leon also Visited these properties and dfstr.ibuted a list of oommentsTegardlngthese properties aUh~January 11thmeefing,inclUding thepropettie$! house coverage and perceived siz.es (attached).Their table led to a Commission discussion regardIng the visjbilityandperception pfthase hOlJsesih their resPeotive neighbbthoOds.Also discussed was the number of new houses approved by the Commission in relt:ltion to the total number of single-family·residences in the City. In reviewing Staffs listof 29 completed projects that have gone through the Neighborhood Compatibility process,it was noted that the list was limited to only new single-family residence approved by the Planning Commission.ThIs raisedaquestion as to howmany total projects have gone through the NeighborhoodCompatfbiHty review process,As a reSt,.jltof tl1isdiscussipn,Staff conquctedaddItion;alreseprch tq determine hoW many tqtal applications haVe been sUblTlittedto the Cornmunity Development Department that requited NeighborhOOd compatibility review,TheSe ptojebtsincludeone,-,story additions where the Directqr is typicaUythe decision rna king body;and,two-story (prsecond"story) ;additions aop neW nasidenoeSi where the decision makingboclyis pither theDirectororfhe Planning Commission,which Is bassdon fhespeciflcs of the project It is important to hote,however-,Ihat regardless ofwhich body makes the.decision on the app.Hcation,the silhouetting requirement,public notice requirements,and review criteria are the sarne. Since August 2001 ,there have been a total·of653 CaSeS submitteq totheDepartmentthat involved aNeighbothdod CompatibiHtyanalysls,Of the 653 total cases,the Directortnade decislons<on 412 cases,While the Planning Cornmissionmade debisions 00241 cases.To put this in perspective,according to the California Department ofFinance there afe 12.,276 detached single-family units within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,ThisWQuld seem to 4-63 GaseNo.ZON2010..00332 Code Amendment -FIQQtArea Ra.tio (FAR) Januanf25.2011 indicate that the level of change in residential neighporhoods,Which includes new residences as well as remodels and additions,Is not occurring ata rapid pace but is occurring ina relattvelycontrolled manner. ~taffrecommends that thePlapnlng Commissia~concludeitsdiscussion.ofthe various alternatives ta limitingstrubttire size on Residential property.Ifthe Commission believes ihatan FARformulao.rmaximumstructure sizesho.ukf be used to.regulafestru·cfure siZ€:l, then direct Staff to Pfoceedwith drafting an Ordinancetoimplemenf the Qommission's direction and drafting the appropriate environmental docurnel'ltation. Alternativel¥,if fhePlanningComrnission ..believes there is.nota need forah FAR regulatipnand tl1usacodearneodment is notnecess;:try;thendirectStafffq inform the City Council·as such. ATTACHMENTS •ExhibitA-January 11,2011 Staff Report •ExhibitEl ~New Single"FamHy ResidehcesconsttuctedsinCe Novembet2002 that were sUbject to NeighborhoodOompatibility revieW by the Plahhing Comrnission •Exhibit C-Lot Coveri3ge.vs,Pero.eivedSizeTable (py Commissioners Knightand ~~. •ExhibIt 0 -()ctobet26 ,2010 Staff Report (with.attachments) 4-64 EXHIBIT A JANUARY 11,2011 STAFF REPORT 4-65 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM CHtdRMAN &.MEMBERS OF·THEPLANNlNO COMMISSION I JOE.L ..ROJ.A.·S.f C.QMMUNITY 11EVELVC1··.·•..•....••....•.T OIRECTOR "JANUARY 1t,2011 "'. OONSIDERATION QPAPRQPOSEllCODE i\MENPMENTTO DEVELOP AFLOQR AREA RATIO (FAR)FOftRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY··{ZON2010 ..(0332)·.1 Oltywi(j staff COQrdioator;EdM.ardQ Sc;b(:lhborn,AICf>,S~111orPlan> TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: .RECOMMENDATION 1)Further dlscu$sfhe \t'13riou$tillternalives to limiting stwctu rEl$izeon Resldefltlal property; 2)anq,if necessary,direot Stafffo proceed with drafting an Ordinance toimplemenLa preferred alternatiVe anq drafting the apprqprIate envitontnentG\1 documentation, BACKGROUND As the Commission rnayrecaH,last year the CityCouncli dlrectedStafftopresenUhe issue of Implementing·a "floorarea ratio"·(FAR)limit(iti(m'for residel1tial·andnonres!deni!(iIZ:Qn~s to the'Planning Commiss.ion,.and for the Planning COrTtmissIdh to .review .and provide a recommendation baCK to the City CounciL Assu.ch,on October 26*2010,Staff presented an Item to the Ptanrdng Commission WhichsQught direction from the Commission on this issue. At the ..dctober 26to Pfanning Commission meetln~,.Staff presented Ei list of other South Bay cities and methodolQgiesl.Jsed to limit resIdential structure size.Staff also presented various options for the Commissiofl to considfjf,inclu.ding a defined maximum structure stze,afloorarea ratio {PAR},and a hybrid of FAR. After dIscussing the varidus alternatives,the PlannIng CommissIon continued the item to January 11,2011,during which time Staff would compile a listof resIdences that have been constructed after being considered by the Planning Commission through the Neighborhood compatibility·process <The Intent was to gauge the effectiveneSs of the 4-66 Ca$a NQ.ZON-Z01()1"00332 Cod.e Amendmant ,...Floor Area Ratio (FJ\;R) January 11..2011 ourr~rit N~igHbQrhoodc>ornpatibilitY'proc~$sano to determine ifthe process cre.ateSElny typeqfpfQp1ernwiththeend prqdupt (I.e"the resL!rting new re~idenQe). DISCUSSION Staff prepared,ahdprQ'tided \flaeman,ali$tof29neW$ihgre4alt1ilYtes!deh~e$thathave b~errQQnstn..H;:tedslnQeNQvember2QQ2thatwereapproved bythe.PIa.nnlO€l.(QQmrnlssiQO ancllovQ(~~da ~~jghlo0rh?O~pcoTl1Patibility anal¥si~.Asa result orthlsjnfqrrTUiiJiqn, Qornn11ssionet~eonreql.Jested fhatthe.ll:fbe m?difiedt(}Jncludeth~slzeofthe .struo~ure and the.lot co\terage ..EX~ibitAinu$ttates the listof properties pteviouslyptdvidedfolhe Plannin~ICQrnmJssion,bulalso inQJuoesE!ach propel1;)lsst rlJctu re andlo!gize,He,9arding lot coverage\.this involves ·.at··rnofElintenshreSel3fQh through reports and adqress fIIEls.l*$ such,Idtddv~rage·jhfQtl11ationWasl1ot teadyill timetob~IMpll.ldedjhthi~'taff~eport; fhus,Sfa'ffwHI proVide fheJotcoverageil1formation tothevomrnissionat the Jahuary 11th meeting. Between$t~ffancl the Dlredt()rlalltDeprOpettiesonth~li$tAtoJet$yis;tet\;tt.o getElrmineifthe appearance aT the resulting structure Wasoutofcnaradter with the immediate ~ei~hborhoOd .•.13ased upon these!iWind$hieldi'ob~ervatiohs$t~ffbeJjeve$thatIflsevideht thatthesQ;sfruolutes;arenew,.especiallywithin establlshed neighborhoQdsi ...hQwevel",thelr ~PPearangesPlel1ctwjth the I1Ellghbo.rhoods inwh/chihey afe In~hrougharchjtectPrl3l styles)~xteriormaterialsincl~dinfl.fa9acletre~trnentsandroQflJ1aterial~,.Theresidf.?nq~s are .typicallytwo-Sloty,but due to articulafion heightari.tl appeatahde,.thetesidencesd()not doroinatefheir neighborhoods and do not appear PlJJkyorml3sslveJn the Cbntsxtoftheit n.eigbborhopq·s. In the (Jclober2o!20 108taITRepori(attached)SfaTfptesenfed thefdUowing alternatives for the .pjgnolng Cornmlssibn'scotlsideration: ..N!alntsln th~ex;stjhg NeigfJoo.rhoadGompafibl1it'j Rtooesstatlefettnine structure $IZfJ; •ltrcorparefe the [)eve}opmenfCad(!iispr$vious NJaxfrnumSftttctttteSltf0; •lDev${opa FlootANJf;l Rstld;and, •.MOC/ify the../)/efgfJborhOodGornpatlbilJ1y Process tbitJeotporntea FlborAreaRatio Of MeXimum stttlctufeSfze ,Aftfi'fcompiling the informatiql1 Clnd revieWing ther:esqlf.inQ91 ructufe$POnstrq9fed,Sla.ff b~Heves that the current system does not create aproblern ..Althougnl1oalternative is withontflaw,maintairiing theexisling NeiQhbothoodGompafibilityprocess addressesfhe issues ofequlty thatresulted ftomthe rna)(lrriurr)structutesiZe that Was Used preVious!ybY 1 AlthoUQh fhe.definltionofLotCoverage.was recentlyarnended,fheJotcoverag?calcUlalionror these residences includes building footprint,driveways and parking areas.covered patios,treillses,courtyards. and decks greal$f than3o.·1nches in height. 4-67 Cf!§~·.NQ •...10rN2t)1··tl-O'033.~ CQq(:l .Am(:lndm~nt-FlpQr~r~(lRa:ttiQ(FIRl January 11,.2011 the 0It)'",.8s indicafed in the.aftaohed .(Jctobei 20 th Staff Report.Althoogh the .cuttent Nel@hbpthopdOort1patibiljtYPiOC~$$can.be ambiguous to p.roperty .owners .sloo6-the ·DevalopmeotGooedoas n9tdlG~ate a mp~irnum~truQture ;;t?:e fOf restden~j$l ~tn..JQture~r, the pr:obe$S·pr6vid~s fteXipilJty Since it gO$Sl'10~btrid prope~YQwnetstoa maxirn.um limit. lnstea~ithe sizeofa:ptoPCi~eQpt0je$t Iscdmpareo totheavet~g~:.sttUctUte$izeofthe nnmediate.nei.ghborhOQO ..E1(jwever;theNei~nbothocodGornpatibllifyal1alysi$.oonSiders seVerp!othefCQrnpol1enfs,wrllcn !noludesarcl.1iteOftttal style,soal.(3,m;as$ana bulK~."thUS; allhou9h ...·a••~r~POSe~P!TQjeotsize~~fl!t!e .Iarger.¥hpn~hpt lsev1del1l 1n .~..n~jg?bQrhppd, rnitl~~tjng .fa~tor$.·suc~...a~.t~e ..projeces ..d:si9~1 ...I~~~tianl ...h~l~htJ ...agiculatibtl!.·f~9aQe· lreatmentsandap.p.eatanCe(andtopogtaphya!soplaY'arolelnlhe visibilltyoflhe.structure and it~r~lated $Ize~rna$$andtuJlk,·. In conducting .·N:ighborho~dC;btnpati~i1ity,~naly~e$!'$ta~~~S;fQ~nq~hattM~NeighbQrllood QornpafibU.ityprbcess.addre.s$eS¢orloettis·tnaf·we.re the.basis.fbr··el·lmihafing ths··rnaximurn $.fruoture siZe :&$we.ll·<3saddresse&th.ede$Jreto·preserv~ihe.chara;eter bfex!stibg· ~~:l:::~;=:~~;~~~~~re::;:etslructurewiU .result .ina.structure tbat is com pati ole with .fhecharacter .ofthe neighborhood {;)ttl.ot.If if Is'deletmined1ihat:the·strLlcturelsioolarge.,StaffWflitequltefhal theproJ~ct be scaled down and reducedir:r SIZe,.i¥S.$QCh,aslndlo~t'(3d ~bo;ve,a$evh:l:ent bythE1 rasi9aocE1§appn::.1ye¢py th~PlanningCZ;QrQmi$~icmanqepn$tflJC)taq,a:ngpy $taffs EH<periences iniI1lPI~T11eMtil1g the .NeJgnboth()~~..CompatifJllftyproc~$sf()rovet.10 y~~rs, StaffbeH~ve$.that u~i~~.the .curreht.t:4ei~hbC)rhobd pOfflpailbUityanalysis to.deterrnine . reSidential structure stl~s dQas not result In a problem,l'lot Islhere any evidence that re~igenJifjll d;eve!QPment is out ofcontfoh i¥.st~ElOomn1isslon ..wIU.te~all,OounCilmembet L~n~taJsed()(jji'lcernst~~tWlithdUf.a m$)(imurnsquate foota~e limitation!jncre~en~l increasaslo .tneaveragestructureslze withio an il1lrnedlcate neighOQt!1QoQwHLcontinue,$taff atc~nQwledge$tha't ths.c;urrent Nergpb@rho.oq Compatibility proOes§dg6s not Ul1litthes!ze ofresioeFlPes;hOWeYefiS,taTf d~iashotbenevethistooea ptobfemsinCetheresuftihgSiz~sofp)toposedresidences witnI~•.~~i~~tJpthdOd~..arebelng ..c.o~tr.QUed .....•thrQugh .compatibility ..w.ith ..the ..lrrlmeaiate neighoC1rhood in Which the prQPC1Sed project is located in.On the other hand,if a rnaxrm4D1strlJ9tQresiZe Qr.FAR l$est?I:)lJj~h~q,basfi¢9f'!$.t?flfsexperie0gewitl1 ppp.llcantSi seekIng to maxim+zetheirpropeny'spotenfial,Staff beHevesthatrn8,nYapplicaf1tswill slmplypU!Tsu6 projecfsat the.maximum allowed,As lEi tesult,rather than .st(uctures incteaslrrg inCrel11emtaUy,neighborhcodd$c\luld.e><periencea ltl.Ofeabrupt .situation as appllp;antsWill Jnce$san~ly posh forthernaxirrruFn aUowablestrt,ictureslZe ... ~ccardihgto theealirornia DepartmehtoT Finane!!}Demographic Researoh Unit,as of Ja~uary1.,.2010,thefewere12,2r~detaGhedsingle4amJlyunitswithinfhec;ityofRancho Palos 'Verdes.Although Staff idenfffi~d4Sl1eW:$ingIEl7farrrily rEl$icl~Jdj~1 units constructed since NOVemPElf 4002;thElseqlfe newuoits Where the pl~nning Commission made a 4-68 C3$e "".()..ZON2010"QOa~.2 Code AmenQly.\eht ,-.Flo.orAre~Ra..tiQ <fAR) Janu8!2Y11 •.201J decision <In'iheptqjeot:There <ate anadOifiorlataOl1eWhornes.coosltuotedsinte ~ovemb!1r 2002 •that wer~s~bjeQttQ thE;}.$~rnf;'l·Nei~~PQrhQ()gPOOlPCltjbnjtY.JMlt:lly~i§fPqt 'Were r~Vlew~qCln<;iapprov~q~ythe[)irect~r;fn t€)tal,ther~hav~been1~~newsingle .. farnilystracl:utesconstructed'since November 2:002 t whiOR.represents lessthatt1 ..percenf oftheei~'s$il1gJe;i~amil~housingst~Qko ..This.lndibatesthatthe levelOfdevelopmentis ..o<:>f oQctltriogatarapidpacaandis {unhar indicative that development :and .the resulting s~rlJc~urt3sisQqQlJrripg in '14.•·cOJ1troHe<;iTPii:l:nner.T1"1L1s.i;llthoughstruG'tuna size~tn heighbo!'fuooqs Cafl.c0l1tinuet6getlarger.itap\l1ear$lhatthe tEtte in whichifocCqfSissloW;i. Which (foesrlot'.te.sLilt Inanadverseim'@acHoneiglnbottlo.ods. f"Jotwitbst:andihg$taff's p~li~f,sboylcl th~PtCil,nning Commission wish tPCQOSiQf3f Qs,ing eitl1era F~f<or .~.fiX~d~a)(il11~n'l fS~ructUr~$ize t~f~UlatestruetureSizejStaff\<V0uld suggest t~at the Nerghbotnoot!.c;ompatibili~yanal}fsi$O()ntjhue to ..be .a requited component It is Slaff'sextJerience thataprdj$otcah be small in size,butthe des.ignand loqatioo oftne addlfion ·mt;tynpt~itthechqraqterQf·theneigbPQrhopcl t1rrmCly n ofClHgn wifh theneighbothoodJs90v¢rhlng.,~etbae~s ...PlJrth~r:;there~tecas~sx¥herethe~rchitect!Jr~j bolkandmass of .anewt~sideneeJSrlot.ih line W.iththEa charaQt~rQf fneneignbothoClcL Thus,Staff .believes that .It is irnpodant to.maintain t~eNelg:.hbQrhbOd~ompatibitity requlrernel1tto iansurethaf proj~(jtsblendwithth~irnrnedJafeneiQhootho.odchal"acfer. AODITIQNAt •.INF?ORMJXIION I'tJsirnporlan±·fonots,that·arfxedrttaxlmumsTtucture sizeandlbt FAR.are qUBnfifia'bleanCl provfdetpraclaars(ze Hmifationesfaplishedwithlr1 the Development OOde,As such,a ·CPdeAmengment estaolishing.q ma~irnqmsi~ethroqghFA~ora fixed sqqa,refpofag.e will l'esqlfin.ins~a!1ceswhere .an.eXjstihgr~$idef1tial.$trqeturesi.4e wiUalteadype ...greatetthan .tbe rtiEtxlrnurn ..aIIOwedjt~ereb¥tesUlting.ln.leg~l.n~n~CQl1formjng .Sttuc~utes 10.thes~ InstanceS,B pr~perty owner would be requiredtbapplyfora Variance toexCeedorfUt1:her eXGeeclfhema~!rnl.JtT1·14llowed stfUQtwresiz,6,which reqq1res a ·nQflGeano14Puplicheqring pef~rethe PI~tln!!1€j.comfqissl()!'l~FlJrther,~~eeified·.finctings rnust~!.s()t;>emarJe.ipordel'to ~talit .8·..Variancet:woibh.itiGIUdes,atn~tetial .•har'dshlpfihdll1gthatisd!fficLiltto make in order to Justify a decviation ftornfhe Development CadEt . ·L,astly~...sorn~···.·tporpmi.·(3.$ioner$··.fal.$.e~•.·con.oern··tb.t:lt •.not·.·having.Al.·~efjn.ed rmAlxlmurn··ii:l:I!Qw~QI.e struoture.si~e ...ereate~B ..hebulbus situati()n ..fbr ..~ro~ertyovvi1ets ...aha·...~~pII~aots ....Sta~ acknowledged andreEtlized thisconce-m With fheNeiglib~rhood(JQtnpaU~jlitY .process When it 'Was firstimplemenfed,Ass!JOh,$inoejnceptionoftheprocess,~taffmake$ita polnt.to\tVorkclose1y With property pvvnel"sam:l appficantsa:t the public coQnteran(:ithe phone,typically prior to them comrnehcil1g the NeighborhooOCompf\tibility process. Notwithstanafng,StaffbeUeves tnata methodtd reauce some of the ambiguity of the ptoceS$WoUldbe to raise the threshold that triggers the NelghbothOod€:ornpatibllity prQcess,andlorlncrease th~eXeltlPtiqn .size.AI,,1Qvg.haU new sin~le~farnily reslden~(3s ano~econd stories should cOl)tinueto be subJect to Neighborhood Compatibility analysis, 4-69 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) January 11!2011 Staff would be supportive of loosening the thresholds for one-story additions.Staff has identified two instances.First,the Development Code requires a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis for projects that add at least 25%of the original structure size. Consideration could be given to raising the threshold to 35%,or more.Second,the Development Code lists minor projects that are exempt from the Neighborhood Compatibility process.Consideration could be given to increasing the size of ,additions exempted from 250 square feet,to 500 square feet.Staff believes that this could give property owners more flexibility to add more square footage and not be subject to the Neighborhood Compatibility process. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conclude its discussion of the various alternatives to limiting structure size on Residential property.If the Commission believes that a formula should be used to regulate structure size,then direct Staff to proceed with drafting an Ordinance to implement the Commission's direction and drafting the appropriate environmental documentation. ATTACHMENTS •Exhibit A -New Single-Family Residences constructed since November 2002 that were subject to Neighborhood Compatibility review by the Planning Commission •Exhibit B -October 26,2010 Staff Report •Exhibit C-Excerpt Minutes of the October 26,2010 Planning Commission Meeting 4-70 EXHIBIT B NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES CONSTRUCTED·SINCE NOVEMBER 2002 THAT WERE SUBJECT TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION 4-71 10 Cli er Road 2 Sea Cove 466 Via Campesina 3304 Palo Vista Drive 3867 Crest Road 4 Headland Drive 815 Palos Verdes Drive S. Yellow Brick Road 0120CartierDrive 967 Crest Road ~··Rockingh()r$eRoad 0375 Diamonte Lane 0637 Calle De Suenos acht Harbor Drive 5 Narcissa Drive 154 Deluna Drive 369 Dauntless Drive 8 Avenida Corona 231 Palos Verdes Drive S. 17 Martingale Drive 324 Seaclaire Drive Packet Road 7026 Brookford Drive 9118 Hi hmore Avenue 30057 Via Victoria 0065 Via Victoria 0831 Rue Lan lois 11 Cli er Road 923 Vista Del Mar 3,548 9,244 5,422 4,630 5,495 4,620 7,691 7,563 4,902 5,931 4,703 5,397 8,868 15,425 4,749 4,880 3,794 4,280 8,479 2,822 3,720 4,280 3,214.5 3,686 5,998 3,480 5,465 4,494 7,348 8,440 31,474 55,757 33,005 57,700 45,738 77,537 21,650 15,089 14,048 20,530 23,958 37,026 582,397 87,120 20,900 16,478 25,152 43,551 21,100 12,994 9,690 9,116 6,291 14,105 6,180 11,200 9,100 23,936 47% 37% 13.5% 30% 24% 19% 11.8% 39% 31.56% 36.9% 48% 38.4% 24.3% 3% 19.4% 29% 25.7% 24% 19% 21% 31% 35% 43% 47% 40.8% 46.2% 39.7% 49.38% 32% 50%(RS-4) 40%(RS-2) 40%(RS-2) 30%(per cup) 40%(RS-2) 40%(RS-2) 25%(RS-1) 40%(RS-2) 4Q%(RS-2) 40%(RS-2) 40%(RS-2) 40%(RS-2) 25%(RS-:1) 52%(RS-5) 40%(RS-2) 40%(RS-2) 45%(RS-3) 40%(RS-2) 25%(RS-1) 40%(RS-2) 45%(RS-3) 50%(RS-4) 50%(RS-4) 50%(RS-4) 50%(RS-4) 50%(RS-4) 50%(RS-4) 50%(RS-4) 25%(per cup) 4-72 EXHIBITC LOT COVERAGE VS.PERCEIVED SIZE TABLE (BY COMMISSIONERS KNIGHT AND LEON) 4-73 Lot Coverage vs Perceived Size House L6tSIze House SF liOVllfage ..•-.-.-.-.-...-.-.......-.-.-...-...........' 10ClipperRosd 3;549 8,M<l 2 42 Sea Cove 9,244 M"""4 :3 3488 v'"Campasina ~.422 65,757 4 3304 Palo V1sli\OliVa 4,\130 33,00$ 6 3867 Clast Read SAll5 67,700 6 44.He~ana Driye ·4.\120 46,138 7 3815 Palos Verdes CnveS.7,691 77,537 a 4Yel!owllrt¢llRoad 7;563 21.6$0 9 30120 Qartier DriVe ·4,902 15;089 10 2il67 Cll'st Road 9,931 14.04ti 11 5 *Rookinghorse Road 4.703 2.0,s3Q 1230376 OIlimonte Lane 5,397 23;956 1330637 ~I"OeSiJ!l!los 1\/358 3M211 14 3 Yacht Harbor brtve 15,425 562,397 15 75Narol$$a Drtvll 4.749 117,120 183154.De!Vna Drive 4.aao 20,soo 17 4369 OlluntJessOriWl 3.794 16,416 18 56 Aven!deCorooa 4.280 2$,152 19 3231 PslOSVerassDnve $,8,479 43,551 20 17 Martingele Ows 2;1,22 21,100 21 3324 $eacloimDrtva 3,720 12.994 22 5 Paok&tRoad ·i;280 MOO 23 7028 Sftlo.1<fcrd Drive 9.116 32.145 24 29116 Highmore Avenue Maa 6,2111 2530051 Vie Viclolis 5,998 14;108 26 31lO6~Via VictQrta M80 6,160 27 30831 Rl.lEllanglQls a,4G5 11,200 28 1t Clipper Road 4,494 9;100 292923VlstaOal Mar 1:34IJ 23;~ comments .,npa~bllldeslgl\S1m1lafrii!iSSand~ta 'll\pletaly~li~Jllt,s.mall s!~ayards;(argeo~a~IOl$slj(lsrllllll ~\llghborhOOd al:t9$s .wast Widely spacsdlarge l'1Qmes i!Smai1llllt of·gro!lPofclosely.spa~dl~manslons 40%~$tandseloneat snd.ofCresl;small.pSd,nolandscapil1g,noCOf!1patibOity 40%iRS"2 25%(RS.1) 1-_=,.,-_+",.".,..",,,,,..,,,lfMa!Jili;lil,Lsrgll masS S11datza,~lldsfromsidli iOtlinalaslde lOt Ill'le 39%40%(RS-2)..Mansla!1S,~I~!TJ$paclt1ll,vBtlSd side ~rdsalbac:ks I--.:::S1'!','::5S:r.··~:'1'¢-+41::0~%:-(::::R::':.~~,;2J:dI~s,Sitlallslde)\8£Cl~,hIUalda,fljlive!'lica1 wsUs,ConslSlilnlV!lth neighborSr--:OO:::..~.9~Q·=~-,.4':':O::::%;-(:=R:':':S"'::.2:rl1)... I--~::-;---+=";'""ll~~:i.Downslope 101;looks iargablJtbelow.atraetlavel;amaliaidayards 48%40%(RS-2' sMO%140%(RS-2 24,30%12$%CRsA 3%IS2%(Rl:M 19,40% 29% 25:70%······45o/~(Rg:;3)1 Col1lpab't>la.masnljd~a.Whiteoolor makeshQ~aesiando(lt i 24%40%IR$.2 . 19%25%(1'\3·1 Fitsw!lholharrilanslQ!l$fal;ing PVCS •~....40%CRS,2' 45·o/~-(RS.3)l!f\'8 tIJllOllbohQlld,smsll rrlQ(j)Vertlarills inareeses s~yard appearance, ~llplnl< lot,obs!n.1olsvlew;la~tor lol :omerhouse,largefQfneillhbomood,II1!lOIl_nllllCl1tteetursl slyie.2stoty ngie:.SIOi'\i.nelghbomood tol.bornpsllb1eWllh otMr house. ~ 4<iflllhe .a!'i1<l 2of3thsSll/i1a 2foSthe same 1/11/20.11 C:\USers\Gordonteon\Oo~iJmljllts\Do~Qmenl$\Plenni~g\1.111J\FAR Ne!9hbort!oodCompl!libllity 4 - 7 4 EXHIBIT D OCTOBER 26,2010 STAFF REPORT (WITH.ATTACHMENTS) 4-75 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONCHAIRMAN&MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY OCTOBER 26,2010 CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO DEVELOP A FLOOR AREA RATiO (FAR)FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (ZON2010-00332)I Citywide"(7((2 Staff Coordinator:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Planne~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the four alternatives presented by Staff for establishing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)orsome other similar maximum structure size;and,direct Staff to proceed with drafting an Ordinance to implement the preferred alternative along with the appropriate environmental documentation. BACKGROUND Prior to 1997,the City's Development Code did not state a maximum structure size for single-family residential structures.Rather,structure size was constrained by the Development Code's requirements for height,setbacks and open space.In 1997,a comprehensive update to the City's Development Code was completed.The 1997 update included the establishment of a maximum structure size for single-family residences. Pursuant to the development standards established in 1997,structures on for lots created prior to incorporation/annexation were limited to a size equivalent to a 100%expansion of the original structure size or a structure size equivalent to the RS district open space percentage,whichever was less.Structures on lots created by the City (either after incorporation or annexation)were limited to a specified size established for each zoning district.If a proposed residential structure exceeded the maximum structure size established by the Development Code,then the project would require the approval of a Variance application to proceed. In 2000,the City Council replaced the maximum structure size requirement with the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement.The primary reason this was done was because 4-76 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26,2010 the maximum structure size was not working due to the differences in neighborhoods throughout the City.The Neighborhood Compatibility analysis on the other hand affords more flexibility to project applicants and City decision makers in reviewing new homes and major additions within the context of an "immediate neighborhood". The existing Neighborhood Compatibility review process typically involves the submittal of detailed project plans,the construction of a project silhouette,certification of the silhouette, the issuance of a public notice with a minimum 15-day comment period,site visits by staff to address issues raised by the public and the preparation of a Staff Report that analyzes the proposal in the context of the closest 20 properties. At the request of Councilmember Tom Long,an item was placed on the City Council's June 1,2010 agenda to discuss the issue of possibly establishing a "Floor Area Ratio"(FAR)for properties in the City.As described in the attached Staff Report prepared by Councilmember Long,-Councilmember Long raised concerns that without a maximum square footage limitation,incremental increases to the average structure size within an immediate neighborhood through the City's current Neighborhood Compatibility process will continue.After discussing the issue,the City Council directed Staff to present the issue of implementing a "floor area ratio"(FAR)limitation for residential and nonresidential zones to the Planning Commission,and for the Planning Commission to review and provide a recommendation back to the City Council (see attached June 1,2010 City Council Minutes, excerpt).As such,Staff is presenting this item to the Planning Commission to seek direction regarding a potential Code Amendment to develop a Floor-Area-Ratio for Residential and non-residential properties as a method to enact a maximum structure size. DISCUSSION WHAT IS FLOOR AREA RATIo? Floor area ratio is the ratio of the floor area of a building to the area of the lot on which the building is located.Explained another way,the Floor Area Ratio is the total building square footage (building area)divided by the site size square footage (site area). As a formula,Floor Area Ratio =(Cumulative area on all floors of all buildings on a parcel)/ (Area of the parcel) For example,a 0.5 (or 0.5:1)FAR would allow a maximum structure size equivalent to half the lot area;while a 1.0 (or 1:1)FAR would allow a maximum structure size equivalent to the size of the lot. The diagram on the following page illustrates three ways that a 1:1 FAR might be reached: one story covering the entire lot,2 stories covering half of the lot,or 4 stories covering a quarter of the lot all result in the same FAR. 4-77 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26,2010 FI.~rAf~.Ratlp(FA~r lt1'R~i$ 1s.tP~t (tob''%k:i{6ri';''Gr~fJ) 2stljrl¢~ "~O%lbttq,jEru~S} ;" 4 Mt!f:lWSi t'ZB!£""f5t"t6fiitll's\Wi} METHODOLOGIES USED a"Y OTHER SOUTH BAY CITIES In reviewing other South Bay cities,Staff found that other cities either use a defined maximum structure size,use a floor area ratio (FAR),or a hybrid of an FAR.In further assessing other South Bay cities,it was found that no cities utilize a floor area ratio formula for commercial development.Staff believes that a commercial FAR in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes is not necessary sincethe size of commercial buildings is limited by lot size, parking requirements,..and landscape requirements.In addition,since new commercial buildings require a Conditional Use.Permit,the Planning Commission has broad discretion to limit the size of buildings ifadverseimpacts to surrounding properties are identified. Further,all of the City's commercial properties are either built-out or entitled. Table No.1 on the following page illustrates the 15 cities in the South Bay area and the methodologies used to limit and control structure size.Of the South Bay cities that use a defined maximum structure size,the trend is such that the maximum sizes vary depending upon the zoning districts.For example,"a low density zoning district,which is typified by large lots,will allow for a larger maximum structure size.Conversely,higher density zoning districts,which are typified by smaller lots,will allow for comparatively smaller maximum structure sizes.This method is similar to what the City of Rancho Palos Verdes used prior to applying its Neighborhood Compatibility process to new homes. Of the South Bay cities that use FAR,it is common that the FAR is greater than 0.5, regardless ofthe base zoning district.For example,the FAR in the City of Torrance is 0.6, which results in a maximum structure size equivalent to 60%of the total lot size;EI Segundo's 0.53 FAR results in a maximum structure size equivalent to 53%of the total lot size,etc.Other cities like Palos Verdes Estates and Manhattan Beach use a hybrid FAR, where FAR limits the structure size,but under certain circumstances a fixed square footage above the FAR is allowed. 4-78 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26.2010 TABLE NO.1 Carson EISegundo Gardena Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Inglewood Lawndale Lomita Manhattan Beach Palos Verdes Estates Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates Torrance No FAR FAR is 0.53 The FAR requirement includes garages;but,it excludes square footage of second dwelling units and basements where at least eighty percent (80%)of the exterior perimeter walls of the second dwelling unit or basements are fully below natural rade. No FAR No FAR No FAR No FAR No FAR FAR is 0.60 The FAR includes square footage of all accessory buildings and structures.The floor area is the sum of the gross horizontal area of the total number of floors, includinallareas below round level,and accesso build in s on the site. FAR 1.6 &1.7 for beach area.Inland area is 0.7 for lots less than 4,800 sf,and 0.65 +240 for lots greater than 4,800.sf The total enclosed area of all stories of a building,measured to the outside face of the structural members in exterior walls,and thirty percent (30%)ofthe area of all basements of a building that are not entirely below local grade,and inclUding halls and the area of the stairs.Floor area under stairs,portions of a basement that are entirelbelow rade,and ara esare excluded FAR is either 30%of lot area +1750 square feet,or 50%of lot area; whichever is smaller. Floor area is livable plus garage. Gross floor area=no max.limit,but re uires nei hborhood com atibili No FAR FAR is 0.65 (0.8 may be permitted with bonuses) Includes the gross floor area of a building or buildings on a lot.The gross floor area includes covered enclosed orches. No FAR No FAR FAR 0.60 Includes all building areas,measured from outside wall to outside wall,such as detached accessory structures,habitable attic area,volume areas,and stairwells, but excluding basements,covered porches,patios and balconies enclosed on not more than two 2 sides,and,chimne s. 4-79 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26.2010 ALTERNATIVE METHODS To CONSIDER FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN RANCHO PALOS VERDES: Alternative 1:Maintain the existing Neighborhood Compatibility Process to determine structure size Pursuant to Section 17.02.030(B)of the RPVMC,an analysis of Neighborhood Compatibility shall be required for the following residential development projects: 1.'~new residence that is proposed to be developed on a vacant lot; 2.A new residence that is proposed to replace an existing residence; 3.An existing residence that is proposed to be remodeled or renovated such that fifty percent or greater ofany existing interior and exterior walls or existing square footage is demolished; 4.An addition to an eXisting single-family residence or the construction of any new detached structure that individually,or when combined with prior additions cumulatively, results in greater than:(i)750·square feet of additional floor area,or (ii)a 25% expansion ofthe tota/square footage of all of the original structures constructed on the property,including the main residence,the garage,and all detached structures; 5.The construction of,or anaddition tO,a new second story or higher story;pursuant to Chapter 17.02 of the Development Code; 6.Projects that result in lot coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed in Chapter 17.02 of the Development Code; 7.The construction of,or an addition of a deck,balcony or roof deck to a second story or higher story if the total area of the deck,balcony,or roof deck is eighty (80)square feet or larger or projects more than six (6)feet from the existing building;and, 8.An addition of a mezzanine to an existing structure that modifies the exterior of the structure other than the placement of flush mounted doors and windows." Although there is no maximum structure size limit with the current Neighborhood Compatibility process,the process analyzes a proposed project to its immediate neighborhood,which is defined to include at least the twenty closest homes to the subject property and within the same zoning district.In terms of structure size,it can be ambiguous to property owners since the Development Code does not dictate a maximum structure size for residential structures.However,the process provides flexibility since it does not bound property owners to a maximum limit. Nonetheless,the size of a proposed project is compared to the average structure size of .the immediate neighborhood.In most cases,it is common that a proposed project is larger than the average structure size and also larger than the largest home within the immediate neighborhood.However,it is important to note that structure size is just one of several components required to be considered in a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis,which includes architectural style,scale,mass and bulk.As such,although a proposed project may be larger than the homes in the immediate neighborhood,it does not automatically 4-80 Case No. ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26.2010 result in a determination that the proposal is not compatible.Rather,factors such as the project's design,location,height,articulation,fagade treatments and appearance,and topography also playa role in the visibility of the structure and its related size,mass and bulk. Further,although it is acknowledged that incremental increases to the average structure size within an immediate neighborhood can lead to larger structures,ultimately structure size is limited by other development standards,such as height,setbacks,lot coverage, design,and grading.Furthermore,Staff also acknowledges that neighborhoods will change,and the Neighborhood Compatibility process provides a safeguard to ensure that the change does not occur rapidly and is architecturally in line with the established character of the immediate neighborhood. In processing applications,Staff has found that the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis addresses concerns that were the basis for eliminating the maximum structure size as well as addressing the.·desire to preserve the character of •.existing neighborhoods.By assessing the scale ofthe>surrounding residences againsta residence proposing a significant expansion,Staff is able to determine whether the proposed addition or structure will result ina structure that is compatible with the character of the neighborhood or not.If it is determined that the structure is too large,Staff will require that the project be scaled down and reduced in size. Alternative 2:Explore the Establishment of a New Maximum Structure Size Requirement that addresses the concerns of the former Maximum Structure Size Requirement As mentioned above,prior to the City's current Neighborhood Compatibility process,the Development Code established a maximum structure size for single-family residences.The methodology used to establish a maximum structure size for lots prior to incorporation/annexation was·a 100-percent expansion of the original structure size or equivalent to the District open space percentage of the existing lot area,whichever is less. As illustrated in the attached Exhibit A (1997 Development Standards),for lots created after incorporation/annexation,there was a maximum size indicated for each Residential Zoning District,which was derived by multiplying the maximum lot coverage percentage by the minimum lot size for each zone,then rounding to the nearest thousand. For example,in the RS-5 Zoning District,the zone's minimum lot size (8,000sf)is multiplied by the zone's maximum lot coverage percentage (52%),and then rounded to the nearest thousand,which results in a maximum structure size of 4,000 square feet.[8,000 x .52 = 4,160,rounded to 4,000]. 4-81 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26.2010 For the RS-3 Zoning District,the zone's minimum lot size (13,000sf)was multiplied by the zone's maximum lot coverage percentage (45%),and then rounded to the nearest thousand,which results in a maximum structure size of 6,000 square feet.[13,000 x .45 = 5,850,rounded to 6,000]. As noted earlier,a concern was raised with the inequity of the Maximum Structure Size established in 1997 which resulted in its replacement with the current Neighborhood Compatibility process.The concern stemmed from the fact that the Maximum Structure Size requirement for lots created prior to incorporation/annexation did not account for the area of a lot,but rather the footprint of a structure when it was first constructed.This had the effect of penalizing .lots that were developed prior to incorporation/annexation by restricting opportunity to renovate or expand to a greater degree than lots created after incorporation/annexation.Furthermore,additional concerns with the then Maximum Structure Size was.thatit did not account for neighborhoods that were not developed as part of a larger tract with similarstructures,changes in.a family's lifestyle,and did not provide a fair.ratio of structure to lot area..•Lastly,because there were many instances where applications received by the Planning Divis.ion exceeded the maximum Structure Size requirements,many variance applications were necessary to process the requested project. Ifthe Planning Commission wishes to explore this alternative,Staff would recommend that a Maximum Structure Size be imposed that is possibly less restrictive or provides for a uniform regulation that does not differentiate based upon whether the lot was created prior to incorporation/annexation. Alternative 3:Explore the Establishment of a Floor Area Ratio The Commission may wish to consider establishing a maximum structure size that is based on a Floor Area Ratio.Meaning that for every square foot of lot area,a lot may have "x" number of total square footage. As indicated in Table NO.1 above,there are anumber of South Bay cities that use a FAR formula to limit the size of residential structures,and two that use a combination of FAR plus an additional square footage.Typically,the FAR formula is greater than 0.5,which is typical amongst cities where the minimum lot sizes are less than the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.A more comparable city is the City of Palos Verdes Estates,which regulates structure size using FAR and square footage depending on lot size.Palos Verdes Estates' FAR is either 0.3 plus 1,750 square feet,or 0.5,whichever results in a smaller square footage. Staff has reviewed the last 23 projects considered by the Planning Commission that required a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis,between January 2008 and July 2010. The Neighborhood Compatibility tables for each project are attached in Exhibit B.The 4-82 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26.2010 tables contain a column where Staff calculated the FAR for each property listed,including the resulting FARs. Based upon the information contained in these tables,it is difficult to suggest or establish a uniform FAR for the City since there is no governing trend.Thus,if the Planning Commission wishes to explore the establishment of an FAR,Staff believes that further study of this issue is necessary and that mUltiple FARs based onZoning District standards may be necessary. Alternative 4:Modify the Current Neighborhood Compatibility Process to incorporate a Floor Area Ratio or Maximum Structure Size into the Analysis If the Planning·Commission wishes to consider using either FAR ora fixed Maximum Structure Size to regulate structure size,it may want to consider incorporating such regUlation into the City's current Neighborhood Compatibility analysis.It is Staff's experience that a project can be small in size,butthe design and location of the addition may notfit the character ofthe neighborhood or may not align with the neighborhood's governing setbacks.Further,there are cases where the architecture,bulk and mass of a new residence is not in line with the character of the neighborhood.Thus,Staff believes that irrespective of whether the Planning Commission recommends the establishment of some sort ofFAR or Maximum Structure Size,it is important to maintain the Neighborhood Compatibility requirement to ensure thatprojects··blend with the immediate neighborhood character.Therefore,the Planning Commission maywantto consider modifying the City's current Neighborhood Compatibility review process to incorporate an FAR or maximum structure size as part of the review criteria. COMPARA TlVE ANAL YS/S BETWEEN FAR AND STRUCTURE SIZE As noted earlier,Staff has reviewed the 23 Planning Commission considered projects that required a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis,between January 2008 and July 2010. The tables contain a column where Staff calculated the corresponding FARs.For the 11 projects located in the RS-2 Zoning District,the average FAR for the neighborhoods ranged between 0.1 and 0.15,with one neighborhood's average being 0.28;the four projects in the RS-3 Zoning Districts had average FARs that ranged between 0.2 and 0.32;the five projects in the RS-4 Zoning Districts had averageFARs that ranged between 0.16 and 0.32;and the three projects in the RS"5 Zoning Districts had average FARs that ranged between 0.11 and 0.23.Typically,the resulting FARs were greater than the average neighborhood FAR.Based upon these figures,there is no governing pattern that could lead Staff to conclude that the FAR was greater on properties that were smaller,or vice versa. If the Planning Commission were to consider implementing a FAR formula,Staff would suggest a hybrid that uses FAR and allows for additional square footage based upon the lot 4-83 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26.2010 area.Thus a suggestion would be a Floor Area Ratio between 0.25 and 0.4 up to the minimum required lot area,with 100 to 200 square feet of additional structure size allowed for every 1,000 square feet of lot area above the minimum lot size required for the zoning district in which the residence is located.For example,a 35,000 square foot parcel located in the RS-2 zoning districtwould be allowed up to 5,000 square feet of residential structure for the first 20,000 square feet of lot area;then an additional 100 (or 200)square feet of residential structure for every 1,000 square feet of lot area above the 20,000 square foot minimum lot area.In this example the maximum structure size would be 7,500 square feet (or 8,000 square feet). The Neighborhood Compatibility tables contained in Exhibit B also contain a column of the structure sizes in the immediate neighborhood,the average structure size and the project's resulting structure size.As a whole,the average structure size in all 23 neighborhoods is 3,011 square feet.Further,the average resulting structure size for the new projects is 4,972 square feet There are new projects where the resulting structure size does not appear to be in line.with the neighborhoods,but through the Neighborhood Compatibility process,the locations,designs and otherfactorswere analyzed,resulting in the conclusion that these structures were compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Based upon Staff's experience with the many projects that have been processed by the Planning Division,it should be noted that if the Planning Commission wishes to consider using a fixed Maximum Structure Size or a Floor Area Ratio,then Staff believes that the Neighborhood Compatibility process must be retained.Staff believes that FAR can be helpful in explicitly stating the maximum size a structure can be.However,in conjunction with the Neighborhood Compatibility process,the structure size could not automatically be allowed unless it is found to be compatible with the immediate neighborhood.Thus, Neighborhood Compatibility will still govern the size of a structure,but FAR would create an absolute maximum for the property. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A maximum structure size established by FAR or by another maximum structure size requirement is quantified and provides for a size limitation.As such,there will be instances with both methods where an eXisting residential structure size will already be greater than the maximum structure size allowed,thereby resulting in legal non-conforming structures. In these instances,a property owner would be required to apply for a Variance to exceed or further exceed the maximum allowed structure size even if the project only exceeds the maximum size by 1 square foot.Such a process requires a notice and a public hearing before the Planning Commission.Further,specified findings must also be made in order to grant a Variance,which includes a material hardship finding that is difficult to make in order to justify a deviation from the Development Code. 4-84 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Floor Area Ratio (FAR) October 26.2010 CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and discuss the various alternatives for establishing a Floor Area Ratio or a different type of maximum structure size for Residential property.If the Commission believes that a formula should be used to regulate the ultimate size of a residential structure,then direct Staff to proceed with drafting an Ordinance to implement the Commission's direction and drafting the appropriate environmental documentation. ATTACHMENTS •Exhibit A -1997 Development Standards •Exhibit B -Neighborhood Compatibility tables for projects considered by the Planning Commission between January 2008 and July 2010 •Exhibit C -Councilmember Long's Staff Report dated June 1,2010 •Exhibit D -Excerpt Minutes of the June 1,2010 City Council Meeting 4-85 EXHIBIT A 1997 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4-86 I t J ':".., ~ N-00 ~o US6D e£[l.4mJ I ~~1 ~PPtJ{) TABLE 02-A:SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For cxceptions and explanatory dcsc:riptions of these standards and for other development standanIs tbat apply to single-family residential areas.ICC Adiclcs VI and VU of Ibis titIc.The number which follows an "RS·"designation indicates the maximum number of lots per acre pcnnitted in the zonc;the "KS·A"number indicates the minimum number of acres per lot permitted. DISTRICT LOT MINIMUM SETBACKSU,'MAXIMUM OPEN MAXIMUM PARKINGRE- DIMENSIONS·STRUCTURE SPACE HEIGHTJ···1.9 QUlREMENr AREA WIDTH DEPTH FRONrS INTERIOR SIDE STREET REAR SIZ~" TIL BOTH ONE SID~" SIDES SIDE RS-A5 S acres 200 300 20 30 10 20 20 N/A 94%16 less than 5,000 s.f. RS-l 1 acre 100 150 20 25 10 20 20 11.000 sf 75%16 of habitable space =2 enclosed ga- RS-2 20,000 90 120 20 20 10 20 20 8,000 sf 60%16 rage spaces sf RS-3 13,000 80 110 20 15 10 20 15 6.000 sf 55%16 5,000 s.f.or more of habitable space sf =3 enclosed ga- RS-4 10,000 75 100 20 15 10 20 15 5.000 sf 50%16 rage spaces sf RS-5 8,000 sf 65 100 20 15 10 20 15 4,000 sf 48%16 ~ I. 2. Front 20 Minimum Setbaclcs Interior Street ~Side S 10 Rear 15 Maximum Structure Size' RS District Opcn Space %of Existing Lot Area or a 100%expansion of the original structure,whichever is less 3.For description,clarification and exceptions,see Chapter 17.48 (Lots.Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height). 4.For a description ofheight measurement methods and the height variation process,see Section 17.Q2.040 ofthis chapter.A height variation application shall be referred directly to the planning commission for consideration,if any of the following is proposed;.. A.Any portion of II structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height extends closer than twenty·five (25)feet from the 'front or street-side property line.· B.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (second story footprint)cxceeds seventy-five pcrcent (75%)of the existing first story footprint area (residence and garage);and C.Sixty percent (60%)or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen (l6)feet in height (a second story). D.Based on an initial site visit.the director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter. t:"/~~- 4 - 8 7 * tv.... 00•w.... TABLE OJ·A:SINGLE·FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Continued) ~;a ~ 4 - 8 8 EXHIBIT B NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY TABLES FOR PROJECTS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BETWEEN JANUARY 2008 AND JULY2010 4-89 Final NC Table for 2700%San Ramon Drive (ZON2009-o0396) RS·2 Lot Structure Address Size Size FAR 2700 San Ramon 16,990 2,772 0.16 2701 San Ramon 142,576 2,114 0.01 2702 San Ramon 16,670 2,563 0.15 2703 San Ramon 26,260 2,196 0.08 2704 San Ramon 16,920 4,009 0.2~ 2708 San Ramon 17,300 2,339 0.14 2709 San Ramon .14,420 2,196 0.15 2714 San Ramon 14,180 2,196 0.15 2715 San Ramon 10,030 2,196 0.22 2723 San Ramon 10,520 2,634 0.25 2726 San Ramon 11,110 2,544 0.23 2727 San Ramon 33,977 2,521 0.07 2729 San Ramon 39,718 2,588 0.07 2732 San Ramon 16,440 2,196 0.13 2736 San Ramon 30,060 3,098 0.10 2742 San Ramon 11,310 2,886 0.26 2749 San Ramon 12,560 2,402 0.19 2750 San Ramon 10,450 2,106 0.20 2757 San Ramon 10,400 2,196 0.21 2758 San Ramon 10,010 2,676 0.27 Average 14,783 2,519 0.16 27001/2 San Ramon 61,860 vacant vacant Proposed 3,463 0.06 4-90 Final NC table for 2422 Colt Road (ZON2009-00367) RS-2 2404 Colt Road 16,920 2,790 0.16 2410 Colt Road 21,610 2,168 0.10 2411 Colt Road 18,770 2,272 0.12 2418 Colt Road 19,770 2,983 0.15 2426 Colt Road 17,030 3,256 0.19 2434 Colt Road 15,340 2,220 0.14 2435 Colt Road 14,420 2,900 0.20 2441 Colt Road 13,400 2,765 0.21 2447 Colt Road 15,550 3,866 0.25 2450 Colt Road 17,930 3,144 •0.18 2520 Colt Road 18,380 3,042 0.17 2532 Colt Road 16,030 3,348 0.21 2540 Colt Road 15,100 4,537 0.30 2546 Colt Road 19,660 3,308 0.17 2554 Colt Road 21,340 4,614 0.22 2560 Colt Road 40,940 4,360 0.11 2562Colt Road 22,350 3,560 0.16 2564 Colt Road 23,090 2,560 0.11 2566 Colt Road 21,870 2,660 0.12 2568 Colt Road 19,640 2,786 0.14 AVERAGE 19,457 3157 0.17 Subject Site-Existing 25,390 3,584 0.14 Subject Site-Approved 4,132 0.16 4-91 Final NC table for 43 Avenida Corona (ZON200a-00450) RS-2 32 Avenida Corona 25,244 2,720 0.11 33 Avenida Corona 21,168 5,118 0.24 34 Avenida Corona 30,000 2,500 0.08 35 Avenida Corona 24,830 2,861 0.12 36 Avenida Corona 36,040 2,406 0.07 37 Avenida Corona 23,140 2,866 0.12 38 Avenida Corona 23,090 4,722 0.20 39 Avenida Corona 25,110 2,240 0.09 40 Avenida Corona 22,090 3,018 0.14 42 Avenida Corona 29,810 2,508~0.08 431/2 Avenida Corona 20,000 4,200 0.21 44 Avenida Corona 23,430 2,460 0.10 45 Avenida Corona 21,360 2,460 0.12 46 Avenida Corona 19,760 2,660 0.13 47 Avenida Corona 18,500 4,503 0.24 48 Avenida Corona 23,470 1,885 0.08 50 Avenida Corona 27,190 2,880 0.11 55 Avenida Corona 33,930 3,870 0.11 58 Avenida Corona 25,152 4,280 0.17 59 Avenida Corona 25,180 3,525 0.14 AVERAGE 24,925 3,184 0.13 Subject Site-Existing 0 0.00 Subject Site-Approved 18,890 4,220 0.22 4-92 Final NC Table for 16 Rockinghorse Road (ZON2006-00643) RS-2 18 Rockin horse Rd.26,589 5,326 0.20 20 Rockinghorse Rd.31,240 3,075 0.10 26 Rockinghorse Rd.20,090 1,932 0.10 28 Rockinghorse Rd.23,610 2,754 0.12 29 Rockinghorse Rd.25,290 2,128 ~0.08 25 Rockinghorse Rd.27,010 2,253 0.08 23 Rockinghorse Rd.47,434 2,776 0.06 21 Rockinghorse Rd.56,147 4,354 0.08 19 Rockinghorse Rd.47,780 2,640 0.06 17 Rockinghorse Rd.49,000 3,998 0.08 15 RockinghorseRd.22,640 3,440 <0.15 13 Rockinghorse Rd.27,730 4,852 0.17 11 Rockinghorse Rd.26,470 2,642 0.10 9 Rockinghorse Rd.35,030 4,140 0.12 10 Rockinghorse Rd.42,868 4,956 0.12 14 Rockinghorse Rd.3'6,780 3,448 0.09 2801 Via EI Miro 21,780 2,741 0.13 2808 Via EI Miro 26,570 2,960 0.11 2809 Via EI Miro 19,170 3,224 0.17 2810 Via EI Miro 20,010 1,960 0.10 Avera e 31,195 3,280 0.11 Subject Site-Existing 0 0.00 Subject Site-Approved 21,853 5,852 0.27 4-93 Final NC Table for 5 Cayuse Lane (ZON2007 -00593) RS-2 1 Ca use Ln.20,020 2,360 0.12 3 Cayuse Ln.31,360 3,060 0.10 7 Cayuse Ln.20,270 2,631 0.13 9 Cayuse Ln.31,360 3,000 0.10 11 Cayuse Ln.20,750 4,051 ..0.20 13 Cayuse Ln.20,447 3,510 0.17 15 Cayuse Ln.20,470 3,925 0.19 17 Cayuse Ln.20,470 2,980 0.15 21 Cayuse Ln.20,500 3,141 0.15 28438 Cayuse Ln.20,880 3,148 0.15 22 Cayuse Ln.20,000 5,485 ~0.27 14 Cayuse Ln.25,250 2,944 0.12 6 Cayuse Ln.20,190 3,524 0.17 4 Cayuse Ln.20,304 2,697 0.13 7 Bronco Dr.22,470 2,540 0.11 6 Bronco Dr.24,120 2,938 0.12 5 Bronco Dr.20,000 3,011 0.15 2 Bronco Dr.20,440 2,520 0.12 1 Bronco Dr.36,440 3,278 0.09 27 Stallion Rd.21,930 3,213 0.15 Avera e 22,753 3,198 0.14 Subject Site-Existing 0 0.00 ite-Approved 20,140 5,381 0.27 4-94 Final NC Table for 15 Headland Drive (ZON2009-00156) RS-2 Address Lot Size Structure Size FAR 1 Headland 43,560 4,387 0.10 2 Headland 23,960 3,981 0.17 6 Headland 43,560 8,082 0.19 7 Headland 43,560 3,256 0.07 13 Headland 43,560 6,728 0.15 14 Headland 23,090 3,390 0.15 16 Headland 20,470 2,760 0.1~ 20 Headland 43,560 3,660 0.08 25 Headland 42,536 1,993 0.05 26 Headland 43,560 2,767 0.06 31 Headland 47,480 5,039 0.11 32 Headland 43,560 3,020 0.07 35 Headland 41,369 2,998 0.07 37 Headland ..43,560 4,124 0.09 49 Headland 23,960 3,114 0.13 61 Headland 43,560 2,197 0.05 67 Headland 26,120 2,324 0.09 27995 PVDE 43,560 8,646 0.20 28001 PVDE 23,520 3,034 0.13 28029 PVDE 24,390 2,904 0.12 Average 36,625 3,920 0.11 15 Headland (e)43,560 3,920 0.09 15 Headland (n)9,986 0.23 4-95 Final NC table for 6505 Palos Verdes Drive East (ZON2009.Q0437) RS-2 57 Avenida Corona 26,640 2,814 0.11 60 Avenida Corona 26,590 3,161 0.12 30404 Diamonte Lane 48,780 5,773 0.12 30468 Diamonte Lane 46,294 .6,599 0.14 3 La Vista Verde Drive 41,660 3,430 0.08 4 La Vista Verde Drive 31,670 3,972 0.13 5 La Vista Verde Drive 25,500 2,810 0.11 6 La Vista Verde Drive 23,290 2,000 0.09 7 La Vista Verde Drive 25,870 4,081 0.16 8 La Vista Verde Drive·27,720 5,151 .0.19 9 La Vista Verde Drive 21,500 2,818 0.13 10 La Vista Verde Drive 24,710 7,035 0.28 11 La Vista Verde Drive 47,480 1,952 0.04 6501 Palos Verdes Drive East .21,340 2,025 0.09 6503 Palos Verdes Drive East 27,269 2,521 0.09 6509 Palos Verdes Drive East 58,370 2,181 0.04 6513 Palos Verdes Drive East 40,510 4,811 0.12 30411 Palos Verdes Drive East 44,000 6,998 0.16 30438 Palos Verdes Drive East 39,200 1,697 0.04 30525 Plaos Verdes Drive East 43,130 0.00 AVERAGE 34,576 3,780 0.11 Subject Site-Existing 28,750 2,258 0.08 ct Site-Approved 6,674 0.23 4-96 Final NC Table for 5903 Clint Place (ZON2009-00400) RS-2 Address Lot Size Structure Size FAR 5900 Clint 11,190 2,890 0.26 5901 Clint 16,466 4,086 0.25 5905 Clint 14,906 3,192 0.21 5906 Clint 10,760 2,788 0.26 5910 Clint 7,120 2,645 0.37 5911 Clint 8,750 3,025 0.35 5916 Clint 7,297 2,737 0:~8 5917 Clint 7,830 3,318 0.42 5924 Clint 8,045 1,997 0.25 5925 Clint 7,150 2,070 0.29 5930 Clint 8,050 3,187 0.40 5931 Clint 7,040 2,006 0.28 26918 Grayslake 7,076 1,650 ·0.23 26924 Garyslake 7,888 2,238 0.28 26934 Grayslake 8,140 2,436 0.30 26944 Grayslake 7,810 2,514 0.32 5823 Finecrest 18,530 3,360 0.18 5827 Finecrest 16,600 2,831 0.17 5888 Mossbank 24,397 4,552 0.19 5901 Waukesha 16,740 3,140 0.19 Average 11,089 2,833 0.28 5903 Clint 23,287 vacant n/a Proposed 7.971 0.34 Project Denied by Planning Commission 4-97 Final NC Table for 5335 Rolling Ridge Road (ZON200a-00040) RS·2 Lot Structure Address Size Size FAR 5040 PVDN 68,816 4,342 0.06 5241 Rolling Ridoe 65,447 6,607 0.10 5251 Rollino Ridoe 58,380 6,366 0.11 5287 Rollino Ridoe 70,567 2,235 0.03 5317 Rollino Ridoe 67,815 2,661 0.04 5333 Rollina Ridoe 32,751 3,960 0.12 5375 Rolling Ridge 35,790 4,339 0.12 5383 Rollino Ridge 43,219 3,898 0.09 3470 Via Campesina 30,095 6,260 0.21 3502 Via Camoesina 50,624 3,807 0.08 3504 Via Camoesina 21,740 4,060 0.19 3508 Via Camoesina .'86,939 4,296 0.05 3476 Via Camoesina .30,293 4,048 0.13 3460 Via Camoesina 28,114 4,203 0.15 3466 Via Cam pesina 55,834 5,422 0.10 3462 Via Camoesina 31,526 3,940 0.12 3458 Via Cam pesina 33,928 4,140 0.12 3456 Via Campesina 65,351 5,060 0.08 3440 Via Camoesina 65,738 5,829 0.09 3340 Via Campesina 38,657 3,173 0.08 Average 49,081 4,432 0.10 5335 Rolling Ridge 0.10Road32,743 3,287 Proposed 8,297 0.25 4-98 Final NC table for 5321 Middlecrest Road (ZON2008-00144) RS-2 5305 Middlecrest Rd.20,890 3,186 0.15 28507 Robinview Ln.21,930 3,150 0.14 28503 Robinview Ln.19,720 3,481 0.18 28510 Robinview Ln.21,020 3,191 0.15 28518 Robinview Ln.27,680 2,309 0.08 5225 Middlecrest Rd.21,770 3,336 0.15 5219 Middlecrest Rd.28,970 4,109 0.14 5224 Middlecrest Rd.25,330 2,371 0.09 5230 Middlecrest Rd.23,770 3,360 0.14 5304 Middlecrest Rd ..19,250 2,518-0.13 5314 Middlecrest Rd."20,000 3,369 0.17 5324 Middlecrest Rd.20,069 3,159 0.16 5330 Middlecrest Rd.23,990 4,453 0.19 5336 Middlecrest Rd.20,110 2,116 0.11 5350 Middlecrest Rd.23,530 3,373 0.14 5360 Middlecrest Rd.20,300 3,595 0.18 5365 Middlecrest Rd.20,978 3,337 0.16 5353 Middlecrest Rd.21,750 3,139 0.14 5335 Middlecrest Rd.21,778 3,418 0.16 5325 Middlecrest Rd.21,510 3,561 0.17 22,121 3,194 0.15 20,198 2,785 0.14 3,824 0.19 C:\WINNnProfiles\kitf\Desktop\Final NC table for 5321 Mlddlecrest Road.doc 4-99 Final NC Table for 3450 Via Campesina (ZON2007-(0486) RS-2 3282 Via Campesina 33,110 4,677 0.14 3290 Via Campesina 51,836 7,338 0.14 3330 Via Campesina 59,240 2,366 0.04 3340 Via Campesina 21,597 3,071 0.14 3410 Via Campesina 32,670 7,225 0.22 3420 Via Campesina 33,540 3,660 0.11 3440 Via Campesina 65,780 5,829 0.09 3456 Via Campesina 38,738 5,560 0.14 3458 Via Campesina 33,977 4,140 0.12 3460 Via Campesina .28,030 4,474-0.16 3462 Via Campesina .31,450 4,160 0.13 3466 Via Campesina 55,757 5,422 0.10 3470 Via Campesina 30,310 6,070 0.20 3476 Via Campesina 30,220 4,228 0.14 3502 Via Campesina 50,530 3,865 0.08 3504 Via Campesina 21,340 3,610 0.17 5333 Rollingridge Rd.32,670 3,960 0.12 5335 Rollin rid e Rd.1 32,740 2,900 0.09 5375 Rollingridge Rd.35,618 4,586 0.13 5383 Rollingridge Rd.43,124 4,456 0.10 Avera e 37,847 4,577 0.13 Subject Site-Existing 0 0.00 Subject Site-Approved 26,613 6,683 0.25 1 In August 2008,the City Council approved (on appeal)the demolition of the existing,1-story residence at 5335 Rollingridge Road and the construction a new,8,310-square-foot 2-story residence. However,since a building permit has not yet been issued for the new residence,the previous square footage of the structure is used for the purposes of Neighborhood Compatibility Analysis. 4-100 Final NC Table for 32228 Schooner Drive (ZON2006-00631) RS-3 Lot Structure Address Size Size FAR 4021 Dauntless Drive 12,110 2,724 0.22 4022 Dauntless Drive 12,001 2,842 0.24 4102 Dauntless Drive 12,001 2,938 0.24 4107 Dauntless Drive 12,140 2,206 0.18 4114 Dauntless Drive 12,000 2,203 0.18 4121 Dauntless Drive 11,860 2,206 '~0.19 4122 Dauntless Drive 12,210 3,092 0.25 4206 Dauntless Drive 12,560 2,206 0.18 4214 Dauntless Drive 11,990 2,389 0.20 4219 Dauntless Drive 12520 2,687 0.21 4222 Dauntless Drive 12,002 2,205 0.18 4230 Dauntless Drive 12,000 2,743 0.23 4231 Dauntless Drive 12,600 2,203 0.17 4244 Dauntless Drive 12,220 3,155 0.26 4249 Dauntless Drive 14,470 2,037 0.14 32200 Schooner Drive 16,120 2,560 0.16 32203 Schooner Drive 17,830 3,498 0.20 32206 Schooner Drive 18,300 2,031 0.11 32214 Schooner Drive 13,940 2,203 0.16 32215 Schooner Drive 15,700 3,609 0.23 Average 13,329 2,587 0.20 32228 Schooner Drive 12,630 2,326 0.18 Proposed 3,312 0.26 4-101 Final NC Table for 30563 Calle de Suefios (ZON200S-00314)1 RS-3 30605 Calle de Suenos 28,050 3,989 0.14 30615 Calle de Suenos 26,900 3,729 0.14 30621 Calle de Suenos 18,420 4,687 0.25 30618 Calle de Suenos 15,538 3,077 0.20.~ 30572 Camino Porvenir 9,320 3,729 0.40 30564 Camino Porvenir 9,570 3,397 0.35 30556 Camino Porvenir 10,240 3,487 0.34 30551 Camino Porvenir 11,440 2,593 0.23 30561 Camino Porvenir 12,300 2,580 0.21 30573 Camino Porvenir 13,120 2,604<0.20 7114 Camino Pequeno '10,580 2,688 0.25 7106 Camino Pequeno 12,100 3,607 0.30 7100 Camino Pequeno 12,400 2,871 0.23 7101 Camino Pequeno 10,100 2,749 0.27 7107 Camino Pequeno 8,850 3,729 0.42 7115 Camino Pequeno 8,900 3,397 0.38 30529 Calle de Suenos 24,920 2,588 0.10 30539 Calle de Suenos 20,568 3,729 0.18 30547 Calle de Suenos 20,534 3,594 0.18 30555 Calle de Suenos 21,370 3,397 0.16 Avera e 15,261 3,311 0.25 Subject Site-Existing 2,527 0.09 Subject Site-Proposed 26,880 4,959 0.18 C:\WINNT\Profiles\kitf\Desktop\Final NC Table for 30563 Calle de Suei'ios.doc 1 This project was withdrawn by the applicant after repeated recommendations of denial by Staff. 4-102 Final NC Table for 4008 Miraleste Drive (ZON2008-00303) RS-3 Structure Address Lot Size Size FAR 4004 Miraleste Drive 12,700 4,023 0.32 4011 Miraleste Drive 12,807 4,552 0.36 4016 Miraleste Drive 11,730 1,659 0.14 4020 Miraleste Drive 11,710 1,602 0.14 4025 Miraleste Drive 8,330 3,152 0.38 4028 Miraleste Drive 12,130 1,624 ';0.13 4029 Miraleste Drive 6,782 2,284 0.34 4033 Miraleste Drive 6,785 3,798 0.56 4036 Miraleste Drive 14,500 2,331 0.16 4037 Miraleste Drive 6,785 2,816 0.42 4041 Miraleste Drive 6,785 2,968 0.44 4044 Miraleste Drive 14,500 1,871 0.13 4045 Miraleste Drive 12,620 3,385 0.27 4048 Miraleste Drive 11,600 1,721 0.15 4052 Miraleste Drive 8,700 1,640 0.19 4053 Miraleste Drive 7,120 3,196 0.45 4060 Miraleste Drive 11,890 2,115 0.18 4064 Miraleste Drive 9,580 2,930 0.31 4068 Miraleste Drive 9,200 2,250 0.24 4072 Miraleste Drive 9,200 2,100 0.23 Average 10,273 2,601 2.00 4008 Miraleste Drive 1,902 0.15 Proposed 12,420 2,590 0.21 4-103 Final NC Table for 4125 Miraleste Drive (ZON2010-o0005) RS·3 Lot Structure Address Size Size FAR 4101 Miraleste 7,860 2,002 0.25 4105 Miraleste 8,640 2,180 0.25 4109 Miraleste 8,610 2,448 0.28 4115 Miraleste 8,120 3,672 0.45 4117 Miraleste 8,060 2,371 0.29 4121 Miraleste 8,080 2,917 0~'36 4129 Miraleste 7,240 2,966 0.41 4201 Miraleste 11,420 2,245 0.20 4205 Miraleste 9,160 2,688 0.29 4209 Miraleste 7,510 1,988 0.26 4215 Miraleste 7,470 2,552 0.34 4217 Miraleste 7,800 2,785 0.36 6533 Via lorenzo 8,630 2,490 0.29 6537 Via lorenzo 8,280 1,610 0.19 6541 Via Lorenzo 8,600 3,150 0.37 6545 Via lorenzo 8,000 3,283 0.41 6549 Via lorenzo 9,530 3,326 0.35 6553 Via Lorenzo 7,800 2,884 0.37 6557 Via Lorenzo 6,870 2,702 0.39 4004 Via Vice 10,380 2,524 0.24 Average 8,403 2,639 0.32 4125 Miraleste 8,020 2,473 0.31 Proposed 3,234 0040 4-104 Final NC Table for 21 Crestwind Drive (ZON2009-G0001) RS-4 Address Lot Size Structure Size FAR 1 Crestwind Drive 19,750 5,629 0.29 2 Crestwind Drive 21,490 3,200 0.15 3 Crestwind Drive 21,500 2,908 0.14 5 Crestwind Drive 20,770 3,689 0.18 6 Crestwind Drive 20,220 3,808 0.19 7 Crestwind Drive 18,330 2,687 0.15 9 Crestwind Drive 19,240 3,103 0.16 10 Crestwind Drive 21,120 3,607 0.17 11 Crestwind Drive 18,940 2,166 0.11 14 Crestwind Drive 20,440 3,045 0.15 15 Crestwind Drive 20,310 3,066 0.15 16 Crestwind Drive 20,200 3,334 <-0.17 17 Crestwind Drive·19,600 2,608 0.13 18 Crestwind Drive 19,965 3,769 0.19 19 Crestwind Drive 21,540 2,507 0.12 20 Crestwind Drive 19,930 3,084 0.15 22 Crestwind Drive 20,510 4,196 0.20 23 Crestwind Drive 35,620 2,735 0.08 24 Crestwind Drive 20,890 3,699 0.18 25 Crestwind Drive 19,850 4,230 0.21 Average 21,011 3,354 0.16 21 Crestwind 25,690 3,685 0.14 Proposed 4,005 0.16 4-105 Final NC Table for 28926 Doverridge Road (ZON2007-o0218) RS-4 Address Lot Size Structure Size FAR 6309 Alto Circle 7,889 2,960 0.38 6310 Alto Circle 7,706 2,860 0.37 28913 Cove crest 11,540 4,121 0.36 28817 Doverridge 8,398 3,160 0.38 28825 Doverridae 8,668 2,860 0.33 28835 Doverridae 8,398 3,160 cY:38 28907 Doverridae 8,198 2,860 0.35 28912 Doverridge 13,280 2,360 0.18 28917 Doverridge 7,488 3,160 0.42 28918 Doverridae 9,540 2,210 0.23 28927 Doverridae 10,080 3,370 0.33 29004.Doverridae 13,076 2,210 "0.17 29010 Doverridae ..13,366 2,994 0.22 29020 Doverridge 14,328 2,230 0.16 29026 Doverridae 15,080 3,264 0.22 29034 Doverridge 14,295 3,180 0.22 29104 Doverridae .13,162 2,994 0.23 29105 Doverridge 9,676 3,601 0.37 6403 Parklvnn 10,920 3,567 0.33 6402 Seabrvn 10,990 2,715 0.25 Average 10,804 2,992 0.29 28926 Doverridge 9,863 4,286 0.43 Proposed 4,757 0.48 4-106 Final NC Table for 28816 Rothrock Drive (ZON2009-o0143) RS-4 Lot Structure Address Size Size FAR 28749 Cedarbluff 8,935 2,239 0.25 28803 Cedarbluff 8,474 2,510 0.30 28809 Cedarbluff 9,600 2,239 0.23 28817 Cedarbluff 8,220 .2,965 0.36 28839 Cedarbluff 9,320 2,239 0.24 28847 Cedarbluff 8,480 2,239 0.26 28723 Rothrock 10,200 2,239 0.22 28729 Rothrock 9,890 4,089 0.41 28737 Rothrock 9,280 2,239 0.24 28743 Rothrock 8,720 2,582 0.30 28803 Rothrock 8,420 1,961 0.23 28813 Rothrock <. 9,380 2,492 0.27 28822 Rothrock 7,560 1,961 0.26 28828 Rothrock 8,110 2,421 0.30 28731 Trailriders 9,540 2,239 0.23 28739 Trailriders 9,750 2,484.0.25 28805 Trailriders 10,380 3,662 0.35 28811 Trailriders 9,930 2,239 0.23 28819 Trailriders 9,500 2,092 0.22 28825 Trailriders 9,930 2,347 0.24 Average 7,831 2,486 0.26 28816 Rothrock Drive 17,180 1,848 0.11 Proposed 3,057 0.18 4-107 Final NC Table for 6930 Hedgewood Drive (ZON2006..00563) RS-4 Lot Structure Address Size Size FAR 6902 HedQewood Drive 7,705 2,077 0.27 6903 HedQewood Drive 7,350 2,627 0.36 6910 HedQewood Drive 7,901 2,631 0.33 6911 HedQewood Drive 7,245 2,631 0.36 6917 HedQewood Drive 7,245 2,385 ·0.33 6918 HedQewood Drive 7,700 2,385 0.31 6923 HedQewood Drive 7,245 2,432 0.34 6924 HedQewood Drive 7,645 3,438 0.45 6929 HedQewood Drive 7,245 2,631 0.36 6939 HedQewood Drive 7,245 2,385 0.33 7002 HedQewood Drive 7,700 2,218 0.29 7003 HedQewood Drive 7,245 2,524 . 0.35 7010 HedQewood Drive 7,700 2,564 0.33 7011 HedQewood Drive 7,245 2,575 0.36 7015 Hedgewood Drive 7,245 1,968 0.27 7016 HedQewood Drive 7,590 2,524 0.33 7024 Hedgewood Drive 7,590 2,564 0.34 7025 Hedgewood Drive 7,648 2,288 0.30 7030 Hedgewood Drive 7,900 2,828 0.36 7033 Hedgewood Drive 7,648 2,861 0.37 Average 7,117 2,521 0.32 6930 Hedgewood Drive 8,203 2,719 0.33 Proposed 4,187 0.51 4-108 Final NC Table for 4319 Palos Verdes Drive South (ZON2009-00149) RS-4 4265 Palos Verdes Dr.S.11,115 2,174 0.20 4273 Palos Verdes Dr.S.10,580 2,955 0.28 4305 Palos Verdes Dr.S.10,810 2,161 0.20 .4315 Palos Verdes Dr.S.10,465 2,154 0.21 4329 Palos Verdes Dr.S.10,580 2,430 0.23 4343 Palos Verdes Dr.S.10,500 2,156 0.21 4353 Palos Verdes Dr.S.13,090 2,217 0.17 4256 Admirable Dr.10,120 2,170 0.21 4266 Admirable Dr.10,580 3,249 0.31 4271 Admirable Dr.10,120 2,406·0.24 4276 Admirable Dr.'10,580 2,156 0.20 4281 Admirable Dr.10,580 2,476 0.23 4284 Admirable Dr.10,695 2,214 0.21 4291 Admirable Dr.10,465 2,729 0.26 4304 Admirable Dr.10,580 1,990 0.19 4305 Admirable Dr.10,350 2,161 0.21 4312 Admirable Dr.10,465 2,156 0.21 4319 Admirable Dr.12,018 2,174 0.18 4324 Admirable Dr.10,580 2,154 0.20 4332 Admirable Dr.10,580 2,452 0.23 Avera e 10,751 2,363 0.22 Subject Site-Existing 10,925 2,898 0.27 3,370 0.31 4-109 Final NC Table for 27000 Freeport Road (ZON2007 -00472) RS-5 Address Lot Size Structure Size FAR 27006 Freeport Road 8,870 2,080 0.23 27012 Freeport Road 8,430 1,813 0.22 27020 Freeport Road 8,505 1,656 0.19 27021 Freeport Road 8,410 1,549 0.18 27026 Freeport Road 8,505 3,763 0.44 27029 Freeport Road 7,860 1,802 0.23 27032 Freeport Road 9,361 2,900 0.31 27035 Freeport Road 7,800 1,764 0.23 27040 Freeport Road 11,240 1,840 0.16 27003 Wood brook Road 11,380 1,371 0.12 27007 Wood brook Road 10,000 1,813 0.18 27012 Wood brook Road 8,930 1,813 ..0.20 27013 Wood brook Road 9,130 1,813 0.20 27018 Wood brook Road 7,200 1,721 0.24 27019 Woodbrook Road 11,160 1,772 0.16 27024 Woodbrook Road 7,440 1,646 0.22 27025 Woodbrook Road 11,523 1,780 0.15 27030 Wood brook Road 7,449 2,128 0.29 27031 Wood brook Road 10,333 1,710 0.17 27037 Wood brook Road 11,610 2,305 0.20 Average 9,257 1,952 0.11 27000 Freeport 13,650 vacant 0.46 Proposed 6,275 4-110 Final NC Table for 5501 Shoreview Drive (ZON2007.00536) RS·5 Lot Structure Address Size Size FAR 26804 Basswood Ave 12,214 1,990 0.16 26810 Basswood Ave 12,267 2,006 0.16 26815 Basswood Ave 12,362 1,880 0:;.15 26822 Basswood Ave 12,438 2,006 0.16 5500 Shoreview Dr 8,050 2,170 0.27 5502 Shoreview Dr 7,900 2,089 0.26 5503 Shoreview Dr 16,420 2,348 0.14 5505 Shoreview Dr 11,270 2,610 0.23 ~. 5506 Shoreview Dr 11,460 2,410 0.21 5509 Shoreview Dr 9,040 2,173 0.24 5515 Shoreview Dr 8,550 2,292 0.27 5521 Shoreview Dr 8,100 1,731 0.21 5525 Shoreview Dr 8,910 1,898 0.21 5527 Shoreview Dr 8,760 2,309 0.26 5530 Shoreview Dr 7,670 2,006 0.26 5531 Shoreview Dr 8,860 2,353 0.27 5535 Shoreview Dr 5,730 2,375 0.41 5538 Shoreview Dr 8,114 1,731 0.21 5543 Shoreview Dr 7,320 2,275 0.31 5544 Shoreview Dr 9,750 2,004 0.21 Average 9,759 2,133 0.23 5501 Shoreview Drive 13,230 2162 0.16 Proposed 4,646 0.35 4-111 Final NC Table for 5338 Bayridge Road (ZON2008-00193) RS-5 Lot Structure Address Size Size FAR 5302 Bayridoe Road 12,135 2,578 0.21 5303 Bavridoe Road 20,260 5,593 0.28 5306 Bayridge Road 14,050 2,389 0.17 5307 Bavridoe Road 7,590 2,208 0.29 5312 Bayridoe Road 10,006 1,725 0.17 5313 Bavridge Road 9,600 2,344 0.24 5318 Bayridge Road 8,720 2,199 0.25 5319 Bavridoe Road 9,536 1,634 0.17 5325 Bavridoe Road 9,472 1,616 0.17 5328 Bayridge Road 8,270 1,703 0.21 5329 Bavridoe Road 9,472 1,793 0.19 5337 Bayridge Road 9,472 2,539 0.27 5345 Bavridoe Road 10,920 1,963 ,.0.18 5348 Bayridge Road ..8,960 1,716 0.19 5351 Bavridoe Road 12,720 2,615 0.21 5357 Bayridge Road 15,800 1,948 0.12 5402 Bayridoe Road 8,030 1,694 0.21 5405 Bayridge Road 15,111 2,684 0.18 5410 Bavridoe Road 7,800 1,725 0.22 5411 Bavridoe Road 15,980 2,081 0.13 Average 11,195 2,237 0.20 5338 Bayridge Road (Existing)7,610 1,914 0.25 Proposed 3,484 0.46 4-112 EXHIBIT C COUNCILMEMBER LONG'S STAFF REPORT DATE.D JUNE 1,2010 4-113 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MAYOR PRO TEM TOM LONG June 1,2010 Floor Area Ratios ("FAR") The purpose of this memorandum is to seek the Council's instruction to staff to study the imposition of a "floor area ratio"("FAR")limitation for residential and nonresidential zonas in the City. The size and density of residential and other structures in the City is governed by the City's ordinances..In the residential area,a number of limitations are established for various residential zones.These limitations include the neighborhood compatibility rules which limit the apparent density and mass of the home.However,these rules are enforced with reference to nearby structures.This sometimes causes difficulty if the nearby structures do not provide a good guide for suitable development on the subject property.For example,nearby structures provided no helpful guide on the Johnson project.Nearby structures were arguably also not helpful on the Nantasket property.In addition,if only the limitations of the existing codes are applied,such as hardscape coverage,setbacks,lot size and neighborhood compatibility rules,it would often be at least theoretically possible to build a very large house on a very small lot and nonetheless comply with the City's code. One of the features of the current neighborhood compatibility rules is to consider whether the newly proposed residential structure is out of proportion to other homes in the neighborhood.Of course,this means that the neighborhood compatibility rules set no upper limit.Instead,the rules look at the size of nearby structures and (typically)the new proposed structure is approved even if it is larger than any nearby structures as long as it is not hugely larger.As larger and larger structures are built,the overall average size in the neighborhood increases and the size of a home that would be approved under the neighborhood compatibility rules in the future increase as well.In a sense,the neighborhood compatibility rules do not set any upper limit on density,they simply slow the pace by which the neighborhoods become more dense.I have proposed at various times that we do computer modeling to see what neighborhoods will look like once all of the homes in the neighborhood are bu.ilt out to the maximum density allowed under our existing codes.This is the direction we are headed in (unless we change the rules)and yet there has been up to now no interest in studying the topic.The City seems to have no final view of what the ultimate density of the development in the City should be. 4-114 Floor Area Ratios (FAR) May 18,2010 Page 2 of2 I request that the council instruct staff to research and prepare a staff report to consider alternative FAR restrictions for residential and/or nonresidential zones within Rancho Palos Verdes.The research should include looking at FAR regulations adopted in other comparable cities.I believe there are FAR regulations in Palos Verdes Estates and Del Mar,for example. Attachments Typical Definition of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Staff Responses to questions from Mayor Wolowicz when the item was on the Council's April 18 agenda Comments from Planning Commissioner Jeff Lewis when the item was on the Council's May 18 agenda 4-115 The Floor Area Ratio (FAR)or Floor Space Index (FSI)is the ratio of the total floor area of buildings on a certain location to the size of the land of that location,or the limit imposed on such a ratio. The Floor Area Ratio is the total building square footage (building area)divided by the site size square footage (site area). As a formula:Floor Area Ratio =(Total covered area on all floors of all buildings on a certain plot)/(Area of the plot) Thus,an FSI of 2.0 would indicate that the total floor area of a building is two times the gross area of the plot on which it is constructed,as would be found in a multiple-story building. SOURCE:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor Area Ratio 4-116 Carfree Cities .FAR Explained A FAR of 1.0 The illustration above shows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR)of 1.0.This simply means that,if the area of the plot is 100 square meters,then 100 square meters of gross floor area has been built on the plot. The illustration above shows a 4~story building covering 1/4 of the site,giving a FAR of 1.0.Four floors of 25 square meters each are built on a site of 100 square meters. The reference design for carfree cities is based on a FAR of 1.5. Here are some ways to get to a FAR of 1.5: •Build a 2~story bUilding on 75%of the site (2 x 0.75 =1.5) •Build a 3~story bUilding on 50%of the site (3 x 0.5 =1.5) •Build a 4~story building on 37.5%of the site (4 x 0.375 =1.5) It will be noted that a FAR of 1.5 is quite high,although this density is not unusual in Venice or central Paris,and is considerably exceeded in most of Manhattan.It requires 4-story buildings and narrow streets with modest interior courtyards.(Higher buildings would leave more room for streets and gardens,but buildings higher than 4 stories are not desirable because they are expensive to construct and unpleasant to live in.) -----a -_ SOURCE:http://www.carfree.com/far.html 4-117 RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO:Joel Rojas and Ara Mihranian FROM:Steve Wolowicz CC:Carolyn Lehr DATE:April 18,2010 SUBJECT:CC meeting 4·20·10 item #12 Floor Area Ratios QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Joel and Ara, In order to understand the history of this topic it will be helpful for the Council to have two items for our meeting: 1.A brief summary of any comments during the Residential Standards Update Committee mee!ings or by the Planning Commission There was no formal recommendation on the FAR issue that came out of the Committee's work.Likewise,there was no discussion of the issue by the Planning Commission when it recently reviewed the Committee's recommendations.In reviewing the Committee minutes,Staff found no discussion of establishing an FAR but did find that the Committee discussed the possibility of re-establishing a maximum structure size for each lot (in the late 1990's the City enacted an ordinance that set a maximum structure size for a residential lot that was eventually repealed in 2000).The Committee concluded that re-establishing a maximum structure size was not warranted.A copy of the minutes from that discussion is attached. 2.Staff comments on their current assessment of any recent problems encountered by Staff or the Planning Commission indicating a need for such revisions. Staff will be prepared to answer questions from council members on this issue. Thanks, Steve Page 1 of 1 C:IDocumenls and SeltlngslcarlamlLocal SeltlngslTemporary Internet FlieslOLK4511cc meeting 2010 04·20 #12 floor area ratios (4).doc 4-118 ADOPTED:JULY 25,2005 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING July 11,2005 CALL TO ORDER Councilman Wolowicz called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.The meeting was held at the City Hall Community Room,30940 Hawthorne Boulevard. ROLLCALL Present: Absent: Councilman Wolowicz,Planning Commissioners Gerstner and Perestam, Committee Members Karp,Dyda,and Slayden. Councilman Long,Commissioner Mueller and Committee Members Cartwright,Lyon,and Denton. Also present was Senior Planner Mihranian. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the Agenda,seconded by Committee Member Karp. Without objection,the Committee approved the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee ifthere'were any changes to the June 13, 2005 draft minutes. Senior Planner mentioned that Committee Member Dyda submitted some minor editorial changes. Committee Member Slayden moved to adopt the amended June 13,2005 minutes, seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed without objection. CONTINUED BUSINESS Councilman Wolowicz introduced the next agenda item Review and Update the Committee Meeting Calendar.He noted that as previously discussed the plan is to ~~;~ 4-119 wrap matters up by December 31,2005 and therefore the Committee would have to work at an accelerated rate.He mentioned that additionally meetings have been added to the calendar. Senior Planner Mihranian added that the calendar no longer follows the typical meeting schedule of the second Monday of each month.The meetings dates are now staggered,but do not fall on a Monday before a Council meeting as originally requested by the co-chairs.He noted that the next meeting is scheduled for Monday,July 25. Councilman Wolowicz asked that the updated calendar be included in the next agenda packet and for Committee members to notify Staff immediately if they cannot attend a meeting. Committee Member Dyda moved to adopt the updated Meeting Calendar, seconded by Committee Member Karp. The motion passed without objection. Councilman Wolowicz asked for any comments on the next agenda item Committee Task List.. Senior Planner Mihranian explained that the Committee Task List before the Committee this evening was updated based on past Committee actions.He noted that Staff has been scheduling agenda topics based on the original list developed by the Committee at the beginning of its tenure. Councilman Wolowicz asked the Committee if any topic items should be removed or added from the list. Committee Member Dyda asked Staff about the items that were identified as Citywide topics at the last meeting during the discussion on the Eastview Overlay District. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the items identified as Citywide items are included in the list for future discussion. Committee Member Karp asked about the item regarding increasing the Front Yard Open Space Requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the item is under the Lot Coverage discussion scheduled for discussion at the July 25th meeting. Councilman Wolowicz asked that Staff identify it on the list. Senior Planner Mihranian informed the Committee that the November i h meeting has been set aside for the neighborhood presentation on the Eastview Overlay District. ~Y11?~~ge2of11 4-120 Commissioner Perestam raised a concern regarding topics that have not been introduced to date,such as uphill views,sloping lot step requirement,and architectural features,and whether additional time would be needed.He added that he fears the Committee will end up taking on a topic that is more complex than originally anticipated. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that the calendar is designed to address items that get continued from one meeting to another. Councilman Wolowicz noted that if the Committee identifies an item that is bigger than its scope,the Committee should decide at the time of discussion whether to set that topic aside for discussion by the City Council or the Planning Commission.He prefers to see those items remain on the topic list.He also suggested that Staff update the calendar to account for some carryover items. Committee Member Dyda moved to accept the updated Committee Task List and corresponding Calendar,as amended,seconded by Committee Member Slayden. The motion passed without objection. ~11,20~Page 3 of 11 4-121 JUIY11~ 4-122 Commissioner Gerstner seconded the motion. The motion passed without objection. J 1---2895pa~e50f11~ 4-123 Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to introduce the next agenda topic on Second Story Setbacks. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that this item was originally raised asa Staff concern because projects were taking too long to process and were costing property owners too much money·because of the numerous revisions needed to incorporate the adequate amount of articulation.He stated that the concept of a second story setback was originally presented to the Committee during the discussion on setbacks.He mentioned that the concept was re-introduced during the discussion on the Eastview Overlay district.Based on the Committee's last meeting,direction was given to Staff to further evaluate this concept on a Citywide scale for consideration at tonight's meeting. Mr.Mihranian presented the Committee with a table that outlines Second Story Setback requirements for various residential tracts within the City such as Ocean Front Estates, Seacliff Hills,Seabreeze and Ocean Trails.He briefly explained the respective criteria listed on circle pages 22 and 23.He mentioned that establishing a second story setback would essentially prOVide a starting point rather than a box. CouncilmanWolowicz referred to an appeal that was.heard by the City Council recently were the term articulation was mentioned on several occasions.He asked Staff if there is a glossary definition of articulation. Senior Planner Mihranian responded that there is a definition of articulation on page 28 of the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook.He then stated that it is not defined in the Development Code. CouncilmanWolowicz asked if the definition should be included in the Development Code. Commissioner Gerstner noted that the glossary definition of articulation is unique to the way he would define articulation because the City refers to it as massing.He stated that to him articulation is more focused on the detail of a building fa<;ade,such as window molding,shutters or eaves to name a few,not so much as the massing of facades.He referred to the inappropriate use of the word bulk in the Development Code in the context meaning a large mass.He prefers the use of the word mass. Committee Member Karp would like the term articulation to be better defined.She thinks the Code should be clear as to where the starting point should begin aside from a square box.She thinks the clearer the Code is the better understood it is. Committee Member Dyda agrees and would like to better define the term articulation because it gives a better meaning to people who are referring to it.He referred to the various criteria and explained how they are inconsistent and may lead to confusion. 4-124 Commissioner Perestam believes second story setbacks ties with the open space and view preservation discussion.He mentioned that he believes in the concept of articulation and that it should be better defined. Committee Member Slayden mentioned that he did not like the 25-foot setback requirement because it is too restrictive.He cited examples where such a setback would not be appropriate,such as Spanish Colonial homes.He prefers articulation to remain as a Neighborhood Compatibility matter. Commissioner Gerstner stated that there are numerous homes that are compatible with the neighborhood that do not have a second story setback.It is a look that corresponds to a certain architectural style and requiring a setback would be too prohibitive where neighborhood compatibility allows flexibility.He stated that Neighborhood Compatibility is an effective tool in getting the appropriate amount of articulation.We are looking for a way to avoid larger soUd masses. Committee Member Slayden asked if the City has a second story setback requirement. Senior Planner Mihranian responqed no,but stated that certain tracts have criteria that regulate the size of the second story through the conditions of approval for the tract. Councilman Wolowicz asked there are three alternatives to consider:1)A quantitative requirement,2)a conceptual definition on articulation,or 3)a combination of the two. Commissioner Perestam mentioned that in terms of the quantitative alternative there are two additional options to consider:1)An exact number,which leaves no flexibility, and 2)A percentage,that provides more flexibility as to where the articulation is to be placed. Committee Member Dyda stated that regardless there should be a preamble that explains the intent with suggested guidelines. Committee Member Karp raised a concern with new construction that takes on the shape of a box with minimal articulation referring to homes in Beverly Hills that are changing the character of the area. Councilman Wolowicz asked how she would respond to his earlier questions. Committee Member Karp felt that a combination of an absolute number along with a conceptual requirement would be most effective. Committee Member Slayden believes that concept of articulation should be addressed by Neighborhood Compatibility. Committee Member Dyda believes that articulation should be addressed in the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook with a preamble. d'Y 11 ,20OS.i~age70f113 4-125 Senior Planner Mihranian proposed that rather than adopting a specific Development Standard to address articulation that the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook be amended to further define articulation and provide suggestions. Councilman Wolowicz added that the Handbook should provide an explanation on.the intent of articulation. Commissioner Gerstner suggested that the language be written to provide guidance to a property owner as to what articulation is and how it will be analyzed. Commissioner Perestam does not believe a hard number can be assigned to second story setbacks without having a structure size limitation.He referred to how structure size is addressed by Neighborhood Compatibility and so should second story setbacks. He would like this issue to be addressed under Neighborhood Compatibility. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook already addresses the intent of articulation and that the concept can be further clarified. Committee Member Dyda stated that when referring to second story setbacks there should be some form of relief between the lower and upper levels. Committee Member Karp suggested that the glossary definition of articulation within the Neighborhood Compatibility handbook should be redefined. Councilman Wolowicz directed Staff to work with Commissioner Gerstner to further clarify the intent of articulation in the Neighborhood Comjatibility Handbook.He then asked that this be the first item on the upcoming July 25 agenda for Committee consideration.He then introduced the next agenda item on Balancing Open Space and View Preservation. Senior Planner Mihranian briefly explained the genesis of this topic stating that the intent was to provide property owners with an incentive,such as,increased lot coverage allowance if they decide to build outward rather than upward in cases of potential view impairment and vice versa.He added that the City Attorney believes the incentive is already built into the process through the Minor Exemption application and would only have to be expanded to include such projects.He indicated that Staff is seeking Committee direction on this agenda topic. Councilman Wolowicz asked where open space is referred to in the Development Code. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that open space is implied through setback and front yard landscape requirements. Councilman Wolowicz then spoke on view preservation stating that the Development Code requires a Height Variation application for projects above the permitted height 4-126 limit.He then stated it is at that time when the issue of view impairment is addressed (and the decision makers work with the property owner to mitigate view blockage,stating that the decision makers can decide to increase the lot coverage allowance to address view impacts. Committee Member Slayden noted that an incentive exists under the City's View Ordinance. Committee Member Dyda agreed stating that the View Ordinance already addresses this matter and does not believe this should be changed because the incentive is already in place. Committee Member Slayden moved that the Development Code and the View Ordinance not be changed to address incentives as stated in Agenda Item No.5, the motion was seconded by Committee Member Dyda. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Wolowicz asked for ~ew Business. Senior Planner Mihranian indicated that there was no New Business to report. PUBLIC COMMENTS Councilman Wolowicz asked for any public comments. Madeline Ryan introduced herself asa resident and member of the City's Equestrian Committee.She mentioned that she is at tonight's meeting because the Equestrian Committee (Committee)is concerned about the loss of horse property in the City with today's housing trend.She explained the Committee's proposal stating that a property within the Q-District that is 15,000 square feet or larger would be required to set aside 800 square feet for the keeping of large domestic animals.She then discussed some exceptions to the proposal·and stated that the intent is not to prohibit development but rather to protect property for horse keeping.She then briefly recapped the process the Committee has been through with the City to initiate the possibility of amending the Development Code so that properties in the City's Q-district overlay district would preserve area within each lot for horse keeping.She indicated that this concept is not new and that it currently exists in the City of Rolling Hills and Rolling hills Estates.She mentioned how the Committee presented its proposal to the City Council and to the Planning Commission.She said the Planning Commission couldn't support the proposal and suggest~d that the Committee present its proposal to the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee,which is why she is here this evening. She requested that the Committee place her item for discussion on a future agenda. Councilman Wolowicz asked for comments from the two Planning Commissioners who heard this item when it was presented to them earlier this year. 4-127 Commissioner Gerstner indicated that the Commission was looking for statistical data that documented how many properties within the Q-district are developed in a manner that precludes horse keeping.He stated that the Commission raised a concern that 800 square feet was too large of an area to be dedicated for horse keeping when you consider that average size of a lot minus the setbacks and structure footprint.He stated that if a property owner wants to maintain horses on their property and there is not enough undeveloped land on their lot,if they really want it they would modify their lot, such as demolish certain improvements,to accommodate an area for horse keeping. He emphasized that requiring land to be set aside for horse keeping was too prohibitive to property owners and that it eliminates choices property owners can make. Ms.Ryan stated that in her belief this is an issue of compatibility and if properties in the Q-District do not maintain area for horse keeping then the properties that do have horses will be considered incompatible. Committee Member Dyda shared a similar concern with Commissioner Gerstner reiterating that 800 square feet is too restrictive when you start subtracting out setbacks, setbacks for horse keeping,and the building footprint,you then have restricted the developable area on a lot.. Ms. Ryan mentioned there is a hardship clause for such cases. Committee Member Dyda responded that once you provide people with an out people will abuse it.He said that the Q-District ordinance exists to be permissive. Committee Member Slayden asked where the Q-Districts are in the City. Ms. Ryan mentioned that there are four areas:Portuguese Bend,Ridgecrest area, North of1he Library off Palos Verdes Drive East,and Via Cam pesina. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is any statistical information on possible changes to the Q-District that may have occurred in the past that has resulted in adverse impacts to the properties in this area. Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that it was his belief that the Q-District has not undergone any Code changes and that Ms.Ryan's concern is most likely based on the current housing trends. Councilman Wolowicz asked if there is information on how many lots have been developed in a manner that no longer allows for horse keeping. Ms. Ryan stated she is aware of four at this time.She stated that there are approximately 1500 lots within the Q-District. 4-128 Senior Planner Mihranian stated that the City does not have that kind of data readily available and that it would be quite difficult to ascertain that information without having to survey each property within the Q-District. Councilman Wolowicz reiterated Commissioner Gerstner's earlier comment that a property owner who wants to keep horses will decide how to improve their property accordingly and that reserving a portion of a property for horse keeping is what would ultimately occur under this proposal.He then asked the Committee if they would like to make a decision tonight or would like to see this on a future agenda. The Committee agreed that this item should not be placed on a future agenda. Mr.Tom Redfield briefly spoke on his purpose for attending this evening's meeting.He expressed how important Neighborhood Compatibility is for the City and how the composition of this Committee with representatives from the City Council,Planning Commission and the community bring valuable insight to the topics being discussed. ADJOURNMENT Committee Member Dyda moved to adjourn the meeting. Committee Member Perestam seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. 4-129 Page 1 ofl Carla Morreale From:Jeffrey Lewis Deff@jefflewislaw.com]. Sent:Friday,May 14,20101 :20 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:Joel Rojas SUbject:Floor Area Ratio -May 18,2010 Meeting Agenda Item No.12 Honorable Members of the the City Council, Agenda item number 12 for next Tuesday's meeting includes a request by Mayor Pro Tern Long to instruct staff to incorporate a floor area ratio (FAR)in our neighborhood compatibility process.Mr. Long's request has merit.My experience on the planning commission has revealed numerous instances where residents believed they had a "by right"ability to build,they expended hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop a project and then are later told by the planning commission (sometimes years later) that their project is not compatible with the neighborhood.AFAR would be an additional and objective tool that a resident and city planner can use together at the outset of a project,before significant sums are invested,to make sure a proj ect is feasible.This would prevent frustration by our residents and save countless hours of staff time. A range of FAR's could be developed: •Smaller projects within a lower FAR range could bypass planning commission review of the neighborhood compatibility process. •Moderate projects within a middle FAR range could require planning commission review but with a presumption of compatibility. •Larger projects at the high end of the FAR range would required planning commission review but would be presumed not compatible and the applicant would have to overcome that presumption at the planning commission. At the end of the day,a FAR system would remove some of the subjective and unpredictable elements of our current development approval process.For this reason,I believe that aFAR system is worth further study and urge you to allow staff to proceed to prepare a presentation. Best regards, Jeffrey Lewis Attorney at Law Office:609 Deep Valley Drive,Suite 200,Rolling Hills Estates,CA 90274 Mail:P.O.Box 3201,Palos Verdes Peninsula,CA 90274 Tel.(310)265-4490 Fax.(310)872-5389 E-Mail:Jeff@JeffLewisLaw.com Web:www.JeffLewisLaw.com 5/14/2010 4-130 EXHIBIT D EXCERPT MINU.TES OF THE JUNE 1,2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4-131 The motion passed with the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Campbell,Long,Misetich,Stern,and Mayor Wolowicz None . None Floor Area Ratios Mayor Pro Tem Long moved,seconded by Mayor Wolowicz,to waive the staff report and hear speaker comments on the matter. Without objection,Mayor Wolowicz so ordered. Ken Dyda,Rancho Palos Verdes,stated that the use of Floor Area Ratio is only one approach to residential development and remodeling,and should not be the only criteria used in determining development.He suggested the use of a simple computer generated envelope model projection of the effect of the various criteria could help identify the possible end result of the project,noting that the probJem of development creep over time seems to be the primary issue. Mayor Pro Tern Long agreed with the comments of Mr.Dyda and stated that he brought this item forward for Council discussion because of the issue of gradual size creep in neighborhoods.He noted that if there was Council support in the possible adoption of the use of Floor Area Ratio criteria,staff could be directed to take the matter to the Planning Commission for review. Council discussion ensued. Mayor Pro Tern Long moved,seconded by Councilman Campbell,to direct staff to present the issue of Floor Area Ratio to the Planning Commission for its independent review and recommendation to be brought back to the Council for its consideration. The motion passed with the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Campbell,Long,and Misetich Stern and Mayor Wolowicz None Height Variation Permit View Findings Mayor Pro Tern Long provided a brief staff report regarding the item. Council and staff discussion ensued. City Council Minutes June 1,2010 Page 13 of 16 4-132 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (EXCERPTS)FOR THE OCTOBER 26,2010,JANUARY 11,2011,AND JANUARY 25,2011 MEETINGS. 4-133 Commissioner Knight asked staff iftheyhad considered the view impact by the pop outs,or if the pop outs are below sixteen feet in height. Associate Planner Mikhail explained that the pop outs are.below the sixteen foot height limit and th~refore no view analysis is required. Commissioner Tetreault aSked staff if they have done a neighborhood compatibility analysis,especially in regards to these pop outs being so close to the property line. Associate Planner Mikhail answereo that staff diq notlook at other properties in the neighborhood to see how close they were to the side property lines.She noted that a survey is done using the aerial photograph to get a general idea of how close various homes are to their property Hnes. The motion to continue.the public hearing to December 14th was approved,(6-1) with Vice Chairman Tomblin dissenting. 2.Floor Area Ratio Code Amendment Senior Planner Schonborn presented the staff report,giving a brief background of how structure size is determined on any particular lot in the City and why staff has brought this code amendment before the Commission.He discussed neighborhood compatibility and what triggers a neighborhood compatibility analysis.He noted that currently there is no maximum structure size stated in the code,as structure size is determined by neighborhood compatibility.He explained what a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is and how it is calculated.He also showed how other cities in the South Bay area determine their structure size.He explained the alternatives identified in the staff report for the Commission to consider if they fellan FAR or some type of structure size limitation is warranted. Commissioner Emenhiser referred to staff's table showing how the different cities det~rmine maximum structure size,and asked staff which city they felt was the most restrictive. Senior Planner Schonborn felt that Palos Verdes Estates is the most restrictive, followed by EI Segundo and Lomita. Commissioner LeWis stated that his reading of the staff report is that when this item goes before the City Council,staff will be recommending firstto keep the status quo and second,if anything is changed,that neighborhaodcompatibility be keptin place with the aodition of SOme type of FAR He asked staff if that was a fair interpretation. Senior Planner Schonborn answered that is a fair assesSlllent.However he added that he was not sure staff would necessarily recommend keeping the status quo.He noted that staffwould be flexible with a recommendation from the Commission to keep the neighborhood compatibility analysis along with adding some type of maximum structure Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 7 4-134 size.He explained that staff feltthat neighborhood compatibility needs to be maintained,as it does much more than determining a.structure size. Commissioner Emenhiser discussed the issue of structure size and how new houses in the City are slowly getting biggerand bIgger.He also noted sitpations in mixed neighborhood Where developers want to be compatible with the largest structures in the neighborhood.He questioned how the City can give homeoWners and developers some guidance and objective standards to match the subjective standards in place now, which is neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Tetreault questioned if the City were to adopt some type of FAR to go along with neighborhood compatibility standards,if we would find that some of the applications that the City has approved would have been rejected as exceeding some type of reasonable.FAR.He questioned if structure size is a problem or if this is a discussion to just do something different. Senior Planner Schonbom answered that in lOOking at past projects that were approved by the Planning Commission staff was not.able to determine if some of these projects would not have been approved using the FAR.He explained that there are so many other factors to take Into account,such as neighborhood compatibility and how much of the structure can be seen from the street,and staff was notable to say how the Commission would have decided if an FAR formula was used in its analysis. Commissioner Tetreault stated there are many lots in the City that are not pad lots,and asked staff how the City would deal with an FAR on a lot zoned RS-1 but the buildable area on the lot may be very small and eqUivalent in size to an RS-5 zoned lot. Senior PlannerSchonborn explained that the true FAR would look at the lot in its entirety and would not take out the unbuildabl.e portion of the lot He stated that the Commission could make adjustments to the FAR to consider the net lot area,which would eXclude areas of the lot that cannot be built on. Chairman Gerstner felt that an FAR could be considered a very blunt tool that says generally On a certain size property you can build a structure ota certain size, However,neighborhood compatibility is a very sharp tool that can be used to really define the size of a structure.He felt this suggestion was to take a very sharp tool and improving it by adding a blunt part to it.He was not sure this would really help the City in its decision making. Commissioner Lewis saw three problems with the current neighborhood compatibility process.The first was the creep process;noting that with each large home approved it opens the door for an even larger home in the neighborhood to be approved in the future.The second problem has to do with being able to give home owners or developers,When theY first approach the City,some objectives as to the extremes of the envelope that they can build.He noted the many times projects are brought before the Commission with a recommendation of denial by staff because of the size of the Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 PageS 4-135 structure.The third problem he saw with the neighborhood compatibility process is the cost.He noted that it is expensive for the applicant as well as expensive for the City in terms of staff time.He felt that the City owes it to an applicant that when they come to the Planning Department counter to give them some sort of certainty at the beginning of the process as to what the reasonable range is in regards to the size of a proposed building. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed that there needs to be a subjective standard,which is c~rrently in place,and an objective standard so that the City can give potential developers some idea of what it possible to build in the selected neighborhood. Commissioner Tetreault C(i!utioned that by stating what the City thinks is the maximum structure size,it could give the community the impression that anytime they are below that maximum that it is approved by right.He questioned whether in this situation an FAR would work againstthe City. commissioner Leon stated that attempting to limit mansionization within RanCho Palos Verdes is a laudable goal j and trying to minimize the creep in terms of larger and larger houses on 100 percent oHhe lots is a good thing.However,he did not feel that floor area ratio was the right tool to useWithih this city.He suggested using some type of formula that is related to the average size house in the neighborhood. Commissioner Emenhiser noted that alternative No.4 in the staff report suggests modifying the current neighborhood compatibility standards and incorporate a FAR.He felt this allows for more balance when discussing structure size in a given neighborhood. Commissioner Lewis stated that he was not necessarily married to the term "floor area ratio".He would like to see some objective measure,and did not think that any analysis tied to the twenty closest homes helps the Commission in terms of the creep problem. A neighborhood compatibility analysis does not teH an applicant what can be built on a property sine theqnalysis is not done untUafter the application i~submitted. Commissioner Knight stated that he would like to know,under the current regulations,if someone were to build out a piece of property to the absolute maximum,what that FAR ratio would be.He questioned if our current regulations already set a maximum size home,and asked staff if they had done any such CinalysIs. SenIor Planner Schon born answered that staff has not done any such analysis. Commissioner Knight felt that an FAR would most likely work best ona flat,uniform lot or on a commercial lot.However,many lots in this City have unbuHdable extreme slopes and are not uniform.In these instances the FAR would allow for a structure very much out of character with the existing homes.He felt that using an FAR would not be impossible but the City would have to impose a lot of special exceptions and look at all of the circumstances to make this a fair and equal process. Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 9 4-136 Commissioner Emenhiser suggested reporting to the City Council that the Planning Commission will look at alternative No.4 in the staff report and that as part of the Commission's delIberations they will begin to track the floor area ratios.In that way, after possibly a year of this type of tracking,the Commission may have more and better information to continue this discussion and to make an ultimate recommendation to the City CounciL Commissioner Knight felt it would be helpful,when looking at a new project and discussing neighborhood compatibility,if staff could identify any larger than average hornes in the neighborhood and explain why that structure is out of line with the average structure size in the neighborhood. Chairman Gerstner added that he would like to know which homes,since the introduction of neighborhood compatibility,have been built so that it could be easier to identify which neighborhoods actually have a problem.He felt this would allow the Commission to understand how neighborhood compatibility is failing in those neighborhoods and why. Senior Planner Schonborn felt that staff could compile a list of properties approved by the Planning Commission that went through the neighborhood compatibility review process and have been develOPed. Commissioner Tetreault noted that with the wide variety of neighborhoods in·this City,a subjective review is very much needed,including looking at the totality of the application and the circumstances surrounding everything about the application. Vice Chairman Tomblin understood the comments that it would be very helpful to go to the Planning Department "Yith a proposed project and have some guidance as to what can and can't be built on a lot in terms of structure size.However,he felt that while neighborhood compatibility may not be the best system,he felt that it has allowed neighborhoods within the City to define what they want their neighborhood to look like. He wasn't sure that the system currently used by the City is broken and needed to be fixed. Commissioner Lewis clarified that whateVer recommendation is sent to the City Council he felt itwas important that the Planning Commission maintain its ability to have discretion in terms of design elements,apparent bulk and mass.and articulation.In that way if a resident carne before the Commission with a proposal thatwas within the actual square footage,but the Commission felt it was too bulky ortoo massive for that neighborhood.the Commission would still have the discretion to deny the project. However.he felt an objective element was also needed in the neighborhood compatibility process.He favored the idea ofa field study showing photographs of past projects approved by the Planning Commission.as suggested by the Chairman. Planning Commission Minutes octob.sr 26,2010 Page 104-137 Senior Planner Schon born stated he would compHeandemail the information requested by the Commission,and suggested continuing the discussion to the meeting of January 11,2011.The Commission agreed. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 3.Pre-Agenda for the meeting on November 9,2010 The Commission reviewed and ~pproved the Pre~Agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes October 26,2010 Page 11 4-138 2.Height Variation.Grading Permit and Extreme Slope Permit(Case No. ZON2009·00170):51 Rockinghorse Road Associate Planner Mikhail presented the staff report.giving a background of the project and the need for the various permits.She explained the current revised plan and how it differed from the original submittal.She noted that the City Geologist has reviewed and approved the current revised scope of work.She stated staff was able to make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the Height Variation.Grading Permit,and Extreme Slope Permit. Commissioner Knight stated that American Geotechnical prepared a report for one of the .neighbors and asked if the City Geologist reviewed that report.• Associate Planner Mikhail answered that the City Geologist did not review that report. Frank Colaruotolo (applicant)stated he was available for any questions. Commissioner Leon asked Mr.Colgruotolo if he was in agreement with staff's recommendations. Mr.Colaruotolo answered that he was in agreement with staff's recommendations. Rich Telford stated he is an architect representing the Mr.and Mrs.Graf at 66 Rockinghorse Road.He stated that he and the Graf's are in support of the project as currently submitted,noting their concerns had been in regards to safety. Commissionerteon stated that it W<;iS his lJnderstanding from the staff report that the grade that is abutting the retaining wall that affects the Grafs will remain the same.He asked Mr.Telford if that is also his understanding. Mr.Telford answered that was his understanding. Commissioner Knight moved to adopt PC Resolution 2011·02 thereby approving the Height Variation,Grading Permit,and Extreme Slope Permit as recommended by staff,seconded by Commissioner Leon.Approved,(4-1)with Vice Chairman Tomblin dissenting. 3,Floor to Area Ration (FAR)Review Commissioner Emenhiser questioned if it would be better to table or continue this item to a meeting when Commissioner LeWis is in attendance. The Commissioner agreed to discuss the item and continue the item to a future date so Commissioner Lewis can give his input. Planning Commission Minutes January 11.2011 Page 84-139 Senior Planner Schon born presented the staff report,explaining that since th~last hearing on this item staff has provided the Commission with a list of properties where structures were constructed sInce November 2002 where the Commission had a say on it and a neighborhood compatibility component was included.He also noted that additional information with regards to lat coverage was distributed as part of late correspondence.He reviewed this information with the Planning Commission,He noted the large range on the chart and stated that this bolsters staff's assessment that there is na goverhing themear pattern as·farasstructure·sizein different zaning districts.He also explained that staff did not feel,in looking at the properties and the processing of applications over the years,that there was a huge issue with develapment being out of control.Staff also feels that the neighborhood compatibility process does allaw for property owners to improve their properties without being limited to structure size and allows the City and staff the flexibllityto assess bulk and mass issues.He stated that staff was recommending the Commission qisCLiss the information presented and ultitnately direct staff to proceed down the appropriate path.He also noted a chart distributed to the Commission that Was prepared by Commissioners Knight and Leon. Commissioner Leon explained that he and Commissioner Knight drove by as many houses on the list as possible and tried to determine if the house looks big for the neighborhood or if it laoks consistent With the neigh borhood,and how that compare to lot size.He explained they were looking for correlation between a house that has a small lot coverage and if the house looked small on the lot,and a house with large lat coverage if they all looked big on the loi.He stated that their conclusion is there is no correlation;and therefore a numeric solution may not exist.He noted that what seemed to make houses look too big were ones that did not have sufficient side yard setbacks" CommissIoner Knight referred to staff's chart and asked if the structure size inclUdes the garage and accessory structures. Senior Planner Schonhorn answered that the number is inclusive of the garage and accessory struotures. Commissioner Leon stated that the neighborhoodcompatibHity process is relatively undefined in terms of the envelope that an owner or developer can use for developing their house.He asked staffifthey have received complaints from owners or developers in regards to the lack of definition in this regards. Director Rajas explained that he ocCasionally will meet with frustrated applicants,and that their frustration stems from the lack of a defined number that they can use in their development. Senior Planner Schonborn added that while there may be some frustration,the planning staff is extremely helpful to applicants while they go through the neighborhood compatibility process.He also noted that this Chart does not encompass all neighborhood compatibility decisions only new houses or tear down and rebuilds. Planning Commission Minutes January 11,2011 Page 9 4-140 Director Rojas agreed and explained that in the past there was more frustration,which prompted the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook.He explained that the Handbook helps explain the process and gUide the applicant,and for the most part has helped the applicant a great deal.He also noted that most decisions on projects that trigger neighborhoodcompatibiJity are made at the Director level and only a small percentage of these projects are heard by the Planning Commission. The Planning CommIssion unanimously agreed to continue this item to the meeting of January 25,2Q11 . PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.Height Variation;Grading Permit and Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON2010- 00328):30629 Palos Verdes Drive East Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report,explaining the scope of the project and the need for thevar;ous permit applications.She stated,given that most of the addition is limited to the existing balcony line and the only addition outside of the balcony line is two.small areas totaHy 72 square f~et,staff feels the overall bulk and mass oHhe structure will change very little.She also noted that the height of the residence is not changing and staff determined there will be no view impacts or privacy caused by the proposed addition,She stated staff was able to make all of the required findings to recommend approval oHhe project as conditioned in the staff report. Vice Chairman Tomblin and Commissioner Emenhiser noted that they did not have plans included with their staff reports,while the remaining Commissioners had only an electronic version of the plans.The Commissioners felt these electronic plans were very difficult to read and understand the scope of the projeCt. Vice Chairman Tomblin stated that the Commission has approved large additions such as this in the past,however the CommIssion has requested more articulation to soften the bulk and mass of the addition.He stated that because of the unclear plans he was not comfortable making a decision on this project at this time. Chairman Gerstner opened the pUblic hearing.. Gianni KanounH stated he is the designer ofthe proposed addition.He walked the Commission through the proposed addition,explaining the only addition is on the first floor where the walls have been extended.He explained that on the second floor the area is existing and he has only changed the fayade of the windows.He stated that he tried to create a Tuscany villa feel to the residence and also felt that the hOUse will tie in very well with the landscape.He stated that the entire residence is very well thought out to be part of the community. Chairman Gerstner explained to Mr.Kanounji that the Planning Commissioners challenge is trying to understand the massing at the front of the house from the Planning Commission Minutes J;:louary 11.2011 Page 104-141 City Attorney Lynch stated such an analysIs is not currently in the Code and felt a Code amendment would be needed in order to add that level of review. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if the City can allow cefta!n solar panels to be installed with a foHow-up review with posSible mandates for mitigation factors after"'the-fact City Attorney Lynch answered that it is possible as long as the mitigation fa.ctors would be directed towards spe.cific public safety and health concerns and do not create an unreasonable barrier. Commissioner LeWis stated that,ifthere is a problem caused by the solar panels,the neighboring resident has a .civil remedy and can sue as 8.private nuisance.Further.the City coul.d pursue a public nuisance action for solar panels that cause problems in the public right..of-way.Therefore,he felUhe status quo was sufficient since there are civil remedies to address the problem without the City having to get involved. Commissioner Knight moved to receiv~and file the report,seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault.The motion was approved withoulobjeclion. CQNTINUEDBUSINESS {continued) 2.Floor to Area.Ration (FAR)Review Senior Planner Schon born presented the staff report and gave a brief history of the proposed code amendment.He noted that at the previous meeting a question was raised as to how many total projects have gone through the neighborhood compatibility process.He stated that staffresearched the question and found that since August 2001 there have been 653 cases submitted to Department involving a neighborhood compatibility analysis.He noted this analysis is included in the staff report.He stated that staff was recommending the Planning Commission conclude its discussion regarding this issue and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Leon stated that,in general,he did not feel the FAR worked in Rancho Palos Verdes.He explained this is based on an assessment of looking at big houses and small houses and seeing how they fit together.He did not think there was any correlation between that and what perceiv~d f!porarea r;;itio is.He raised the question of setbacks;noting that setback requirements do not seem to take into account whether the houses is a very large house or a small house.He felt the City would be well served to have a larger setback for bigger houses than with smaller houses.He felt the character of the neighborhood would be improved if big houses were farther apart than small houses.He asked if the City can require an applicant submitting a larger home to provide a larger setbaCk through the neighborhood compatibility process. DirectorRojas answered that the Commission can,and has,requested a larger setback on certain projects. Planning CommiSSion MinlJtes January 25,2011 Page 11 4-142 Commissioner Lewis explained that in looking at FAR he first has to establIsh if there is a problem that needs fixing.He felt that from the information provided by staff,there is no problem in terms of incremental growth.He therefore did not feel that implementing an FAR at this point in time was warranted. Commissioner Lewis moved to direct staff to report to the City Council thatthe Planning Commission does not feel there is a problem with the current system and that the Oity's current regulationsahd review procedure for residential projects are appropriate and there is no need to impose a Floor Area Ratio, seconded by Commissioner Le:on. Commissioner tmenhiser suggested adding a FloorArea Ratio column to staff reports, in addition to bulk and mass and sUbjective indicators,So that there is another way to assess the application.He suggested trying it ona probationary period of six months or year,noting that the FAR would nat be a standard but merely a column in the staff report for informational purposes.He felt that the Planning Commission should do more than just teU the City Council that the current review procedures are adequate. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the neighborhood compatibility process has been successful in allowing neighborhoods to grow,but at a slow,controlled pace.He felt that the neighborhood compatibility process,though it is extremely subjective and a time consuming process,appears to work. Commissioner Lewis stated that the only other piece of information he would fine useful in the neighborhood compatibility chart in the staff report is an added column showing the median home size in the neighborhood. Director Rojas explained that he will have to look at the neighborhood compatibility guidelines,explaining staff would not want to add something that can be looked at as new criteria that isn't talked about in the guidelines. Commissioner Knight felt an FAR might create more problems than it will solve.Hefelt that if an FAR is established applicants will apply for and pursue projects at the maximum squarefaotage allowed by that FAR.He felt this will allow for more abrupt changes in neighborhoods.Secondly,FARs workwell in communities with similar size lots.However there are unusual circumstances in this CIty,noting many lots that go down into canyons or very smaUlots next to very large lots.He felt that the City is currently controlling growth in neighborhoods and that neighborhood compatibility is working. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated that neighborhood compatibility is an extremely subjective process,however he felt it was working and could not think of a better way to look at additions and new homes in this City. Commissioner Emenhiser feltthat adding a FAR.column to the table in the staff report will keep the subjective process while adding some objectivity. Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 12 4-143 Commissioner Knight stated that in the staff report staff supports loosening the thresholds for one-story additions,increase the current 25 percent to 35 percent threshold,increase the original structure size,and increase the current 250 square foot exemption to neighborhood compatibility to 500 square feet.He noted that the Commission hasn't discussed this component of staffs recommendation. Director Rojas explained that because ofthe question of inconveniencing the applicants through a long neighborhood compatibility process,staff felt one avenue to address that would be to raise the thresholds so that certain smaller projects WOLJld not have to go through the neighborhood compatibility process. Senior Planner Schonborn'added that these were only potential suggestions the Commission may want to consider,and it was not staff's intention to say these are items that should be considered and adopted. Commissioner Lewis stated that the reason he made the motion he did was because he didn't think there was a problem with the current system.He di.d not support recommending to the City Council that the threshold be modified. Commissioner Knight also didn't feel the suggested changes needed to be made and supported leaving the current system, Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if staff has done any type of analysis to determine,of the properties that staff or the Commission has reviewed that fall between the 25 percent and 35 percent threshold,or between 250 square feet and 500 square feet,if the Planning Commission has ever denied a project that falls between these thresholds for reasons of neighborhood compatibility.He wanted to know if this proposed change would result in any difference,and if it hasn't then perhaps the proposed change would be appropriate to move up to City Council. Commissioner Lewis agreed,but felt that partiCUlar concern was a different problem than what caused the City Council to send the FAR issue to the Planning Commission for consideration.He felt this was a worthy area of study,but should be done separately oras an additional footnote to the report Director Rojas agreed and felt it could be noted under additional information in the staff report to the City Council. The motion was approved,(6 ..1)with Commissioner Emenhist:lr dissenting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.Minutes of December 14,2010 Planning Commission Minutes January 25,2011 Page 13 4-144 CCIITTYY CCOOUUNNCCIILL MMIINNUUTTEESS ((EEXXCCEERRPPTTSS)) FFOORR TTHHEE MMAARRCCHH 1155,, 22001111 CCIITTYY CCOOUUNNCCIILL MMEEEETTIINNGG 4-145 City Council Minutes March 15, 2011 Page 7 of 8 Mayor Long called a recess from 9:08 P.M. to 9:20 P.M. Proposal to Develop a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) For Residential Property (ZON2010- 00332)/Citywide Senior Planner Schonborn provided a staff report regarding the item. Planning Commission Chair Tomblin summarized how the Planning Commission came to their decision to support staff’s recommendation that the neighborhood compatibility review process works well to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods. Further research has determined that development has not occurred uncontrolled and structures fit in with the neighborhoods that they are located in. Commissioner Gerstner concurred with staff’s findings and explained that the FAR was developed originally to control the size of structures in urban environments in order to prevent too much density. Rancho Palos Verdes lot sizes are generally not a uniform size so using the FAR would instead create homes that are not compliant with the intent of the code. Council and staff discussion ensued. Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Wolowicz to adopt staff recommendation. The motion failed on the following vote: AYES: Stern and Wolowicz NOES: Campbell, Misetich and Mayor Long ABSENT: None Mayor Long moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Misetich to direct staff to begin studying FAR to augment the existing neighborhood compatibility review process. The motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: Campbell, Misetich, and Mayor Long NOES: Stern and Wolowicz ABSENT: None Claim Against the City by Zachary Freeman Councilman Campbell had requested that this item be pulled for separate consideration however upon realizing that the wrong item was pulled Council voted to reject the claim and directed staff to notify the claimant. Claim Against the City by Alfred Voce 4-146