RPVCCA_SR_2010_06_01_16_Floor_Area_RatiosMEMORANDUM
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 zones 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 built 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.
16-1
Floor Area Ratios (FAR)
May 18,2010
Page 2 of 2
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
16-2
The Floor Area Ratio (FAR)or FloorSpace 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
16-3
Carfree Cities
FAR Explained
.~,..\.'".../"\.
/'\,...,.........,'"..,...~.....
",."....\.i ""\r .....\--;;:,
I ...I
I I
I
I
A FARof1.0
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.)
------------.------:---------SOURCE:http://www.carfree.com/far.html
16-4
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 meetings 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:IDocuments and SettingslcarlamlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK4511cc meeting 2010 04·20 #12 floor area ratios (4).doc
16-5
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.
ROLL CALL
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 if there'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
16-6
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.
16-7
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.
16-8
IllIliiltllllllliEIII,lliillljj
JUIY1t;~Qage4~
16-9
11_11IIIII_....ra81111l1fAI__14111'
~J$'\~'lrf£1I."~~'PIIII'~dl~'."'''~~~I~~~~'II~&j!i.!k~~t'lJ.~w ·,I~~~~i~•••~!~~~~im
Commissioner Gerstner seconded the motion.
The motion passed without objection.
16-10
Councilman Wolowicz asked Staff to introduce the next agenda topic on Second Story
Setbacks.
Senior Planner Mihranian mentioned that this item was originally raised as a 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.
Councilman Wolowicz 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.
Councilman Wolowicz 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 fagade,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.
16-11
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 solid masses.
Committee Member Slayden asked if the City has a second story setback requirement.
Senior Planner Mihranian responded 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.
16-12
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 Com~atibility Handbook.He then
asked that this be the first item on the upcoming July 2St 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
~!'~~Page 8 0
16-13
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 New 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 as a 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.
16-14
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 of the Library off Palos Verdes Drive East,and Via Campesina.
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.
16-15
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.
16-16
Page 1 of 1
Carla Morreale
From:Jeffrey Lewis [jeff@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 Tem Long to
instruct staffto 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.A FAR 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 project 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 proj ects 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 16-17