RPVCCA_SR_2011_03_15_12_FAR_Floor_Area_RationCITY 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).
12-1
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
12-2
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,
12-3
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
12-4
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
12-5
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.
12-6
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
12-7
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.
12-8
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.
12-9
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
12-10
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.$t~ff also
presentedvarioUsoptions ftlrth~Comrnission tooonsidEi}r,inoludinga defined maximum
struoture size,a floor area ratio (FAR),and a hybrid of FAR
After discussing the variousaltern~tives,the Planning CommissIon continued the item to
January 11,2011,during whioh time Slaff would oompile a lisl of residenoes that have
been construoted after being oonsidered by the Planning Commission through the
Neighborhood CornpatibiHtyprocess.The intent was to gauge the effectiveness of the
cUrrent Neighborhood Compatibility process and to deterrnineif the prooess creates any
type of problem with the end product (i.e.,the reSUlting newresidenoe).
At the January 11th meeting~Staff presented the list of new residences along With their
respective approved lot coverages (attached).SlncetherewereCommissionersabsenton
January t 1ul,after limited discussion on theilem,fhePlanning CommiSSion continued the
12-11
Case No.ZON.2010..0033.2
Code Amendment ....FloorArea Ratio (FAR)
Jaliuary25,.2011
hegringto the Janljg!y 25,2011 meeting to allow all C;ommissioners the opportunity to
discus the matter,
DISCUSSION
As indicated above,.Staff presented a..list of new constructed residences$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
12-12
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)
12-13
EXHIBIT A
JANUARY 11,2011 STAFF REPORT
12-14
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$izeon Resldefltlal property;
2)anq,if necessary,direot Stafffo proceed with drafting an Ordinance toimplemenLa
preferred alternatiVe anq drafting the apprqprIate envitontnentG\1 documentation,
BACKGROUND
As the Commission rnayrecaH,last year the CityCouncli dlrectedStafftopresenUhe issue
of Implementing·a "floorarea ratio"·(FAR)limit(iti(m'for residel1tial·andnonres!deni!(iIZ:Qn~s
to the'Planning Commiss.ion,.and for the Planning COrTtmissIdh to .review .and provide a
recommendation baCK to the City CounciL Assu.ch,on October 26*2010,Staff presented
an Item to the Ptanrdng Commission WhichsQught direction from the Commission on this
issue.
At the ..dctober 26to Pfanning Commission meetln~,.Staff presented Ei list of other South
Bay cities and methodolQgiesl.Jsed to limit resIdential structure size.Staff also presented
various options for the Commissiofl to considfjf,inclu.ding a defined maximum structure
stze,afloorarea ratio {PAR},and a hybrid of FAR.
After dIscussing the varidus alternatives,the PlannIng CommissIon continued the item to
January 11,2011,during which time Staff would compile a listof resIdences that have
been constructed after being considered by the Planning Commission through the
Neighborhood compatibility·process <The Intent was to gauge the effectiveneSs of the
12-15
Ca$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.
12-16
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
12-17
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,
12-18
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
12-19
EXHIBIT B
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES
CONSTRUCTED·SINCE NOVEMBER 2002
THAT WERE SUBJECT TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY REVIEW BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
12-20
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$eRoad
0375 Diamonte Lane
0637 Calle De Suenos
acht Harbor Drive
5 Narcissa Drive
154 Deluna Drive
369 Dauntless Drive
8 Avenida Corona
231 Palos Verdes Drive S.
17 Martingale Drive
324 Seaclaire Drive
Packet Road
7026 Brookford Drive
9118 Hi hmore Avenue
30057 Via Victoria
0065 Via Victoria
0831 Rue Lan lois
11 Cli er Road
923 Vista Del Mar
3,548
9,244
5,422
4,630
5,495
4,620
7,691
7,563
4,902
5,931
4,703
5,397
8,868
15,425
4,749
4,880
3,794
4,280
8,479
2,822
3,720
4,280
3,214.5
3,686
5,998
3,480
5,465
4,494
7,348
8,440
31,474
55,757
33,005
57,700
45,738
77,537
21,650
15,089
14,048
20,530
23,958
37,026
582,397
87,120
20,900
16,478
25,152
43,551
21,100
12,994
9,690
9,116
6,291
14,105
6,180
11,200
9,100
23,936
47%
37%
13.5%
30%
24%
19%
11.8%
39%
31.56%
36.9%
48%
38.4%
24.3%
3%
19.4%
29%
25.7%
24%
19%
21%
31%
35%
43%
47%
40.8%
46.2%
39.7%
49.38%
32%
50%(RS-4)
40%(RS-2)
40%(RS-2)
30%(per cup)
40%(RS-2)
40%(RS-2)
25%(RS-1)
40%(RS-2)
4Q%(RS-2)
40%(RS-2)
40%(RS-2)
40%(RS-2)
25%(RS-:1)
52%(RS-5)
40%(RS-2)
40%(RS-2)
45%(RS-3)
40%(RS-2)
25%(RS-1)
40%(RS-2)
45%(RS-3)
50%(RS-4)
50%(RS-4)
50%(RS-4)
50%(RS-4)
50%(RS-4)
50%(RS-4)
50%(RS-4)
25%(per cup)
12-21
EXHIBITC
LOT COVERAGE VS.PERCEIVED SIZE
TABLE (BY COMMISSIONERS KNIGHT AND
LEON)
12-22
Lot Coverage vs Perceived Size
House L6tSIze House
SF liOVllfage
..•-.-.-.-.-...-.-.......-.-.-...-...........'
10ClipperRosd 3;549 8,M<l
2 42 Sea Cove 9,244 M"""4
:3 3488 v'"Campasina ~.422 65,757
4 3304 Palo V1sli\OliVa 4,\130 33,00$
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
1
2
-
2
3
EXHIBIT D
OCTOBER 26,2010 STAFF REPORT
(WITH.ATTACHMENTS)
12-24
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
12-25
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.
12-26
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.
12-27
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.
12-28
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
12-29
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].
12-30
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
12-31
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
12-32
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.
12-33
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
12-34
EXHIBIT A
1997 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
12-35
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:"/~~-
1
2
-
3
6
*
tv....
00•w....
TABLE OJ·A:SINGLE·FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(Continued)
~;a
~
1
2
-
3
7
EXHIBIT B
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY TABLES FOR
PROJECTS CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION BETWEEN JANUARY 2008 AND
JULY2010
12-38
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
12-39
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
12-40
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
12-41
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
12-42
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
12-43
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
12-44
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
12-45
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
12-46
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
12-47
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
12-48
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.
12-49
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
12-50
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.
12-51
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
12-52
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
12-53
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
12-54
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
12-55
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
12-56
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
12-57
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
12-58
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
12-59
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
12-60
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
12-61
EXHIBIT C
COUNCILMEMBER LONG'S STAFF REPORT
DATE.D JUNE 1,2010
12-62
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.
12-63
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
12-64
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
12-65
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
12-66
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
12-67
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
~~;~
12-68
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
12-69
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
12-70
JUIY11~
12-71
Commissioner Gerstner seconded the motion.
The motion passed without objection.
J 1---2895pa~e50f11~
12-72
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.
12-73
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
12-74
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
12-75
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.
12-76
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.
12-77
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.
12-78
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 12-79
EXHIBIT D
EXCERPT MINU.TES OF THE JUNE 1,2010
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
12-80
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
12-81
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (EXCERPTS)FOR
THE OCTOBER 26,2010,JANUARY 11,2011,AND
JANUARY 25,2011 MEETINGS.
12-82
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
12-83
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
12-84
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
12-85
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 1012-86
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
12-87
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 812-88
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
12-89
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 1012-90
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
12-91
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
12-92
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
12-93