PC RES 2014-005 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2014-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 17.76.030
OF THE CITY MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO FENCES, WALLS
AND HEDGES (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346).
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2012, Councilman Knight presented his
request for the City Council to move forward with a code amendment to address
a possible loophole in the City's Development Code existing language for when a
Fence, Wall and Hedge permit is required, which results in less view protection to
certain residential properties; and,
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2012, the City Council initiated a code
amendment to address potential changes to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges); and,
WHEREAS, on May 14, 2013 the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing, at which time Staff presented the proposed code
amendments to RPVMC Section 17,76.030. Based upon the recommendation of
Staff, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to May 28,
2013, with direction to Staff to add to the recommendation to the City Council that
the Fence, Wall and Hedge fee be subsidized; and,
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2013-10, that would: 1) revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030(B)(1) to
require the approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit for any new fence, wall
or hedge within any side yard setback; 2) revise RPVMC Section
17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv) to clarify the existing height limitations applicable to
combination walls/hedges; 3) revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030(D)(1)(a) to clarify
that a Minor Exception Permit is not required for any fence higher than 42 inches
up to 6 feet within the street-side setback; and lastly that the City Council
consider subsidizing the Fence, Wall and Hedge application fee in order to
minimize the financial obligation of residents who will be required to obtain a
permit from the City in order to install a non-exempted new fence, wall or hedge
on private property when they were not required to do so prior to the proposed
code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council held a duly notice public
hearing, at which time they adopted Resolution No. 2013-48, approving
addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, for a Code
Amendment to revise RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges);
and introduced Ordinance No. 546, amending RPVMC Section 17,76,030(B)(1)
to require the approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge (FWH) permit for any new
fence within a rear or side yard setback; amending RPVMC Section
17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv) to clarify the existing height limitations applicable to
P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 1 of 11
combination walls/hedges; and amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(D)(1)(a) to
clarify that a Minor Exception permit is not required for any fence higher than 42
inches up to 6 feet within the street-side setback. The City Council also directed
Staff to look into the FWH application fee, and bring back a subsidized (lower)
fee based on a stream-lined process; and,
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2013, based upon Staff's recommendation, the
City Council directed Staff to take the proposed streamlining component of the
Fence, Wall and Hedge application process back to the Planning Commission to
obtain the Commission's feedback on the additional code language; and,
WHERAS, on September 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed
Staff's proposed amendments to the Fence, Wall and Hedge application, and
directed Staff to make additional changes to the language and bring back a
future hearing, and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission continued
the public hearing in order for Staff integrate the City Council initiated code
amendment to increase the allowable height of free-standing walls/fences from 6
feet to 7 feet per the new edition of the California Building Code; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed
Staff's proposed code amendments and directed Staff to return with a resolution
for adoption that would recommend all changes to the City Council for adoption-,
and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2014, notice of a public hearing was mailed to
66 Homeowners Associations and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
News on January 9, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the
State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000
et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section
65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City determined
that there is not substantial evidence that the code amendment would result in a
significant adverse effect on the environment, Accordingly, Addendum No. 8 to
the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 has been prepared and is
attached (Exhibit 'A') to this resolution, and,
WHERAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, on January 28, 2014 the Planning
Commission held a public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given
an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;
P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 2 of 11
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code as
shown in Section 4 below are consistent with California Government Code
Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures.
Section 2: That the amendments to Title 17 as shown below in Section
4 are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal
Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not hinder, the Goals and Policies of
those plans. Specifically, the revisions to Section 17,76.030 will address
concerns as to newly constructed fences and walls, and the growth of hedges
that may significantly impair the view from adjoining lot, as well as provide
language modifications, all of which assist in enforcement of the Development
Code which uphold the Goals and Policies of the City's General Plan,
Section 3: That the amendments to Chapter 17.76.030(E) as shown
below in Section 4 are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and
general welfare, as the proposed amendments will provide more protection to
view owners by requiring all non-exempt fences or walls to apply to the City for a
Fence/Wall Permit prior to installation.
Section 4: That the subsections listed below of Section 17.76.030
(Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby
amended as follows (strike-out text is for removed language, and bold and
underlined text is for new language):
17.76.030 - Fences, walls and hedges.
A. Purpose. These standards provide for the construction of fences, walls and
hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous
conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and
unnecessary impairment of views.
B. Fence /Wall and Hedge Permit.
1 Permit Required, A fence /wall and hedge permit shall be required for any
fence or wall OF hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback
adjacent to a FeaF preperty line or for aRy wall or hedge plaGed withiR the
side yaFd setbaGk adjacent to an interier side PFOPeFty liRe--ef any
contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as
specified below:
a. Fences or walls o-r-" located where the grade differential between
the building pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the
boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the
fence, wall or hedge, is two feet or less in elevation-, or
b. Fences or walls or hedges where the subject lot is located upslope of
any property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence, wall or
hedge; or
P,.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 3 of 11
c. Fences or walls er hedges when the top of the fence or wall erre
is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot.
2. Initial Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site
inspection fee, as established by resolution of the cit y council, the
Director, or his/her representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in
order to determine the type of application process that is required,
as follows:
a. If based on the initial site inspection,.. the Director is able to
determine that there will be no view impairment to the abufting
property owner caused by the proposed new fence or wall and the
Director can make the finding described in Section
17.76.030(B)(3)(b) the fence.j. wall permit shall be approved.
Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owner
abutting the suboect property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040
(Notice of decision by director) of this title. The abuffing property
owner may appeal the Director's decision to the Planning
Commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to planning
commission) of this title. The decision of the planning
commission may be appealed to the cfty council pursuant to
Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to city council) of this title.
b. If the Director is unable to determine that no view impairment will
be caused by the proposed new fence or wall, the applicant shall
l2ay the remainder of the City established application fee and the
application shall be reviewed as described in Paragraph 3 of this
section.
32. Findings. A fence I wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the
director finds as follows:
a. That the fence or wall 9F hedge would not significantly impair a view
from the viewing area, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family
Residential (RS) Districts), of another property or a view from public
property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as a city-designated viewing area. Views shall be taken
from a standing position, unless the primary viewing area is more
suitable to viewing in a seated position;
b. That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds sixteen feet or the
ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a
view from the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter
17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public
property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal
specific plan, as a city-designated viewing area, shall be removed prior
to permit approval. This requirement shall not apply where removal of
the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of
the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is
no method by which the property owner can create such privacy
P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 4 of 11
through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a
view from viewing area of another property-,
c. That placement or construction of the fence or wall or hedge shall
comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan;
d. Notwithstanding finding (2)(a) (subsection (13)(2)(a) of this section), the
applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that
findings (2)(b) and (2)(c) (subsections (13)(2)(b) and (13)(2)(c) of this
section) listed above can be made and either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of
the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by
which the property owner can create such privacy through some
other means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair
a view from a viewing area of another property; or
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing
requirements contained in subsection E of this section and there is
no reasonable method to comply with subsection E of this section
that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of
another property,
43. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence /wall and hedge
permit made pursuant to Section 17.76.030(B)(3) shall be given to the
applicant and to all owners of property adjacent toof the subject property.
Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant. Any interested person
may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to
Section 17.80,050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title.
54. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city
council pursuant to Section 17,80,070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
65. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such
conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of
this section.
76. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other
provisions of the development code or the building code, the most
restrictive provisions apply.
C. Fence, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by
conditions imposed through a fence / wall and hedge permit issued pursuant
to subsection B of this section, fences, walls and hedges which meet the
following requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1. Residential Zoning Districts,
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area
shall meet the following standards:
P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 5 of 11
i. Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted, except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section
17.48.070 (intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed forty-two inches, except as further restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17,48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front
property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property
line of an adjacent lot, up to six seven feet in height shall be
permitted, except for the first twenty feet of the access wa
("Pole"), as measured from the location where the pole abuts
the street of access, in which case fences and walls shall be
limited to fort -two inches in height,
b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) of this
section shall meet the following standards:
i. Fences and walls up to six seven feet in height shall be permitted
on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as
restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. Hedges up to sixteen feet in heigM shall be permitted on any part of
a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a), ex-ept --- -estFiGted by the
V.—NatiGn and FeStOFatien NhiGlh apply to faliageF
to a height that does not significantly impair a view from
surrounding property, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-
Family (RS) District),-unless the director determines that a
specific hedge height is needed_to prevent the unreasonable
invasion of privacy of the hedge owner and there is no other
method by which the hed_qe owner can protect their privacy;
iii. When combined, the total height of with a fence, freestanding wall
or retaining wall, the total height may not exceed eight feet, as
measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed s*
seven feet, as measured from grade on the higher side;
iv. When combffined w0th a feRGe, #eestanding wall, retaining wall OF
hedge, the total height may Rot eX-Geed sixteeeR feet, as measured
from gFade on the hi,9,heF side and may not ex-Geed eighteeR feet,
as measured from grade GR the lower side; provided, the heigWof
eaGh iRdividual feRGe, freestandiRg wall and�oF FetaiRiRg wall does
not exceed the height !iMitatiORS pFeSGFibed by this title.
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions), up to six seven feet in height may be located within front
or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction
fencing provisions of Section 17,56.020(C) of this title.
P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 6 of 11
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard and street-side
setback areas shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted, except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section
17.48.070 (intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not
exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas,
except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of
Section 17.48.070 (intersection Visibility) of this title; and
b. Fences / walls and hedg located behind front and street-side
setbacks shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to &� seven feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot
behind the front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted
by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17,48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a fence, the total height may not exceed eight
feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed
&ix seven feet as measured from grade on the higher side-,
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions), up to six seven feet in height may be located within front
or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction
fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) of this title.
D. Fences, Walls and Hedges—Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit,
1. The following fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the
approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor
Exception Permits):
a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than forty-two
inches and up to &i-x seven feet in height located in the front and
street side setback areas; provided, the area between the street and
any such fence is landscaped, per a plan approved by the director of
community development�;
b. A fence or wall OF hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside
of a front yard or street sirJo setback area which does not exceed
eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the
lower side and sj* seven feet in height as measured from grade on the
higher side;
c. Fences higher than &� seven feet and up to ten feet in height and not
within the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-
half foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for
downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar
recreational facilities. The fence above the s4x seven-foot height shall
P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 7 of 11
be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting
at least eighty percent light as measured an a reputable light meter,
2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits), the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the
following criteria in assessing such an application;
a. The height of the fence or wall or--ham will not be detrimental to the
public safety and welfare;
b. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and
does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an
adjacent parcel as defined in Section 17.02,040 (View Preservation
and Restoration) of this title;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title is not obstructed; and
cl. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits
set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
Section 5: For the foregoing reasons, and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report, the testimony and evidence presented at
the public hearings, minutes, and other records of the proceedings, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the
City Council certify Addendum No. 8 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance
No. 510 and re-introduce Ordinance No. 546 to adopt all the Planning
Commission's recommended code amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the
City's Municipal Code (Case No, ZON2012-00346),
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 281h day of January 2014, by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners,"'Gerstner, Nelson, Tomblin
NOES, Commissioner Tetreault and Vice Chairman Leon
ABSTENTION: None
ABSENT, Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Emenhiser
RECUSALS- None
'14r-
David Emenhiser
Chairman
Joel Rol 14)AicP
Comm nity evelopent)irector; and
Secret 4tthe Plann gCommission
P.C, Resolution No, 2014-05
Page 8 of 11
EXHIBIT "A"
(Addendum No. 8 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background: On June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2010-43, thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to
Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No.
510). Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration was circulated for public
comment from April 1, 2010, through May 1, 2010. In adopting the Negative
Declaration, the City Council found that: 1) the Negative Declaration was prepared in
the manner required by law and that there was no substantial evidence that, with
appropriate mitigation measures, the approval of the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No.
ZON2007-00377) would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment;
and 2) that the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code
Amendment and Zone Change were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan. On September 21, 2010, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 513U, thereby approving Addendum No. 1 to the
certified ND, to make minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to
correct the omission of Specific Plan District V11, and to change the designation of
specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles. On November 15, 2011,
the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 529, thereby approving Addendum No. 2 to
the certified ND and approving miscellaneous "clean-up" code amendments to Title
17 (Zoning) of the City's Development Code which clarified code language, removed
code language discrepancies, and codified existing policy procedures and/or
application requirements. On February 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance
No, 532, thereby approved Addendum No. 3 to the certified ND and approving a
change in the allowable movement of an open space hazard boundary line from
thirty feet to one hundred feet through an interpretation procedure. On April 3, 2012,
the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 535, thereby approving Addendum No. 4 to
the Certified ND for a code amendment to revise Chapters 17.02, 17.04, and 17.98
of the Municipal Code to regulate the number of residential garage sales. On July
16, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2013-48 that approved
Addendum No. 5 to Certified ND for a proposed code amendment to revise Chapter
17.76.030 of the Development Code pertaining to the Fences, Walls and Hedges
permits. On August 6, 2013, in consideration of a proposed code amendment to
RPVMC Section 17,76.030(F) (Arterial Walls and Fences), Addendum No. 6 to
Certified ND for a proposed code amendment was presented to the City Council,
who continued the item to a future meeting in order provide additional information.
On September 17, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2013-64,
approving Addendum No. 7 to the Certified ND for a proposed code amendment to
revise RPVMC. Chapter 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit).
Proposed Amendments: At the direction of the City Council, additional code
amendments are proposed to Section 17,76,030 of the Municipal Code (Fences,
Walls and Hedges) that were not included in the previously adopted Resolution No.
2013-10 certifying Addendum No. 5. Therefore, this addendum addresses all
proposed code amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030, which includes:
P.C. Resolution No, 2014-05
Page 9 of 11
removing "hedges" from the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application process, but
still requiring hedges to be subject to a view analysis; require approval of a
Fence/Wall Permit for any new fence or wall within any rear or side yard setback;
including an initial site visit step for a Fence/Wall Permit whereby Staff assess view
impacts on a preliminary basis to determine if a FenceNVall Permit is warranted;
allowing hedges located outside of the front and street-side setbacks to grow to an
unspecific height provided views from surrounding residences are not significantly
impaired; revising the allowable height of free-standing fences and walls outside of
the front or street-side setback areas from 6 feet to 7 feet; clarifying the height
limitations for fences and walls within the access pole of a flag lot; and clarifying that
a Minor Exception Permit is not required for any fence higher than 42 inches up to 7
feet within the street-side setback.
Purpose: This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being
prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an
adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Pursuant to
CEQA Section 1516,2, no subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the
project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in
light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will required major
revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new,
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will required major revisions of the previous
Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity or previously identified
significant effects; or,
3. New information of substantial importance identifies one or more significant
effects not discussed in the previous Negative Declaration, significant effects
previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the
previous Negative Declaration, mitigation measures or alternative previously
found not to be feasible or not analyzed in the Negative Declaration would be
feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the
project proponents decline to adopt a measure or alternative.
Findings Regarding the Proposed Code Amendments:
Staff analyzed the proposed code amendment revisions to Section 17.76.030 to
determine if any impacts would result. The Planning Commission has independently
reviewed this item and has determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, a new Negative Declaration is not required for this revision because the
proposed amendments will not result in any new significant environmental effects:
P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 10 of 11
I The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental
effects and, like Ordinances Nos. 510, 513U, 529, 532, and 535 and
Resolution No. 2013-48 and 2013,-64, no significant impacts have been
identified. The revisions to Title 17 (Zoning) do not present new significant
environmental impacts because they merely modify or clarify certain
requirements, or codify policy procedures and/or application requirements.
Therefore, the proposed revisions do not represent a substantial change in
the code, and will not result in new significant environmental impacts or a
substantial increase in the severity of any impacts.
2. The proposed revisions will not result in any significant environmental
impacts, and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for
Ordinance No. 510. The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor
modifications that clarify code language discrepancies and/or codify policies
and procedures that are currently in place. There are no changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will
require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the prior Negative Declaration was adopted, identifies a significant
environmental effect. Because the proposed revisions would not result in any
new or more severe environmental impacts than those associated with
Ordinance No. 510, there is no need for new or substantially modified
mitigation measures.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that no further
environmental review is necessary other than the City Council's adoption of this
Addendum No. 8.
P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05
Page 11 of 11