Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2014_03_18_01_Neg_Dec_Ord_546RANCHO PALOS VERDES PUBLIC HEARING Date: March 18, 2014 Subject: Adoption of Addendum No. 8 to a Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 and Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030 -Fences, Walls and Hedges (Case No. ZON2012-00346) Subject Property: Citywide 1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Duhovic 2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale 3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Assistant Planner Harwell 4. Public Testimony: Appellant: N/A Applicant: N/A 5. Council Questions: 6. Rebuttal: 7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Duhovic 8. Council Deliberation: 9. Council Action: 1-1 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNl~PMENT DIRECTOR MARCH 18, 2014 ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM NO. 8 TO A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 510 AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND RPVMC CHAPTER 17. 76.030 -FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346). CAROLYNN PETRU, ACTING CITY MANAGER@ Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner~ RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. _, adopting Addendum No. 8 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 for code amendments to revise Section 17.76.030 of the City's Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges); and, 2. Re-Introduce Ordinance No. 546, adopting amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges). BACKGROUND At an October 16, 2012 City Council Study Session, Councilman Knight presented his request for the City Council to move forward on a code amendment to correct a possible loophole in the Development Code's existing language for when a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit is required that currently results in less view protection to certain residents (see attached memo drafted by Councilman Knight). On November 20, 2012, the City Council initiated the code amendment as a consent calendar item (5-0). On May 14, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed a proposed code amendment to revise the Fence, Wall and Hedges section of the City's Municipal Code. On May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 which approved Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 and recommended certain amendments be made to Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code. The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council subsidize a portion of the Fence, Wall and Hedge application fee, currently set at $2, 192. 1-2 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: Section 17.76.03 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) March 18, 2014 On July 16, 2013, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations. After discussion, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-48, approving Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, and introduced Ordinance No. 546 to adopt all of the Planning Commission's recommended code amendments. Taking into consideration the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the application fee, the City Council directed Staff to look into the Fence, Wall and Hedge application fee, and bring back a subsidized (lower) fee based on a stream-lined process. At the August 6, 2013 City Council meeting, as a response to the request for a stream-lined process, Staff proposed to the Council a preliminary site visit step for FWH permit applicants, which would allow applicants to avoid paying the full $2, 192 fee for minor or straightforward application requests reviewed by City Staff. The Council agreed with the idea in cc;mcept and directed Staff to present the code language associated with Staffs proposal to the Planning Commission for consideration and a recommendation. On September 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed new code language to incorporate the preliminary site visit for FWH permit requests as well as some additional minor text clarifications that resulted from the added language. During the discussion of the preliminary site visit application process, the Planning Commission discussed the idea of regulating hedges differently than walls and fences. The Commission felt that fences and walls should continue to be reviewed through the FWH application process as proposed to be amended, but that hedges should be treated along the lines of how the City's View Ordinance treats foliage and only be regulated if they create significant view impairment. As such, the Planning Commission directed Staff to look into further amending the Code so that review of walls and fences would be treated differently than hedges, and directed Staff to bring this item back at a future meeting with proposed code language. Meanwhile, on November 6, 2013, the City Council introduced an Ordinance for adoption of a new edition of the California Building Code. Since the new building code allows freestanding walls and fences up to 7 feet without a building permit, the City Council also initiated a Code Amendment to amend the City's Development Code to match the new building code by increasing the allowable height of free-standing walls/fences from 6 feet to 7 feet. As such, the November 12, 2013 Planning Commission public hearing was continued in order for Staff to combine the previously discussed code amendments with the newly initiated code amendment since they all involve the same section of the City's Development Code (Section 17.76.030). On December 10, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed all proposed code amendments as well as what was initiated by the City Council on November 6, 2013, as described in the attached Staff Report from that meeting. On January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05, recommending thatthe City Council make all noted amendments. The adopted resolution also included a recommendation for the City Council to approve Addendum No. 8 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510. Although the City Council previously adopted 1-3 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: Section 17.76.03 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) March 18, 2014 Resolution No. 2013-48 (Addendum No. 5) at the July 16, 2013 public hearing, as additional code amendments are being proposed that were not included in the previous resolution, Addendum No. 8 has been updated to incorporate all code amendments being recommended for adoption at tonight's public hearing. On February 27, 2014, a public notice of the proposed code amendments before the City Council this evening was sent to 65 homeowners associations in the City, and published at 1/81h page size in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper on February 27, 2014. As of the writing of this report, no comments have been received in response to the notice. DISCUSSION Summary of Proposed Amendments The following proposed code amendments were included in Ordinance No. 546 (attached to this report) that was initiated by the City Council on July 16, 2013 and are included in the re-introduction of Ordinance No. 546: • Revise Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require approval of a Fence/Wall Permit for any new fence or wall within any rear or side yard setback; and, • Revise 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 7 feet within the street-side setback. The following proposed code amendments were not part of previously introduced Ordinance No. 546 and are now being recommended for adoption: • Revise Section 17.76.030.B to remove "hedges" from the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application process; • Add new code language to Section 17. 76. 030(8)(2) to create an initial site visit step for a Fence/Wall Permit whereby Staff can assess view impacts on a preliminary basis to determine if a Fence/Wall Permit is warranted; • Revise Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(i) to change the allowable height of freestanding fences and walls outside of the front or street-side setback areas from 6 feet to 7 feet; • Amend Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(ii) to allow 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; and, • Revise Section 17. 76. 030(C)(1 )(a)(iii) to clarify the height limitations for fences and walls within the pole of a flag lot. The Planning Commission's recommendation for adoption of the above noted amendments are based upon the Staff Reports presented to the Planning Commission on December 10, 2013 and September 10, 2013, which are attached to this report. To review the specific amendments to the code language, please see the attached draft Ordinance. 1-4 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: Section 17.76.03 (Fenc~s, Walls and Hedges) March 18, 2014 Removal of "Hedges" from the Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application As noted above, the Planning Commission is recommending that "hedges" be removed from the current Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application process. This recommendation is based upon the Planning Commission's opinion that hedges should be regulated differently than more permanent fences and walls. Therefore, using the City's existing view preservation process for foliage that impairs a resident's view as a guide, the Commission sought to implement a similar process for dealing with hedges. As such, the amended code language would allow a hedge to grow up to an unspecified height provided the hedge doesn't significantly impair the view from a surrounding residence or City view corridor. As a result, Staff would only.regulate hedge height if a complaint is received from a resident. If such a complaint is received, Staff would go out and determine the height to which the hedge would need to be trimmed so as not to significantly impair the neighbor's view. N~ncompliance would be handled by the City's Code Enforcement Staff. Hedges within the front yard area of lots or on corner lots would still be subject to the code required height limits for the purpose of traffic safety and visual appearance purposes. Applicability of New Amendments As typically is the case for code amendments, the proposed code amendments, which will expand the applicability of when a fence or wall requires a permit and clarify other aspects of the Fence, Wall and Hedge section, will go into effect after 30 days from Ordinance adoption. The new code language will only apply to new fences or walls installed after the effective date. This means that if there is an existing fence or wall that does not need a permit under the current code and significantly impairs a neighbor's view, said fence or wall will be considered legal non-conforming ("grandfathered") and can remain without having to obtain a permit even if required by the new regulations. It should also be noted that pursuant to the City's regulations for nonconformities, any fences or walls grandfathered by this new ordinance may be replaced without having to apply for a permit if they become damaged or deteriorated. As hedges are being removed from the permitting process, and would instead be regulated on a view impairment complaint basis, all hedges regardless of when they are planted will be subject to the new ordinance requirements. Hedges planted prior to adoption of these code amendments would not be excluded or "grandfathered," as the amended code would address any existing and future view impairment issues to be consistent with the City's current view ordinance CONCLUSION Based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No._, adopting No. 8 of the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, and re-introduce Ordinance No. 546, amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code pertaining to fences, walls and hedges (Case No. ZON2012-00346). 1-5 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: Section 17.76.03 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) March 18, 2014 ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation; the following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1) Adopt Ordinance No. 546 as introduced at the July 16, 2013 City Council meeting, without the added code amendments being recommended by the Planning Commission; or 2) Make no changes and retain RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges) as currently codified; or 3) Identify additional issues or code amendment language changes, and continue the public hearing to a specified date for continued discussion. ATTACHMENTS: • Draft Ordinance No. 546 • Resolution No._, adopting Addendum No. 8 • Ordinance No. 546, as introduced on July 16, 2013 • P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05 • Planning Commission Staff Report from December 10, 2013 • Planning Commission Staff Report from September 10, 2013 1-6 Draft Ordinance No. 546 1-7 ORDINANCE NO. 546 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 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's 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, 2013, the City Council initiated a Code Amendmeflt to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) to require any new fence, wall or hedge within specified setbacks be subject to a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit, thereby affording view protection from said new fences, walls and hedges to more property owners, and also to make minor clean-up amendments to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 to clarify hedge heights and the applicability of Minor Exception Permit for fences; and, WHEREAS, on May 14, 2013, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to May 28, 2013, with direction to Staff to: draft a resolution for adopting which would recommend that the City Council adopt the code amendment to RPVMC Section 17.76.030, as recommended by Staff, and include a recommendation to the Council that the $2, 192 Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application fee be partially subsidized by the City; and, WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2013-10, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a fence, wall and hedge 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 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 forty-two inches up to six feet within the street-side setback; and recommending that the City Council subsidize the Fence, Wall and Hedge permit application 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 certified 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(8)(1) to require the approval of a Fence, Ordinance No. 546 Page 1 of 11 1-8 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 combination walls/hedges; and amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(D)(1)(a) to clarify that a Mino"r 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 streamlined 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 create an initial site visit step for the application process whereby Staff assesses view impacts on a preliminary basis to determine if a permit is warranted, and directed Staff to make additional changes to the language, including removing "hedges" from the application process so that they are reviewed similar to the City's View Ordinance and differently than fences and walls, and to bring back revised code language at a future hearing; and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing in order for Staff to 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, including amendments and additional code language to remove "hedges" from the application process, allow 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, change the allowable height of freestanding fences and walls outside of the front or street-side setback areas from 6 feet to 7 feet, and clarified the height limitations of fences, walls and hedges for flag lots. Staff was directed to return with a resolution for adoption that would recommend all discussed changes to the City Council for adoption; and, WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05, recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 17.76.030 of the City Municipal Code pertaining to fences, walls and hedges, and recommending adoption of a resolution approving addendum No. 8 to the certified Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, for a Code Amendment to revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030; and, WHEREAS, on February 26, 2014, a notice was sent to 65 homeowners associations and to interested parties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes informing them of this proposed code amendment; and, Ordinance No. 546 Page 2of11 1-9 WHEREAS, on February 27, 2014, notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; 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), before the meeting date copies of the draft Addendum No. 8 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 51 O were distributed to the City Council and prior to taking action on the proposed code amendment, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 8; and, WHEREAS, on March 18, 2014, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL 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 are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. Section 2: The City Council 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. Section 3: That the amendments to Title 17 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 that may significantly impair the view from an adjoining lot, providing a process to minimize the time and money required of an applicant to review a request for a new fence and wall, remove hedges from the application process so that that they are treated differently than walls and hedges, 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 4: That the amendments to Section 17.76.030 are necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare, as the proposed amendments will provide protection to view owners, a stream-lined process to applicants, and insures that the development of each parcel of land or addition of structures occur in a manner which is harmonious with the neighborhood and community. Ordinance No. 546 Page 3of11 1-10 Section 5: Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 17.76 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read 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 l Wall and Hedge Permit. 1. Permit Required. A fence l wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence .Q! wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge plaoed within the side yard setbaok adjaoent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences .Q! walls or hedges 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 .Q! 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 c. Fences or walls or hedges when the top of the fence or wall or hedge 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 city 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 abutting property owner caused by the proposed new fence or wall and the director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(8)(3)(b), the fence I wall permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owner abutting the subject property, pursuant to Section 17 .80.040 (Notice of decision by director) of this title. The abutting 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 city 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 pay the remainder of the application fee established by the city council and the application shall be reviewed as described in Paragraph 3 of this section. 32:. Findings. A fence l wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: Ordinance No. 546 Page 4of11 1-11 a. That the fence .Q! wall or 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 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 .Q! wall or hedge shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d. Notwithstanding finding t2j(a) of this subsection ~ (B)(2)(a) of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings of paragraphs t2j(b) and t2j(c) (subsections (B)(2)(b) and (B)(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 F(3) of this section and there is no reasonable method to comply with subsection e F(3)of this section that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. ~-Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence l wall and hedge permit made pursuant to Section 17.76.030(8)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to ef 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. Ordinance No. 546 Page 5of11 1-12 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. Ga. 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. 79. 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 l wall and hedge permit issued pursuant to subsection B of this section 17.76.030, 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: 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 ~ seven feet in height shall be permitted, except for the first twenty feet of the access way ("pole"), as measured from the location where the pole abuts the street of access, in which case fences and walls shall be limited to forty-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 ~ 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 height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a), exoept as restricted by the vie11.' preservation and restoration provisions whioh apply to foliage, 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 hedge owner can protect their privacy; iii. When combined, the total height of witR a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall, the total height may not exceed eight feet, as measured Ordinance No. 546 Page 6of11 1-13 from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed ~ seven feet, as measured from grade on the higher side; iv. VVhen oombined 'Nith a fenoe, freestanding wall, retaining wall or hedge, the total height may not exoeed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exoeed eighteen feet, as measured from grade on the lmver side; provided, the height of eaoh individual fenoe, freestanding wall and/or retaining 'Nall does not exoeed the height limitations presoribed by this title. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to ~ 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. 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 l walls and hedges 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 ~ seven feet as measured from grade on the higher side; c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to ~ 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 ~ seven feet in height located in the front and street side Ordinance No. 546 Page 7of11 1-14 setback areas; provided, the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped, per a plan approved by the director of community development planning; b. A fence .Q! wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard or street side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one- half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and ~ 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 ~ seven-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on 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 .QLWall or hedge 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 d. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title. E. Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or combination thereof) that exceed forty-two inches in height are allowed within the front- yard setback, including the intersection visibility triangle, provided that: 1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height; 2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding forty-two inches allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause a visual impairment that would adversely affect the public health, as determined by the director of public works; and 3. The height of the hedge exceeding forty-two inches does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title. 4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a site plan review permit and obtains approval of said permit. The approval of said permit shall Ordinance No. 546 Page 8of11 1-15 include a condition of approval that specifies the hedge's permitted height above forty-two inches and that the hedge shall be maintained at said height. 5. Hedges that exceed thirty inches .in height and are located within the intersection visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 17.48.070(D). F. General Regulations. 1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at least one of the fences, walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership. Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit. 2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title. 3. Fences or Walls-Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self- latching device located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building official. 4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign, posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence is in use. 5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single- family residence closest to the front property line, in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a. Crenshaw Boulevard; b. Crest Road; c. Hawthorne Boulevard; d. Highridge Road; e. Miraleste Drive; f. Palos Verdes Drive East; g. Palos Verdes Drive North; h. Palos Verdes Drive South; Ordinance No. 546 Page 9of11 1-16 i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and j. Silver Spur Road. Section 6: The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. Section 7: Existing hedges shall be governed by the provisions of this ordinance. Other than prior City approvals of any existing hedges, the rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified, revoked, expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they existing prior to the effective date of said ordinance. Section 8: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 9: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 10: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 31st day after its passage. Ordinance No. 546 Page 10of11 1-17 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this_ day of April 2014. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. 546 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April_, 2014. City Clerk Ordinance No. 546 Page 11 of 11 1-18 Resolution No. , Adopting Addendum No. 8 ATTACHMENT 1-1 RESOLUTION NO. -- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 8 TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 510, FOR A CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC. CHPATER 17.76.030 (FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES). WHEREAS, on June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-43, thereby adopting a certified Negative Declaration ("ND") for miscellaneous amendments to Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No. 510) and, WHEREAS, on September 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 1 to the certified ND for Ordinance No. 51 O and adopted Ordinance No. 513U, approving minor changes to Chapter 17 .38 of the Development Code to correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII, and to change the designation of specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles; and, WHEREAS, on November 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 2 to the certified ND for Ordinance No. 510 and adopted Ordinance No. 529, 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; and, WHEREAS, on February 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 3 to the certified Negative Declaration for Ordinance NO. 51 O and adopted Ordinance No. 532, approving a code amendment to allow the movement of an open space hazard boundary line from thirty feet to one hundred feet through an interpretation procedure; and, WHEREAS, on April 3, 2012, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 4 to the certified Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 and adopted Ordinance No. 535, approving a code amendmentto revise Chapters 17.02, 17.04, and 17.98 of the Municipal Code to regulate the number of residential garage sales; and, WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2013-48 that approved Addendum No. 5 to the 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; and, WHEREAS, 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 the 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; and, WHEREAS, on September 17, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. ATTACHMENT 1-2 2013-64 that approved Addendum No. 7 to the certified ND for a proposed code amendment to revise RPVMC Chapter 17.76.100 (City Tree Review Permit); and, WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) provides standards for the construction of fences, walls and hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street intersections and unnecessary impairment of views; and, WHEREAS, while the Municipal Code addresses the permit process for fences, walls or hedges proposed to be constructed along either rear property line abutting other rear property lines, or side property lines abutting other side property line, the Code does not address other property line configurations outside of rear to rear or side to side property lines; and, WHEREAS, on October 16, 2012, Councilman Knight presented a request to the City Council to move forward with a code amendment to correct this loophole in the Municipal Code's existing language; and, WHEREAS, on November 20, 2013, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) to require any new fence, wall or hedge within specified setbacks be subject to a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit, thereby affording view protection from said new fences, walls and hedges to more property owners, and also to make minor clean-up amendments to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 to clarify hedge heights and applicability of Minor Exception Permit for fences; and, WHEREAS, on May 14, 2013, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to May 28, 2013, with direction to Staff to: draft a resolution for adopting which would recommend that the City Council adopt the code amendment to RPVMC Section 17.76.030, as recommended by Staff, and include a recommendation to the Council that the $2, 192 Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application fee be partially subsidized by the City; and, WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance revising Section 17.76.030 of the City's Municipal Code, as recommended by Staff; and, WHEREAS, on July 16, ·2013, the City Council held a duly noticed 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(8)(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 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 Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 2 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-3 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 create an initial site visit step for the application process whereby Staff assesses view impacts on a preliminary basis to determine if a permit is warranted, and directed Staff to make additional changes to the language, including removing "hedges" from the application process so that they are reviewed similar to the City's View Ordinance and differently than fences and walls, and to bring back revised code language at a future hearing; and, WHEREAS, on November 12, 2013, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing in order for Staff to 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, including amendments and additional code language to remove "hedges" from the application process, allow 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, change the allowable height of freestanding fences and walls outside of the front or street-side setback areas from 6 feet to 7 feet, and clarified the height limitations of fences, walls and hedges for flag lots. Staff was directed to return with a resolution for adoption that would recommend all discussed changes to the City Council for adoption; and, WHEREAS, on January 28, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05, recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 17.76.030 of the City Municipal Code pertaining to fences, walls and hedges, and recommending adoption of a resolution approving addendum No. 8 to the certified ND for Ordinance No. 510, for a Code Amendment to revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030; and, WHEREAS, on February 26, 2014, a notice was sent to 65 homeowners associations and to interested parties within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes informing them of this proposed code amendment; and, WHEREAS, on February 27, 2014, notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 3 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-4 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 no 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, WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Addendum No. 8 is for an environmental assessment in conjunction with a code amendment to revise the Fences, Walls and Hedges Section of the Development Code (RPVMC Section 17.76.030) 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 or wall within any side and rear yard setback; 2) revise Section 17.76.030.B to remove "hedges" from the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application process; 3) add new code language to Section 17. 76.030(B)(2) to create an initial site visit step for a Fence/Wall Permit whereby Staff can assess view impacts on a preliminary basis to determine if a Fence/Wall Permit is warranted; 4) revise Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(ii) to allow 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; 5) revise Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(i) to change the allowable height of freestanding fences and walls outside of the front or street-side setback areas from 6 feet to 7 feet; 6) revise Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(a)(iii) to clarify the height limitations for fences and walls within the pole of a flag lot; and 7) revise 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 7 feet within the street-side setback Section 2: In approving Addendum No. 8 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 8 document, attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit "A". Section 3: Addendum No. 8 identifies no new significant adverse environmental impacts to the areas listed below: 1. Landform, Geology, and Soils 2. Hydrology and Drainage 3. Biological Resources 4. Cultural and Scientific Resources 5. Aesthetics 6. Land Use and Relevant Planning Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 4 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-5 7. Circulation and Traffic 8. Air Resources 9. Noise 10. Public Services and Utilities 11. Population, Employment and Housing 12. Fiscal Impacts Section 4: Addendum No. 8 identifies that the proposed revisions will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and the circumstances under which the code amendment is being undertaken have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for the Negative Declaration adopted through Resolution No. 2010-43 for Ordinance No. 510. The proposed revisions relate to the process of reviewing and approving a new fence or wall to address any significant view impairment issues, as well as revising how hedges are reviewed to address any potential significant view impairment on an as needed basis. Section 5: 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 for Ordinance No. 510 was adopted, identifies a significant environmental effect, as all proposed revisions are directly related to the review of any proposed new fence or wall, as well as view impairment caused by any existing or new hedge. Also, because the revisions to the Code result in more view protection, the proposed Code amendment does not result in an environmental impact that was not evaluated previously in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Section 6: All findings and attachments contained in Resolution No. 2010-43, as adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2010 are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 7: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure or any other applicable short period of limitations. Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings contained in the staff reports, minutes, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Addendum No. 8 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, based on the City Council's determination that the document was completed in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and State and local guidelines with respect thereto. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-6 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this_ day of March 2014. Mayor Attest: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Resolution No. 2014-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting held on March_, 2014. City Clerk Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-7 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 Septemb.er 21, 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 513U, and approved 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 VII, 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, and approved Addendum No. 2 to the certified ND, thereby 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, and approved Addendum No. 3 to the certified ND, thereby approving a code amendment for 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, and approved Addendum No. 4 to the certified ND, thereby approving 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, approving Addendum No. 5 to the 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 the certified ND for a proposed code amendment was presented to the City Council, who continued the item to a future meeting in order for Staff to provide additional information. On September 17, 2013, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2013-64, approving Addendum No. 7 to the Certified ND fora 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 addenda. Therefore, this addendum addresses all proposed code amendments to RPVMC Section 17. 76.030, which includes: 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 assesses view impacts on a preliminary basis to determine if a Fence/Wall 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 Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-8 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 15162, 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: 1. 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 Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-9 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. Resolution No. 2014-_ Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-10 Ordinance No. 546, as introduced on July 16, 2013 ATTACHMENT 1-11 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.030(E) TO REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE 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 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 FORTY-TWO INCHES UP TO SIX FEET WITHIN THE STREET-SIDE SETBACK (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, 2013, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) to require any new fence, wall or hedge within specified setbacks be subject to a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit, thereby affording view protection from said new fences, walls and hedges to more property owners, and also to make minor clean-up amendments to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 to clarify hedge heights and applicability of Minor Exception Permit for fences; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2013, at which time Staff presented proposed language to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges). Based on public testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to May 28, 2013, with direction to Staff to: draft a resolution for adopting which would recommend that the City Council adopt the code amendment to RPVMC Section 17.76.030, as recommended by Staff, and include a recommendation to the Council that the $2, 192 Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application fee be partially subsidized by the City; and, WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2013-10, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a fence, wall and hedge 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 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 forty-two inches up to six feet Ordinance No. Page 1 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-12 within the street-side setback; and recommending that the City Council subsidize the Fence, Wall and Hedge permit application 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 June 26, 2013, a notice was sent to 65 homeowners associations within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes informing them of this proposed code amendment; and, WHEREAS, on June 27, 2013, notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Section 1500 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), on July 16, 2013, copies of the draft Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 were distributed to the City Council and prior to taking action on the proposed code amendment, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 5; and, WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL 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 are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. Section 2: The City Council 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. Section 3: That the amendments to Title 17 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, walls and 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. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-13 Section 4: That the amendments to Chapter 17.76.030(E) 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, walls or hedges to apply to the City for a Fence, Wall or Hedge permit prior to installation. Section 5: 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, wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge placed vvithin the side yard setback adjacent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences, walls or hedges 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, 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 c. Fences, walls or hedges when the top of the fence, wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2. Findings. A fence, wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a. That the fence, wall or 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 Ordinance No. Page 3 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-14 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 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, 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 (B)(2)(a) of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b) and (2)(c) (subsections (B)(2)(b) and (8)(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. 3. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence, wall and hedge permit shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. Fences, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence, wall and hedge permit 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: Ordinance No. Page 4 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-15 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 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 feet in height shall be permitted. 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 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 height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a), except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts); iii. When combined 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 six feet, as measured from grade on the higher side; iv. When a hedge is combined with a fence, freestanding wall, Q! retaining wall or hedge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, as measured from grade on the lower side; provided, the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to six 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. 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 within 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 retaining wall, the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas, except as Ordinance No. Page 5 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-16 restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title. b. Fences, walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i. Up to six 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 retaining wall, the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up .to six 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 (Conduct of Construction and Landscaping Activities) 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 six 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 planning; b. A fence, wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard or street side setback area which exceeds 6 feet in height but does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured from grade on the higher side; c. Fences higher than six 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 six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on 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, wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare; Ordinance No. Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-17 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 d. The height of the retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title. E.Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or combination thereof) that exceed forty-two inches in height are allowed within the front- yard setback, including the intersection visibility triangle, provided that: 1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height; 2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding forty-two inc~es allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause a visual impairment that would adversely affect the public health, as determined by the director of public works; and 3. The height of the hedge exceeding forty-two inches does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title. 4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a site plan review permit and obtains approval of said permit. The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval that specifies the hedge's permitted height above forty-two inches and that the hedge shall be maintained at said height. 5. Hedges that exceed thirty inches in height and are located within the intersection visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 17.48.070(0). F.General Regulations. 1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at least one of the fences, walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership. Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit. 2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17 .76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title. 3. Fences or Walls-Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self- latching device located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, Ordinance No. Page 7 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-18 walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building official. 4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign, posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence is in use. 5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single- family residence closest to the front property line, in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback wh~ch abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a. Crenshaw Boulevard; b. Crest Road; c. Hawthorne Boulevard; d. Highridge Road; e. Miraleste Drive; f. Palos Verdes Drive East; g. Palos Verdes Drive North; h. Palos Verdes Drive South; i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and j. Silver Spur Road. (Amended during 11-97 supplement; Ord. 320 § 7 (part), 1997: Ord. 254 §§ 2-4, 1990; Ord. 194 § 10 (part), 1985; Ord. 175 §§ 14-18, 1983; Ord. 150 §§ 15, 16, 1982; Ord. 132 § 3 (part), 1980; Ord. 90 § 5 (part), 1977; Ord. 75 (part), 1975) (Ord. No. 510, §§ 13, 14, 16, 6-29-10; Ord. No. 540, § 6, 11-20-12) Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Ordinance No. Page 8 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-19 Section 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 31 51 day after its passage. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this_ day of July 2013. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. _ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July_, 2013. City Clerk Ordinance No. Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-20 P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05 ATTACHMENT 1-21 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(8)(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(8)(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 ATTACHMENT 1-22 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 direct.ed 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 2of11 ATTACHMENT 1-23 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 i:nay 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 l Wall and Hedge Permit. 1. Permit Required. A fence l wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence .QI wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any i.vall or hedge placed within the side yard setback adjacent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences or walls or hedges 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 .QI 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 3of11 ATTACHMENT 1-24 c. Fences or walls or hedges when the top of the fence Q.! wall or hedge 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 city 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 abutting property owner caused by the proposed new fence or wall and the Director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(8)(3)(b), the fence I wall permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owner abutting the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of decision by director) of this title. The abutting 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 city 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 pay 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 [wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a. That the fence Q.! wall or 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 4of11 ATTACHMENT 1-25 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 Q.! 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 (B)(2)(a) of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b) and (2)(c) (subsections (B)(2)(b) and (B)(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(8)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent to ef 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. 6a. 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. · 7e. 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 5of11 ATTACHMENT 1-26 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 s»E seven feet in height shall be permitted, except for the first twenty feet of the access way ("pole"), as measured from the location where the pole abuts the street of access, in which case fences and walls shall be limited to forty-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 s»E 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 height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a), except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage, 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 hedge owner can protect their privacy; iii. When combined, the total height of witR 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»E seven feet, as measured from grade on the higher side; iv. VVhen combined with a fence, freestanding wall, retaining \Nall or hedge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, as measured from grade on the lower side; provided, the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to s»E 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 6of11 ATTACHMENT 1-27 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 l walls and hedges 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 ~ seven feet as measured from grade on the higher side; c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to~ 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 ~ seven feet in height located in the front afl€l 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 planning; b. A fence or wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard or street side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and ~ 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 ~ seven-foot height shall P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05 Page 7of11 ATTACHMENT 1-28 be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on 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 QL.Wall Of hedge 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 d. 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 28th day of January 2014, by the following vote: AYES: CommissionersGGerstner, Nelson, Tomblin NOES: Commissioner Tetreault and Vice Chairman Leon ABSTENTION: None ABSENT: Commissioner Lewis and Chairman Emenhiser RECUSALS: None David Emenhiser Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2014-05 Page 8of11 ATTACHMENT 1-29 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 VII, 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 9of11 ATTACHMENT 1-30 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 Fence/Wall 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 15162, 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 10of11 ATTACHMENT 1-31 1. 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 ATTACHMENT 1-32 Planning Commission Staff Report from December 10, 2013 ATTACHMENT 1-33 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM~RECTOR DECEMBER 10, 2013 ORDINANCE NO. 546 TO AMEND RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.030 - FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES {CASE NO. ZON2012-00346). Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner ~ RECOMMENDATION 1. Review the following Code Amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code that would: a. Remove "hedges" from the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application process; b. Allow hedges located outside the front and street-side setbacks to grow to an unspecific height provided views from surrounding residences are not significantly impaired; c. Create an initial site visit step for a Fence and Wall Permit whereby Staff assess view impacts on a preliminary basis to determine if a Fence and Wall Permit is warranted; d. Change the allowable height of freestanding fences and walls outside of the front or street-side setback areas from 6 feet to 7 feet; and e. Clarify the height limitations of fences, walls and hedges for flag lots. 2. Provide direction to Staff on the proposed code amendment language and direct that the appropriate resolution memorializing the Commission's direction be brought back at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting. BACKGROUND On May 14, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed a proposed code amendment to revise the Fence, Wall and Hedges section of the City's Municipal Code (minutes attached). On May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 approving Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 and recommending approval of the following code amendment: 1) amending RPVMC Section 17. 76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit for any new fence within a rear or side yard setback; 2) amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv) to clarify the existing height limitations applicable to ATTACHMENT 1-34 combination walls/hedges; and, 3) 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 Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council subsidize a portion of the Fence, Wall and Hedge application fee~ currently set at $2,192. On July 16, 2013, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations. After discussion, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-48, approving Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, and introduced Ordinance No. 546 to adopt all of the Planning Commission's recommended code amendments. Taking into consideration the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the application fee, the City Council directed Staff to look into the Fence, Wall and Hedge application fee, and bring back a subsidized (lower) fee based on a stream-lined process. At the August 6, 2013 City Council meeting, Staff proposed a preliminary site visit step for FWH permit applicants, which would avoid applicants having to pay the full $2, 192 fee for minor or straightforward application requests. The Council agreed with the idea in concept and directed Staff to present the code language associated with Staff's proposal to the Planning Commission for consideration and a recommendation. On September 10, 2013, at a duly noticed public hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text changes to incorporate the preliminary site visit for FWH permit applicants as well as some minor text clarifications. In addition, the Planning Commission directed Staff to look into amending the Code so that walls and fences are treated differently than hedges and directed Staff to bring this item back at a future meeting with proposed code language. In anticipation of bringing back this item to the Planning Commission for discussion on November 1ih, on October 23, 2013, Staff mailed out a notice to 66 homeowners associations within the City and published a notice in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper on October 24, 2013, providing a 15-day comment period. On November 6, 2013, the City Council introduced an Ordinance for adoption of a new edition of the California Building Code. Since the new building code will allow freestanding walls and fences up to 7 feet without a building permit, the City Council also initiated a Code Amendment to amend the City's Development Code to match the new building code by increasing the allowable height of free-standing walls/fences from 6 feet to 7 feet. On November 12, 2013, Staff proposed to the Planning Commission that the public hearing on the Fence, Wall and Hedge code amendment be continued to tonight's meeting in order for Staff to combine the previously discussed code amendments with the newly initiated code amendment since they all involve the same section of the City's Development Code (Section 17. 76.030). One item of late correspondence was received and handed out at the November 1ih meeting, and Staff has not received any further comments for tonight's hearing. ATTACHMENT 1-35 DISCUSSION Removal of Hedges from the FWH application process At the September 1 oth meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed pre- application site visit step that would allow Fence and Wall permit applicants to pay a minimal initial fee of only $198. During the discussion of the proposed language, the Planning Commission also discussed the idea of regulating hedges differently than walls and fences. More specifically, the Planning Commission felt that fences and walls could remain as part of the existing permit process but that hedges should be treated more like how the City's view ordinance treats foliage and only be regulated if they create significant view impairment. Based on the Commission's discussion, Staff believes the Code can be amended to regulate hedges differently than fences and walls. As such, Staff has drafted Code language that would eliminate "hedges" from Section 17. 76.030(B) of the Code, and alter Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(ii) to allow hedges up to a height that does not significantly impair a view from a surrounding property. By removing "hedges" from the fence/wall permit application process, the formal application process would apply to only permanent structures thus making it important for applicants to seek approval in advance through a permit process. Hedges, on the other hand, would be regulated in a manner more akin to the City's view preservation and restoration process that involves the City not getting involved unless the hedge creates a significant view impairment problem and then requiring the hedge to be trimmed down to a level whereby the view is no longer significantly impaired. In addition, privacy protection similar to that found in the current Fence, Wall and Hedge Section has been added to the new section. Further, due to this proposed change, the combination height of hedges with retaining walls, fence or walls, as noted in Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv), is no longer applicable and will be removed. These changes are shown in the following section of this Staff Report. As a result of this proposed change, hedges on properties throughout the City will be allowed to grow to an unspecified height that will be dictated solely by whether a hedge creates significant view impairment to a surrounding property. In such situations, residents would contact the City's Code Enforcement Division to log a complaint which will trigger a site inspection. The site inspection will be performed by Staff Planners for the purpose of identifying the height the hedge should be trimmed down to. The hedge owner will then be directed by the Code Enforcement Staff to trim said hedge to a specified height by a certain deadline. Pre-Application Site Visit During the September 1 oth meeting discussion of the pre-application site visit step, the Planning Commission agreed with the proposed step, but directed Staff to remove "absolutely" from the proposed code language, as the Commission agreed with Commission Nelson's opinion that use of the word absolutely "provides a tremendous ATTACHMENT 1-36 amount of jurisdiction that he felt could be arbitrary." As such, Staff revised the proposed new Section 17.76.030(B)(2)(a) accordingly. By-Right Height Limit for Fences and Walls As noted in the background section of this report, the City Council has initiated a code amendment to increase the height of free-standing walls and fences outside of the front or street-side setback areas from 6 feet to 7 feet, in order for the City's Development Code to be consistent with the newly adopted California Building Code. Staff has also made the applicable changes for combination walls height limits to incorporate the new allowable height. Specifically, the height envelope for combination retaining walls, fences and walls is proposed to be changed from 6'/8' to 7'/9' as noted within Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b). Height restrictions for Fences and Walls on Flag Lots Per the City's Development Code (Section 17.96.1100), "'flag lot' means a lot in the approximate configuration of a flag pole or sign post, with the post or pole functioning primarily as an access way to the main body of the lot." The developed portion of a "flag lot" is accessed via a long, narrow strip of land that typically provides only enough room for a paved driveway. This narrow strip of land is part of the overall lot area. Currently, the Code allows fences or walls up to six feet in height within the front yard of a flag lot provided the front property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an abutting lot. In addition to changing this allowable height from six feet to seven feet per the City Council's code amendment initiation, this code section is not clear if this allowed fence/wall height is also applicable to the pole portion of the lot. Thus, Staff proposes to clarify that fences and walls up to 7 feet are allowed within the entire pole of a "flag lot" except for the first 20 feet of the pole as measured from the street of access. Fences and walls in the first 20-foot section would be limited to 42" in height so as to be consistent with the fences/walls restriction for front yard setbacks which would be found adjacent to the pole connection to the street. These changes are shown in the following section of this Staff Report. Proposed Code Language for Section 17.76.030 Below are all of Staff's proposed language revisions to Section 17.76.030(Fences, Walls and Hedges) discussed above (strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and underlined text for new language). Although the Planning Commission has already made a recommendation for certain language changes to this section, Staff felt that inclusion of the entire section would help the Planning Commission for continuity purposes. 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 l Wall and l=ledge Permit. 1. Permit Required. A fence l wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence or ATTACHMENT 1-37 wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adj~ ent to a-rear property line or for any wall or hedge placed within the side yard setback adjacent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences .2! walls or hedges 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 .2! 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 c. Fences .2! walls or hedges when the top of the fence, wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2. Fence I Wall Permit -Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as established by resolution of the city council, the Director, or his/her representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the type of application process, 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 abutting property owner caused by the proposed new fence or wall and the Director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(8)(3)(b), the fence I wall permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owner abutting the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of decision by director) of this title. The abutting 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 city 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 pay the remainder of the City established application fee and the application shall be processed as described below. 3~. Findings. A fence l wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a. That the fence .2! wall or 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 ATTACHMENT 1-38 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 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 Q! 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 (B)(2)(a) of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b) and (2)(c) (subsections (B)(2)(b) and (B)(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. 4-d.. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence l wall and hedge permit made pursuant to Section 17. 76.030(8)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of 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. 6&. 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. 7&. 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 l wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section, fences, walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: ATTACHMENT 1-39 1. Residential Zoning Districts. a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area 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, except as 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 51* seven feet in height shall be permitted, except for the first twenty feet of a pole, as measured from where the pole abuts the street o access, in which case fences and walls shall be limited to forty-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 51* 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 height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a), except as restricted by the viei.v preservation and restoration provisions 'Nhich apply to feliage, to a height that does not significantly impair a view from surrounding property, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family (RS) District), unless 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 hedge owner can protect their privacy; iii. When combined with a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall, the total height may not exceed~ nine feet, as measured from grade on the lower side, and may not exceed 51* seven feet, as measured from grade on the higher side; iv. 'Nhen combined 'Nith a fence, freestanding 'Nall, retaining 'Nall or hedge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, as measured from grade on the lo•Ner side; provided, the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining 'Nall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17 .96 (Definitions), up to 51* seven feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section ATTACHMENT 1-40 17.56.020(C) of this title. 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 hedges 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 ei§Rt nine feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed ~seven feet as measured from grade on the higher side; c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to ~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~ 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 planning; b. A fence 2!: wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard or street side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and~ 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~ seven-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. 2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits), ATTACHMENT 1-41 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 .QLWall or hedge 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 d. The height of the retaining portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section 17. 76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion above, Staff is seeking the Planning Commission's direction regarding the proposed code amendments to RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges), which will be brought back to the Planning Commission with a Resolution for adoption at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1) Make no additional changes to Ordinance No. 546, as introduced at the July 16, 2013 City Council meeting; or 2) Identify additional issues or code amendment language changes, and continue the public hearing to a specified date for continued discussion. ATTACHMENTS: • Minutes from the September 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting • Staff Report from September 10, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting ATTACHMENT 1-42 PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. ZON2013~00226 : Commission n moved to continue the public hear tember 24, !_Q;J,~""!'5nnded by Commissioner Gerstner. Approved without objec 2. Code Amendment for Fences, Walls and Hedges Permit (Case No. ZON2012-00346 Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, noting the Planning Commission's previous recommendations on the code amendment were forwarded to the City Council for consideration. At the August 5th City Council meeting the Council remanded this item back to the Planning Commission for consideration of additional code language. She explained the proposed code amendment as well as additional language proposed by staff that would add an initial site visit to the process that could reduce the overall cost of the application to some applicants. Chairman Emenhiser noted in the staff report staff's estimate that approximately 1,000 residences could be affected by the language in the proposed code amendment. He asked staff if they had an estimate of how many of those 1,000 residences might be able to benefit from the initial site visit and not have to go through the entire process. Director Rojas did not feel there was any way to estimate the number, as it depends on factors unknown to Staff such as the site conditions of each individual property. He reviewed staff's explanation in the staff report of when the initial site visit would be performed and how staff would make a determination of whether or not the full Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application fee would apply. Commissioner Nelson felt that making a determination of no view impairment was a difficult call, as staff will be looking five or ten years down the road in making that determination. He noted on page 4 of the staff report, the reference to swimming pool fencing requirements in subsection e. He stated that there was no subsection e included. He also stated that the word "absolutely" occurs several times in reference to view impairment, and he felt that word provides a tremendous amount of jurisdiction that he felt could be arbitrary. Director Rojas responded that the word "absolutely" could be removed, as the standard being used was that of no view impairment at that moment in time. He added that if the hedge were to grow into the view some time in the future, staff would get then get involved in a complaint was received. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2013 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1-43 Commissioner Gerstner , _.::ailed that the Commission has already reviewed and approved the language in the proposed ordinance, and the only new information is the proposed less expensive approach of a possible site visit to determine whether or not there would be any view impairment. Director Rojas stated that was correct, adding that the reason the entire Ordinance is not before the Commission is because staff is focusing on only the area of the proposed change. He stated that all of the changes the Commission recommended at the previous meeting the City Council accepted and the only new issue that was remanded back to the Commission is the new Section 2, as described in the staff report. Commissioner Tetreault referred to a letter he had written to the Mayor and City Manager that was included in the staff report, which questioned this approach. He read the letter aloud for the record and noted he still has the same issues and concerns expressed in the letter. He explained that when it comes to hedges, he sees no difference between a hedge and tree in terms blocking a view. In addition, he felt the City should not be enacting Ordinances that, for the most part, the public will not follow. He felt that if the City is proposing an Ordinance that nobody is going to obey, then it probably shouldn't be done. In reality, he did not see anyone coming to City Hall to get a permit to plant a hedge. Commissioner Gerstner agreed that he did not see a difference between a hedge and a tree and we have a system in place that could handle that situation. He asked Commissioner Tetreault if he was in favor of a permit needed for a wall or fence, or if he felt there should be a "by right" height for the wall or fence. He asked staff if there was a way to consider bifurcating the issues of hedges and walls and fences. Director Rojas stated since the Ordinance is being considered, now is the time to make amendments to the processing requirements. He agreed that hedges could be taken out of this process and be addressed separately. He stated the Commission has the opportunity to make a recommendation that the Ordinance be changed so it addresses only fences and walls and establish height limits for hedges separately. If the Commission chooses to be silent on hedges and let them be regulated by Prop M, they will be allowed to grow to a height of sixteen feet, and he felt that would be problematic. Commissioner Gerstner did not think there should be a by-right height for a hedge, as a hedge is a more intentional type of barrier than a tree. He suggested the height of a hedge be regulated solely by its view impairment. Commissioner Tomblin asked if currently a hedge can be addressed through a view impairment case. Director Rojas answered it could not, and explained the current process on how hedges are regulated as opposed to trees. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2013 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1-44 Commissioner Tomblin agreed hedges should be included under the view ordinance and Prop M. Director Rojas explained that the item remanded by the City Council to the Planning Commission was the additional step in the process of an initial site visit. However, that does not mean the Planning Commission cannot make additional recomme·nded changes to the Ordinance to the City Council. He noted that removing the hedge from the fence wall and hedge ordinance and placing it under view restoration will mean that no hedge under sixteen feet in height can be regulated. He suggested that if the Commission wanted to remove hedges from Fence Wall and Hedge Permit process, but want to regulate hedges so as to prevent view impairment, that hedges be placed in the section of the Code where the height of fences and walls is established. Chairman Emenhiser suggested that the Commission approve the reduced fee process, change the language in B to say, rather than absolutely no view impairment, make a determination that there is no significant view impairment and then possibly bifurcate the issue with another motion on whether or not to eliminate hedges from the Fence Wall and Hedge process or coming up with a different standard. Director Rojas explained that staff did not use significant view impairment as a standard was because staff has found that may be too subjective and many times the view owners will disagree with staff's determination that the view is not significantly impaired. He agreed the word "absolutely" could be removed and the standard would still be no view impairment. Commissioner Tetreault moved to direct staff to rework the language to reflect hedges being taken out of the Fence Wall and Hedge process and be put into subsection c so that walls and fences are treated separately from hedges thereby eliminating the requirement that hedges are only allowed with a permit. In addition, approve the two step process with the reduced fee as recommended by staff for fences and walls only, with the elimination of the word "absolutely", and bring the language back to the Commission for review, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Director Rojas suggested continuing the public hearing to October ath . The Commission agreed. The motion to continue the public hearing and modify the language was approved, (5-0). VAL OF MINUTES 3. Clarification of a Director Rojas a in the May 14th minutes sta section e arterial fences, the motion captured in the minutes was no a Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2013 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1-45 Planning Commission Staff Report from September 10, 2013 ATTACHMENT 1-46 CITY OF r,J/~j v;H(J f·,.:,\Uf; .Jc~r~c;E"'; 4 o RANCHO FALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEV~M)Z'NT DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 10, 2013 0 L/ ORDINANCE NO. 546 TO AMEND RPVMC CHAPTER 17 .76.030 - FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346). Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_, recommending that the City Council re-introduce Ordinance No. 546, amending RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges) to include an initial site visit conducted by Staff to asses view impacts caused by a new, non-exempt fence, wall or hedge. BACKGROUND On May 14, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed a proposed code amendment to revise the Fence, Wall and Hedges section of the City's Municipal Code (minutes attached). On May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 approving Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 and recommending approval of the following code amendment: 1) amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit for any new fence within a rear or side yard setback; 2) amending RPVMC Section 17. 76. 030(C)( 1 )(b )(iv) to clarify the existing height limitations applicable to combination walls/hedges; and, 3) amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(0)(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 Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council subsidize a portion of the Fence, Wall and Hedge application fee, currently set at $2, 192. On July 16, 2013, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendations. After discussion, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-48, approving Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, and introduced Ordinance No. 546 to adopt all of the Planning Commission's recommended code amendments. Taking into consideration the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the application fee, the City Council directed Staff to look into ATTACHMENT 1-47 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application September 10, 2013 the Fence, Wall and Hedge application fee, and bring back a subsidized (lower) fee based on a stream-lined process. At the August 6, 2013 City Council meeting, Staff presented an explanation of the existing Fence, Wall and Hedge (also known as FWH} fee, which was established through a fee study that was completed in 2008 which was used to establish all of the City's current fees. The fee study concluded that the processing of a FWH Permit application involved a combination of approximately 17 hours of total staff time (Director, Deputy Director, Staff Planner and Administrative Assistant). Staff reported to the Council that the total amount of Staff time identified by the last fee study to process FWH Permits remains valid based on the processing steps dictated by the present code. Therefore, in order to lower the fee, Staff proposed a preliminary site visit step for FWH permit applicants, which would avoid applicants having to pay the full $2, 192 fee for minor or straightforward application reques.ts. The Council agreed with the idea in concept and directed Staff to present the code language associated with Staffs proposal to the Planning Commission for consideration and a recommendation. DISCUSSION Atthe July 161h meeting, the City Council discussed with Staff and Planning Commissioner Tetreault, representing the Planning Commission at large, the possibility of lowering the $2, 192 application fee for a FWH Permit. The Council agreed with the sentiment of the Planning Commission, who felt the current application fee may be a burden for some residents and may prompt residents to install a new fence, wall or hedge without City approval due to the application cost. Further, the Council opined that it was imprudent to require the payment of a fee that may cost more than the actual construction of the requested fence, wall or hedge. It seemed to be the general consensus that the application process should be "stream-lined" in order to separate the contentious applications where view impairment could be an issue from the applications where no view impairment is found. Proposed Pre-Application Site Visit Step Taking into consideration the comments and concerns raised by the City Council and the Planning Commission, Staff has drafted code language to create an additional step to the permitting process whereby Staff would conduct a site visit at the very beginning of the permit process to assess whether there is any view impairment caused by the proposed fence, wall or hedge. This site visit would be conducted for a minimal fee of $198. If the initial site visit results in Staff determining that there will be absolutely no view impairment, then Staff would administratively(" over-the-counter") approve a request for a FWH permit However, if Staff were to find that there is possible view impairment caused by the proposed fence, wall or hedge, the requested application would require processing through the established process. To implement the proposed initial site visit process additional changes to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 are required. As such, in addition to the text revisions the Commission already ATTACHMENT 1-48 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application September 10, 2013 reviewed and adopted on May 28, 2013, Staff is proposing additional language as noted below to Section 17.76.030(8) (strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and underlined text for new language). Specifically, the new initial site visit language is contained in Section 17.76.030(8)(2). 17. 76.030 -Fences, walls and hedges. B. Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit. 1. Permit Required. A fence, wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence, wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to a-FeaF property line or for any 1..vall or hedge placed within the side yard setback adjacent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director). except as specified below: a. Fences, walls or hedges located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent lots. measured perpendiculartothe boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is two feet or less in elevation; or b. Fences, 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 c. Fences, walls or hedges when the top of the fence, wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2. Fence, wall and hedge permit -Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as established by resolution of the City Council, the Director, or his/her representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the process that will be applied to the application, as follows: a. If based on the initial site inspection the Director determines that there will be absolutely no view impairment to the abutting property owner caused by the proposed new fence, wall or hedge and the Director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(8)(3)(b), the fence, wall and hedge permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owner abutting the subject property, pursuant to Section 17 .80.040 (Notice of decision by director) of this title. The abutting 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 City Council pursuant to Section 17 .80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title. b. If the Director is unable to determine that absolutely no view impairment will be caused by the proposed new fence, wall or hedge, the applicant shall pay the remainder of the City Council-established application fee, and the application shall be processed as described in Paragraph 3 below. 3~. Findings. A fence, wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a. That the fence, wall or 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- ATTACHMENT 1-49 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application September 10, 2013 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 ls 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 fro.m 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 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, 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 (8)(2)(a) of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b) and (2)(c) (subsections (8)(2)(b) and (8)(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. 4i. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence, wall and hedge permit made pursuant to Section 17.76.030(8)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of 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. 6§.. 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. ATTACHMENT 1-50 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application September 10, 2013 7@. 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. Fee for Initial Site Visit A FWH application initial site visit could be conducted for a fee of $198. This fee amount is the same as what is currently charged to applicants who are proposing the construction of additions to their residences over .120 square feet in size that require a Staff site visit to conduct a foliage analysis. A foliage analysis is where Staff conducts a view assessment of the subject property's trees and foliage in order to enforce compliance with the City's Vlew Protection Ordinance. As the proposed FWH initial site visit would also be to assess view impacts caused to neighboring properties. Staff feels that a $198 fee adequately captures Staff's time to provide the necessary analysis to approve a FWH application, provided that the site visit determines that absolutely no view impairment will occur. However, if an initial site visit results in Staff determining that view impairment could be of issue, the applicant would pay the difference between the two fees ($2,192 -$198 = $1,994) to continue processing the full Fence, Wall and Hedge application. While the proposed initial site visit code language simplifies the review for a new fence, wall or hedge, it should be noted that the applicant will still be required to submit an application and appropriate plans for review. Additionally, as the current findings for a permit involved a foliage analysis of the property, Staff felt that this should also apply to the initial site visit process. As most fences, walls and hedges do not require issuance of a building permit, in such cases where the application is approved after the initial site visit, Staff would require any foliage that is required to be removed as a result of the foliage analysis to be removed within 90 days of approval. If the foliage has not been removed by that time, the matter would be forwarded to Code Enforcement. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion above. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_. amending RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges) to include an initial site visit process to the FWH permit. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the Planning Commission to consider: 1) Recommend that the City Council make no additional changes to Ordinance No. 546 as introduced at the July 16, 2013 City Council meeting; or 2) Direct Staff to make additional changes to the proposed code language to be presented at a continued Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENT 1-51 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application September 10, 2013 ATTACHMENTS: • P.C. Resolution No. 2013- • P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10, adopted May 28, 2013 • Staff Report from August 6, 2013 City Council meeting • Minutes from May 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting • Staff Report from May 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting • Minutes from May 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting • Staff Report from May 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting ATTACHMENT 1-52 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.030(8)(1) TO REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE PERMIT FOR ANY NEW FENCE WITHIN A REAR OR SIDE YARD SETBACK; ADDING NEW LANGUAGE TO RPVMC SECTION 17.76.030(8)(2) FOR AN INITIAL SITE VISIT AS A PRE- APPLICA TION STEP AND REORDERING THE REST OF SECTION 17.76.030(8); AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.030(C)(1)(B)(IV) TO CLARIFY THE EXISTING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO 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 FORTY-TWO iNCHES UP TO SIX FEET WITHIN THE STREET-SIDE SETBACK (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346). WHEREAS, on October 16, 2012, Councilman Knight presented his request for the Clty 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. Resolutlon No. 2013-10, that would: 1) revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(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(0)(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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 1 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-53 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(8)(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 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, WHEREAS, on August 22, 2013, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and mailed to 66 Homeowners Associations; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Section 1500 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. 5 to the Negative Declaration, which was prepared in conjunction with the adoption of 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 September 10, 2013 the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 2 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-54 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, walls and 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 belqw 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, walls or hedges to apply to the City for a Fence, Wall or Hedge 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. 8. Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit. 1. Permit Required. A fence. wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence, wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge placed ·.vithin the side yard setback adjacent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences, walls or hedges 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, 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 c. Fences, walls or hedges when the top of the fence, wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2. Fence, wall and hedge permit -Site Visit. Upon submittal of an application and a site inspection fee, as established by resolution of P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 3of10 ATTACHMENT 1-55 the City Council, the Director, or his/her representative, shall conduct an initial site visit in order to determine the process that will be applied to the application, as follows: a. If based on the initial site inspection the Director determines that there will be absolutely no view impairment to the abutting property owner caused by the proposed new fence, wall or hedge and the Director can make the finding described in Section 17.76.030(8)(3)(b), the fence, wall and hedge permit shall be approved. Notice of said approval shall be sent to the property owner abutting the subject property, pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Notice of decision by director) of this title. The abutting 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 City Council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title. b. If the Director is unable to determine that absolutely no view impairment will be caused by the proposed new fence, wall or hedge, the applicant shall pay the remainder of the City Council- established application fee, and the application shall be processed as described in Paragraph 3 below. 3-2-. Findings. A fence, wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a. That the fence, wall or 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 through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property; P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 4 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-56 c. That placement or construction of the fence, wall or hedge shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the R cha Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d. Notwithstanding finding (2)(a) (subsection (B)(2)(a) of this section). the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b) and (2)(c) (subsections (B)(2)(b) and (8)(2)(c) of this section) listed above can be made and either: L 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. ~-Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence, wall and hedge permit made pursuant to Section 17.76.030(8)(3) shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of 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. 6!3. 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. 7@. 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. Fences, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence, wall and hedge permit 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 b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) of this section shall meet the following standards: iv. When a hedge is combined with a fence, freestanding wall, or retaining wall or hedge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, as measured from grade on the lower side; P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 5of10 ATTACHMENT 1-57 provided, the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. 0. 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 six 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 planning: b. A fence, wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard or street side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured from grade on the higher side; c. Fences higher than six 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 six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material. capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. 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 adopt an Ordinance amending Section 17.76.030 of the City's Municipal Code (Case No. ZON2012-00346). P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 6 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-58 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1 oth day of September 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTION: ABSENT: RECUSALS: Joel Rojas, AICP Community Development Director; and Secretary to the Planning Commission David Emenhiser Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 7of10 ATTACHMENT 1-59 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 15162, 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 Project Revisions: 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: 1. The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental effects and, like Ordinance No. 510, 513U, 529, 532, and 535, 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 rev1s1ons 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 9 of 10 ATTACHMENT 1-60 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. 5. P.C. Resolution No. 2013- Page 10of10 ATTACHMENT 1-61 P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.030(6)(1} TO REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE 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 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 FORTY-TWO INCHES UP TO SIX FEET WITHIN ·THE STREET-SIDE SETBACK (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 April 25, 2013, notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendments to Section 17.76.030 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News and on April 22, 2013 mailed to 65 Homeowners Associations; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Section 1500 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.S(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. 5 to the Negative Declaration, which was prepared in conjunction with the adoption of Ordinance No. 510, has been prepared and is attached (Exhibit 'A') to this resolution; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2013, 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 Page 1of7 ATTACHMENT 1-62 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 held a public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; 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 are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment ,pmcedures. Section 2: That the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes Genetal 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, walls and 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) 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, walls or hedges to apply to the City for a Fence, Wall or Hedge 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. B. Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit. 1. Permit Required. A fence, wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence, wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to a roar property line or for any •Nall or hodge plaoed within the side yard setback adjaoent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences, walls or hedges 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 Page 2 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1-63 b. Fences, 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 c. Fences, walls or hedges when the top of the fence, wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. C. Fences, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence, wall and hedge permit 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 b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) of this section shall meet the following standards: iv. When a hedge is combined with a fence, freestanding wall, _QI retaining wall or hodge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, ,as measured from grade on the lower side; provided, the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by 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 six 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 planning; b. A fence, wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard 9-F-Street side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured from grade on the higher side; c. Fences higher than six 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 six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 Page 3 of7 ATTACHMENT 1-64 Section 5: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council should 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. Section 6: 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 adopt an Ordinance amending Section 17.76.030 of the City's Municipal Code (Case No. ZON2012-00346) PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 281h day of May 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Collll11issioners Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Leon, Chairman Emenhiser NOES: None ABSTENTION: None ABSENT: Collllllissioners Gerstner, Tetreault RECUSALS: Commissioner Lewis Chairman P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 Page 4 of7 ATTACHMENT 1-65 EXHIBIT "A" (Addendum No. 5 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 VII, 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. Lastly, on April 3, 2012, the City Council approved 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. Proposed Amendments: The City Council is currently reviewing a code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges) that would revise code language, remove code language and codify existing policy procedures and/or applications. The proposed amendments are to require the approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit for any new fence, wall or hedge located within any rear yard or side yard setback (with exceptions}, clarify the existing height limitations applicable to combination walls/hedges, and 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. 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 Page 5 of7 ATTACHMENT 1-66 preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162. 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 Project Revisions: 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: 1. The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental effects and, Hke Ordinance No. 510, 513U, 529, 532, and 535, 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 P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1-67 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. 5. P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHMENT 1-68 CrTYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVEL~~DIRECTOR AUGUST 6, 2013 u v ORDINANCE NO. 546 TO AMEND RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.030.,,;. THE PROCESSING OF FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE PERMITS (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346). CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER~~ Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION Review Staff's proposal to add a streamlining component to the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit process that would reduce fees for some applicants and if acceptable, remand Ordinance No. 546 back to the Planning Commission to obtain the Commission's feedback on the additional code language. BACKGROUND On July 16, 2013, the City Council 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(8)(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 combination walls/hedges; and amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(0)(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. Pursuant to Council direction, Staff has identified a streamlining step that will result in a lower application fee for some applicants. Staff seeks the Council's feedback on the proposed streamlining step. DISCUSSION Atthe July 16th meeting, the bulk of the City Council's discussion focused on the Planning ATTACHMENT 1-69 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application August 6, 2013 Commission's recommendation to subsidize the current $2, 192 application fee charged to FWH permit applicants. As explained by Planning Commissioner Paul Tetreault, who attended the July 161h meeting representing the Planning Commission, the Commission felt that the current $2, 192 application fee is a burden for residents and may prompt residents to install a new fence, wall or hedge without City approval due to the application cost. A majority of the Council agreed with this sentiment and noted that it was imprudent to require the payment of a fee that may cost more than the actual construction of the requested fence, wall or hedge. Thus, the Council directed Staff to see if the fee could be lowered, possibly by instituting a more "stream-lined" review process. Existing Fee Staff reviewed the fee study that was completed in 2008 which was used to establish all of the City's current fees, including the current FWH Permit fee. The study concluded that the processing of a FWH Permit application involved a combination of approximately 17 hours of total staff time (Director, Deputy Director, Staff Planner and Administrative Assistant). In order to achieve 100% cost recovery, the current $2, 192 fee is based on this total staff time. Staff believes that the total amount of Staff time identified by the last fee study is necessary to process FWH Permits in accordance with the present code. Therefore, Staff believes that in order to lower the fee, an amendment to the existing FWH application review process is necessary. Staff Proposed Streamlined Process Given the Council's discussion on July 16 about finding a way to streamline the current FWH Permit process to help reduce the application fee, Staff has given this issue some additional thought and has come up with a proposal that would streamline the review process. Specifically, Staff is proposing that the current review process be modified to require an initial site visit at the very beginning of the application process at which time a determination can made if there is any view impairment caused by the proposed (or · existing) fence, wall or hedge. If the site visit results in Staff confirming that there will be absolutely no view impairment caused by the proposed (or existing) fence, wall or hedge, Staff would administratively "over-the-counter" approve the request for a FWH Permit. If Staff were to find that there is possible view impairment caused by the proposed fence, wall or hedge, the requested application would require processing through the established process. All applicants would still be required to submit an application and appropriate plans for review and be subject to all the findings and conditions of the current Ordinance. Staff believes that the cost of the initial site visit should be $198 as this is the fee currently charged to applicants who propose additions that trigger the need for Staff to go out and conduct a foliage analysis of their property. Staff feels that a $198 fee would adequately capture Staff's time to assess and approve a FWH application where it is determined that absolutely no view impairment will occur. If the initial site visit concludes that the applicant must go through the regular FWH review process, the applicant may opt to relocate their proposed wall, fence or hedge to a location or height where the need for the permit process is not triggered or may proceed with the regular FWH process. If the resident ATTACHMENT 1-70 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application August 6, 2013 seeks to pursue the regular permit r cess, the applicant would only pay the difference between the two fees ($1,644 -$198 = $1,446) to continue processing the full FWH Permit application. Adding this proposed streamlined process to the Code will require further amendments to Draft Ordinance No. 546 which was introduced at the July 16, 2013 City Council meeting. Furthermore, because these amendments involve the City's Development Code, according to the City Attorney, any new proposed amendments will need to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Therefore, if the City Council agrees with Staff's proposal to add a streamlining component to the present Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit process, Staff is recommending that the Council remand Ordinance No. 546 back to the Planning Commission to obtain the Commission's feedback on the additional code language amendments. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Comments Submitted by Commissioner Tetreault As noted earlier, Planning Commissioner Paul Tetreault attended the July 161h City Council meeting to explain the Planning Commission recommendations with regards to the proposed ordinance amendments and application fee. After the meeting, Commissioner Tetreault submitted an email to the Mayor (attached) with his own personal comments and suggestions on the matter. Commissioner Tetreault's main points are addressed by Staff below. One point made by Commissioner Tetreault is that it does not make sense for someone to have to get a costly permit for a hedge even if it's obvious to anyone at a moment's glance that no view will be obstructed by said hedge. Staff believes that this issue will be addressed with the streamlining amendment proposed by Staff which would institute a site visit process to make said determination with a nominal site visit fee. Commissioner Tetreault suggests that the Council establish a "by right" height limit for FWH so that up to a certain height, regardless of where it might be on someone's property, a resident can have a fence, wall or hedge even though it may block someone's view. This was the case before the present FWH ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 1990. Any resident was allowed a 6-foot high fence, wall or hedge outside of the front and street- side setback areas regardless of whether it blocked a view. However, after Proposition M was adopted into the Code in 1989, the City Council adopted the present code language to afford additional view protection to residents from view impairments from a FWH. If the City Council would like to go back to a "by-right" height limit for fences, walls and hedges, the current FWH ordinance could be eliminated and there would be no need for a resident to apply for a FWH Permit. Staff should note that this would be contrary to the intent of the code amendment currently before the City Council, as proposed by Councilman Knight, which is to provide greater view protection to property owners who currently are not afforded such protections based on how the current FWH ordinance is written. ATTACHMENT 1-71 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application August 6, 2013 Commissioner Tetreault suggests that FWH issues be worked out as they are under the City's View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance, whereby the City only intervenes when a property owner's foliage significantly impairs a neighbor's view. The City's View Restoration and Preservation process is written in a way where the City becomes involved only if there is significant view impairment because the remedy is to trim foliage. The FWH ordinance not only involves foliage (hedges) but also fences and walls which would be more costly and complicated to reduce in height after they are built. One avenue that could be pursued is to amend the current FWH ordinance so that it would only apply to walls and fences, thereby letting hedges be dealt with through the View Restoration and Preservation process. However, this would mean that hedges lower than 16 feet or the ridgeline, whichever is lower, would be allowed to impair a neighbor's view. Fence, Wall and Hedge Application Statistics Staff did some research and found that in the last ten years, there have been 26 FWH Permit applications filed (an average of 2 to 3 per year). Of the 26 applications filed, all were approved by the Director with conditions and only two Director decisions were appealed to the Planning Commission with no Planning Commission decisions appealed to the City Council. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council remand Ordinance No. 546 back to the Planning Commission to review the proposed additional code language to add a streamlining component to the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit process at a public hearing. Then, Staff would bring back the ordinance back to the City Council at a noticed future City Council meeting for re-introduction. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City Council to consider: 1) Adopt attached Ordinance No. 546 as introduced atthe July 16, 2013 City Council meeting, amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges), to expand the applicability of when a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit is required; or, 2) Direct Staff to amend Ordinance No. 546 for Planning Commission review so that RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code would only be applicable to fences and walls, whereby the height of hedges would be addressed through the City's current View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance; or, 3) Direct Staff to draft a new ordinance for Planning Commission review that would eliminate RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fence, Walls and Hedges) and establish a "by-right" height limit for all fences, wall and hedges. ATTACHMENT 1-72 City Council Meeting Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application AugustS,2013 ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance No. 546, as introduced July 16, 2013 • E-mail from Commission Paul Tetreault, dated July 17, 2013 ATTACHMENT 1-73 ORDINANCE NO. 546 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17. 76.030(E) TO REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE 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 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 FORTY-TWO INCHES UP TO SIX FEET WITHIN THE STREET-SIDE SETBACK (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346). WHEREAS, on Oct9ber 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, 2013, the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) to require any new fence, wall or hedge within specified setbacks be subject to a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit, thereby affording view protection from said new fences, walls and hedges to more property owners, and also to make minor clean-up amendments to Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 to clarify hedge heights and applicability of Minor Exception Permit for fences; and, WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 14, 2013, at which time Staff presented proposed language to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges). Based on public testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to May 28, 2013, with direction to Staff to: draft a resolution for adopting which would recommend that the City Council adopt the code amendment to RPVMC Section 17.76.030, as recommended by Staff, and include a recommendation to the Council that the $2, 192 Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application fee be partially subsidized by the City; and, WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2013-10, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a fence, wall and hedge 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 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 forty-two inches up to six feet Ordinance No. 546 Page 1of9 ATTACHMENT 1-74 within the street-side setback; and recommending that the City Council subsidize the Fence, Wall and Hedge permit application to minimize the fin~ncial obligation of residents who will be required to obtain a permit from the City in 01uer 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 June 26, 2013, a notice was sent to 65 homeowners associations within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes informing them of this proposed code amendment; and, WHEREAS, on June 27, 2013, notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Section 1500 et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), on July 16, 2013, copies of the draft Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 were distributed to the City Council and prior to taking action on the proposed code amendment, the City Council independently reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 5; and, WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL 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 are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment procedures. Section 2: The City Council 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. Section 3: That the amendments to Title 17 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, walls and 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. Ordinance No. 546 Page 2of9 ATTACHMENT 1-75 Section 4: That the amendments to Chapter 17.76.030(E) 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, walls or hedges to apply to the City for a Fence, Wall or Hedge permit prior to installation. Section 5: That the subsections listed below of Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 17.76 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, wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to 8-feaF property line or for any i..\1all or hedge plaoeel 'Nithin the siele yard setback acf:iaoent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director), except as specified below: a. Fences, walls or hedges 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, 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 c. Fences, walls or hedges when the top of the fence, wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2. Findings. A fence, wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a. That the fence, wall or 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 Ordinance No. 546 Page3of9 ATTACHMENT 1-76 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 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, 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 (B)(2)(a) of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b) and (2)(c) (subsections (B)(2)(b) and (8)(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. 3. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence, wall and hedge permit shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. Fences, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence, wall and hedge permit 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: Ordinance No. 546 Page 4 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1-77 i. Up to .f,...rty-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 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 feet in height shall be permitted. 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 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 height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a), except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage, as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts); iii. When combined 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 six feet, as measured from grade on the higher side; iv. When a hedge is combined with a fence, freestanding wall, .Q! retaining wall or hedge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, as measured from grade on the lower side; provided, the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas, pursuant to the temporary construct~on fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C) of this title. 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 within 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 retaining wall, the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas, except as Ordinance No. 546 Page 5of9 ATTACHMENT 1-78 restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.07(' (Intersection Visibility) of this title. b. Fences, walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i. Up to six 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 retaining wall, the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up to six 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 (Conduct of Construction and Landscaping Activities) 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 six 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 planning; b. A fence, wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front yard or street side setback area which exceeds 6 feet in height but does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured from grade on the higher side; c. Fences higher than six 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 six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on 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, wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare; Ordinance No. 546 Page 6of9 ATTACHMENT 1-79 b. The fine 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 0/iew 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 d. The height of the retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section 17. 76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title. E.Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or combination thereof) that exceed forty-two inches in height are allowed within the front- yard setback, including the intersection visibility triangle, provided that: 1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height; 2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding forty-two inches allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause a visual impairment that would adversely affect the public health, as determined by the director of public works; and 3. The height of the hedge exceeding forty-two inches does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title. 4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a site plan review permit and obtains approval of said permit. The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval that specifies the hedge's permitted height above forty-two inches and that the hedge shall be maintained at said height. 5. Hedges that exceed thirty inches in height and are located within the intersection visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 17.48.070(0). F.General Regulations. 1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at least one of the fences, walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership. Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit. 2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17. 76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title. 3. Fences or Walls-Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self.:.closing device and a self- latching device located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences, Ordinance No. 546 Page 7of9 ATTACHMENT 1-80 walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building official. 4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign, posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence is in use. 5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single- family residence closest to the front property line, in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a .. Crenshaw Boulevard; b. Crest Road; c. Hawthorne Boulevard; d. Highridge Road; e. Miraleste Drive; f. Palos Verdes Drive East; g. Palos Verdes Drive North; h. Palos Verdes Drive South; i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and j. Silver Spur Road. Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3) public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Section 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at 12:01 AM on the 31st day after its passage. Ordinance No. 546 Page 8of9 ATTACHMENT 1-81 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August 2013. Mayor Attest: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles ) ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the above Ordinance No. 546 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 6, 2013. City Clerk Ordinance No. 546 Page 9of9 ATTACHMENT 1-82 Abigail Harwell Subject: From: Paul Tetreault Sent: 7/17/2013 12:45 PM To: Susan.Brooks@rpv.com Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr' FW: Fences, Hedges and Walls Subject: Fences, Hedges and Walls Mayor Brooks I am sorry if my comments last night contributed to going overtime on the matter involving the fences, hedges and wall code amendment. Last night I spoJ<:e as a representative of the PC. The following comments and suggestions are my own. The current code respecting walls, hedges and fences is very confusing. I have literally spent more than an hour reading and re-reading the various code sections, sub sections and sub-sub sections trying to understand when heights are restricted to 4 2 inches, six feet, 11.5 feet, 16 or 18 feet, the degree of slope differential between adjoining properties and the differences between street-side setbacks and side yard setbacks, and when these restrictions or permit requirements apply to walls and hedges but not fences. After that hour of time I cannot say that I truly understand when a permit is required and when it is not. As a lawyer I am probably better trained to understand statutory language and as a planning commissioner I am familiar with our development code. The average resident stands little chance of understanding what they can do without getting a permit. The purpose, as I understand it, of Chapter 17.76.030 is to protect views while permitting privacy. The city has chosen to do that by requiring everyone that falls within rather cryptic parameters to get a costly permit to make sure they are not creating a view obstruction. However, the city already has a very highly developed procedure for restoring and preserving views that are obstructed by buildings and foliage, and that process does not require permits. Rather, it prohibits view obstruction beyond a by-right height limitation. In other words, residents can have trees that soar 100 feet or more into the sky, without a permit, as long as it does not block anyone's view. But if they want to plant a 7 foot hedge along their property line they need to get a permit, even if it obvious to anyone at a moment's glance that nobody's view will be obstructed. We have the same goal of protecting views but use two entirely different means to do so, depending mostly on where the potential obstruction is (set back areas) and if they are linear rather than a tree or structure. This does not make sense to me. May I suggest that instead of requiring residents who wish to grow a hedge or install a fence or wall within a setback area that they be able to do so unmolested by city hall as long as it does not block a neighbor's protectable view in the same way that views are protected with regard to trees and buildings. A by-right height should be established so that up to a certain height, regardless of where it might be on your property, you can have a hedge, wall or fence even though it might block a view. We allow that now with houses and trees, the by-right height being generally recognized as 16 feet or the ridge line of your house (with exceptions and qualifications for sloping lots, etc.) I don't suggest that we use the same heights for fences, walls and hedges. Sixteen feet is pretty tall. However, the current code does allow hedge and wall or hedge and fence combinations up to that height (17.76.030(C)). 1 ATTACHMENT 1-83 These issues have bee_n worked out for our Prop. M view restoration and preservation ordinances and they can be largely duplicated with regard to setback walls, hedges and fences. The idea should be to have city hall intervene only when someone is violating a neighbor's rights, rather than making everyone prove that they are not offending before the fact. Views are an aesthetic, not a health and safety issue, and they do not need that level of government intervention to protect tht; J:'..1.blic. I will be happy to work with Jim Knight or Staff to craft suggested language that mirrors Chapter 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration). Paul 2 ATTACHMENT 1-84 2. Zone Text Amendment -Fences, Walls and Hedges Commissioner Lewis recused himself from this item as he has an ongoing dispute with a neighbor that will be impacted by this item. He left the dais. Director Rojas presented the staff report, expraining the item was before the Commission at their last meeting and the Commission gave staff direction on the item. Staff is returning tonight with a Resolution memorializing the Planning Commission's decision. He noted a Resolution is typically placed on the Consent Calendar, however because this was a public hearing, staff wanted to ensure there was another opportunity for the public to speak. He stated staff is recommending adoption of the Resolution and will foiward the recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chairman Leon stated that what he would like to see is not a subsidization of the Fence Walls and Hedges Permit fee but rather a simplification of the process so that it costs less. He asked staff if there was a way to simplify the process. Director Rojas answered that to do so would be to change the Code. Staff is going to note to the City Council that the current fees for a permit are expensive and see if the City Council would like to subsidize the fee. He stated the alternative would be to simplify the review process by seeing what steps can be taken out or simplified, but that will entail rewording the code language thatthe Planning Commission just approved last meeting. Vice Chairman Leon suggested that sometime in the future the Commission look at the process. There being no speakers, the Chairman opened and closed the public hearing. Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Tomblin. The motion was approved and PC Resolution 2013-10 was adopted, (4-0-1) with Commissioner Lewis recused. Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais. Variance Revision Case No. ZON2013-00079 : 30132 Via Bori Commissioner · disclosed that he knows the Armstr influenced one way or t r by this. irman Emenhiser opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes May28, 2013 Page2 ATTACHMENT 1-85 CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM~Rj2CTOR MAY 28, 2013 0 ._... CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.030 - FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346) Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Plannercft)} RECOMMENDATION Adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_, recommending that the City Council: 1.) Adopt an Ordinance that would: (a) revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit for any new fence, wall or hedge within any rear or side yard setback; (b) revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv) to clarify the existing height limitations appHcable to combination walls/hedges; and, (c) 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, 2.) Subsidize the current $2, 192 Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application fee. DISCUSSION On May 14, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time Staff presented proposed code amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 (see attached copy of the Staff Report). After a presentation by Staff and discussion amongst the Commissioners regarding the issue (see attached draft minutes), the general consensus amongst the Commissioners was that the proposed code amendments were a good idea that would protect the views of adjoining lots that may be impacted by new fences, walls and hedges due to various lot configurations, as well as clarify the code language. On a 6-0 vote, with Commissioner lewis absent, the Planning Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to May 28, 2013, with direction to Staff to: 1. Draft a Resolution for adoption which would recommend that the City Council adopt the code amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030, as recommended by Staff; and, ATTACHMENT 1-86 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fences, Walls and Hedges May 28, 2013 2. Include a recommendation that the $2, 192 Fence, Wall and Hedge application fee be partially subsidized by the City. Said resolution has been drafted by Staff and is now before the Planning Commission for adoption. Subsidized Application Fee At the May 14th meeting, the Planning Commission agreed that the proposed code amendments would provide more protection to view owners by requiring all non-exempt fences, walls or hedges to apply to the City for a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit prior to installation. This will ensure Staff's assessment of any potential view impairments before said fence, wall or hedge is installed. However, as there is a likelihood that this code amendment will increase the amount of Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit applications submitted to the City, the Planning Commission felt that the current $2, 192 application fee is a burden for residents and may prompt residents to install a new fence, wall or hedge without prior City approval due to the application cost. As such, the Planning Commission's recommendation to partially subsidize this application fee has been added to the attached Resolution. CONCLUSION Based upon the Planning Commission's direction from the May 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution which recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Code Amendment to require the approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit for any new fence, wall or hedge within any rear or side yard setback; to clarify the existing height limitations applicable to combination walls/hedges; and, 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. Furthermore, the resolution recommends that the current Fence, Wall and Hedge permit application fee be subsidized. ATTACHMENTS: • P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_ • Exhibit 'A' -Addendum No. 5 to Negative Declaration • DRAFT Minutes from the May 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting • Staff Report from the May 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting ATTACHMENT 1-87 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Zone Text Amendment -Fences, Walls and Hedges Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, noting the current Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit language does not address situations in which a rear property line does not abut another rear property line or when a side property line does not abut another side property line. She estimated that this situation affects over 1,000 properties in the City, and as currently written, and the City has no authority to require a Fence Wall and Hedge Permit which may afford view protection to the adjoining property owners. Taking these concerns into consideration, and as discussed in the staff report, staff is recommending revisions to the section of the Development Code that would permit approval of any fence, wall or hedge, unless exempted by the Code. She noted that in addition to this proposed change, there are two other code amendments suggested by staff. The first proposal is to clarify the allowed sixteen-foot I eighteen-foot combination height limit that ls applicable only when hedges are involved and the second proposal is to clarify that a Minor Exception Permit is not required for any fence higher than 42 inches and up to six feet within any street setback, as had previously been determined through a code amendment adopted by the City Council. She stated staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposals, provide feedback, and continue the public hearing to June 23th to allow staff to return with finalized language. Commissioner Tomblin asked how this item was noticed to the public. Director Rojas explained that when there is a code amendment such as this that affects a very large number of residents, it is typical to not notify every resident but rather publish a large notice in the newspaper. He also noted that the HOAs were sent notices of the proposed code amendment and meeting. Commissioner Tomblin asked if this proposed change woutd affect the foliage in backyards that abuts a public street and impairs views. Director Rojas explained the current Code only addresses private properties that are abutting. Commissioner Nelson asked staff if they had received any correspondence as a result of the public notice published in the newspaper. Assistant Planner Harwell answered that staff has received no correspondence from the public on this matter. Commissioner Nelson noted that currently there is an area where a developer is planning to build homes and has allowed the vegetation to grow, noting the proposed development is near Terranea. He explained that part of the vegetation is quite tall but was designed to prevent golf balls from hitting houses. He asked if this proposed revision will have any impact on this development Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2013 Page 2 ATTACHMENT 1-88 Director Rojas answered that existing hedges will be grandfathered. Vice Chairman Leon asked if there have been a number of complaints the City has not been able to address because of the way the current code is written. Director Rojas answered that over the years there have been complaints that the City cannot address because they involve a hedge that may be in someone's side yard, which abuts a neighbor's backyard. Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing, and there being no speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tetreault moved to approve staff's recommendations, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. Chairman Emenhiser asked staff about the price of the permitting process for a Fence Wall and Hedge Permit Assistant Planner Harwell answered the price for the permitting process is $2, 192. Chairman Emenhiser asked if the Planning Commission had any authority in determining the cost of the application process. Director Rojas explained that the City Council sets the fees, and several years ago the City Council elected to set the fees at 100 percent cost recovery. He noted that Fence Wall and Hedge applications tend to be one of the most complicated and time consuming applications, as staff has to make several site visits to analyze views and privacy issues. He stated the Planning Commission can always make a recommendation to the City Council that they look at the fee and possibly lower and subsidize the fee. Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if this revision would allow staff to go back and look at hedges that are already existing. Director Rojas explained that hedges are pursued through code enforcement, however it becomes an issue of when the hedge was planted versus when the Ordinance went into effect Unless the Planning Commission recommends adding language to the Ordinance saying the new language can be implemented retroactively, typically Ordinances are not retroactive and staff could not pursue a hedge that is existfng. Commissioner Tomblin asked what the remedy would be for an existing hedge. Director Rojas answered that if there is an existing hedge that is captured by the new language, staff cannot make them go through this process. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2013 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1-89 Vice Chairman Leon stated he would like to have staff take to the City Council a request from the Commission that there be a more reasonable permit fee for the Fence Wall and Hedge Permit application. He asked if that should be part of the motion or a comment that staff would take to Council. Director Rojas thought a motion would be more appropriate. Vice Chairman Leon moved to amend the motion to suggest to the City Council that the permit fee for this application be kept to a more reasonable level, not to exceed $250. Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the City Council has made other exceptions to the permit fee process. Directo.r Rojas explained that when the City Council made the determination that application fees would be fully subsidized, they did make an exception for very simple over-the-counter type applications. He also noted that green buildings are also subsidized by 50 percent. With that, Commissioner Tetreault felt that a fee of $250 was too much of a discount on the application fee and would prefer the City Council review the cost and staff time and make a determination based on those figures. The motion to approve staff's recommendations was approved 1 (7-0). Zone Text Amendment -Arterial fences and walls Assistant ner Harwell presented the staff report, noting the text amendmen s in regards to the ilding or repair of existing fences or walls along the City' ajar arterial streets. Sh viewed the current language, and noted the gre ariety of walls and fences along Hawt ne Boulevard. With the intent of minim' · further changes and discrepancies along a ·al streets listed in the Develop Code, staff is proposing a section be added he Fence Wall and He section of the Code which will require homeowners, if neede , o match the isting uniform tract perimeter wall or fence that abuts the adjoining eria . She noted that staff was not recommending property owners be req · replace or change their wall, as this is simply to provide standards to assi · t e rvation and maintenance of the character of the City's arterial 1dors. She no staff also provided the Planning Commission with two a!te s that would provide -term solutions. She stated staff was recommen · the Planning Commission revie e proposed code amendments, pr e feedback to staff, and continue the pu earing to June 28th for staff to retur 1th finalized language. Com sioner Tetreault asked staff if the City has considered a program wnCTIO""'"' irr' ation and foliage is provided up against these walls to help screen the walls. oted [t may take years to work, but the foliage would eventually cover the entire wall. Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2013 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1-90 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS, COM~EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAY 14, 2013 -·-u-..--. CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.030 - FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346) Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner~ RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1.) Review Staff's proposed code amendment language that would: (a) revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit for any new fence, wall or hedge within any rear or side yard setback; (b} revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv) to clarify the existing height limitations applicable to combination walls/hedges; and, (c) revise RPVMC Section 17.76.030(0)(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 2.) Provide feedback to Staff on the proposed code amendment and continue the Public Hearing to June 28, 2013 for Staff to come back with finalized language in the form of a resolution for adoption. BACKGROUND At an October 16, 2012 City Council Study Session, Councilman Knight presented his request for the City Council to move forward on a code amendment to correct a possible loophole in the Development Code's existing language for when a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit is required which is resulting in less view protection to certain residents (see attached memo drafted by Councilman Knight). On November 20, 2012, the City Council initiated the code amendment (see attached November 20, 2012 City Council Staff Report). On April 22, 2013, notices were sent to 65 homeowners associations in the City, and the notice was published on April 25, 2013 in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Newspaper. In ATTACHMENT 1-91 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fences, Walls and Hedges May 14, 2013 response to the notice sent, no comments were received prior to the writing of this report. DISCUSSION Amendment to Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to afford greater view protection to residents The existing language of Development Code Section 17. 76.030(8)(1) (Fences, Walls and Hedges) addresses the permit process for fences, walls or hedges proposed to be constructed along either rear property lines abutting other rear property lines, or along side property lines abutting other side property lines. However, the Code does not address situations where a rear property line does not abut another rear property line, or when a side property line does not abut another side property line. These situations typically occur with flag lots or other unusual lot configurations. According to Staff's estimate, there are approximately 1,000 properties (about 7%) in the City in which a property's defined rear or side property line does not abut another property's rear or side property line, respectively. As Councilman Knight points out in the attached memo, "the purpose of the permit requirement is to ensure that the proposed fence, wall or hedge is approved at a height that does not significantly impair the abutting neighbor's view while taking into account the applicant's privacy needs." Thus, despite the Code's intent to protect views that may be impacted by new fences, walls or hedges, depending upon lot configuration, there are some cases in which a property owner is able to construct a new fence, wall or hedge along their rear or side property line that may result in significant view impairment to the adjoining lot. In these situations, Staff has no authority to require a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit which would afford view prevention to an adjoining property owner, even though the purpose of the Fence, Wall and Hedge permit is intended to address view issues. In addition to the issue raised by Councilman Knight, under the current code, the permit requirements for new fences differ based on the new fence's location. Specifically, permit approval is required for any fence, wall or hedge located within a rear yard setback, and for any walls or hedges (not fences) within a side yard setback. Basically, the code was written to exclude fences from obtaining permit approval when placed along an interior side property line. This was likely done because of the Development Code's definition of a "fence" which is "any structural device forming a physical barrier which is so constructed that not less than eighty percent of the vertical surface is open to permit the transmission of light, air or visfon through said surface in a horizontal plane." Since "fences" by definition allow for visibiHty through the barrier, the existing code treats fences differently than walls and hedges by permitting them by-right in side yards without a need for a permit and the needed view analysis. Notwithstanding, Staff is aware of some situations over the years where new fences installed along side yards have created view concerns to the abutting neighbor that cannot be addressed under the current code language. Thus, in keeping with Councilman Knight's objective to assure that adequate view protection is afforded to residents, Staff proposes to eliminate the permitting disparity between fences in the side yard and fences in the rear yard. By doing so, the City will have the ability to verify that no new fence, wall or hedge ATTACHMENT 1-92 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fences, Walls and Hedges May 14, 2013 has the potential to significantly irr., Jir the view from the viewing area of another property. At the same time, if there is a view impairment concern, Staff can work with the applicant to modify their proposed fence, wall or hedge in a manner which would minimize the view impairment while addressing privacy concerns. In summary, Staff is recommending revisions as noted below to Section 17.76.030(8)(1) (strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and underlined text for new language). 17. 76. 030 -Fences, wafls and hedges. B. Fence, Waif and Hedge Permit. 1. Permit Required. A fence, wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence, wall or hedge placed within the s. rear yard or interior side yard setback that abuts a developed adjacent to a rearpropertyline or for any wa,if or hedge pl-aced 'll-ithin tho side yard setback adjacent to an interior side property lino o:f-any-contiguous or af:H:Jl:ti-Rg parcel (as determined by the director), except as in the situations specified below: a. Fences, waifs or hedges located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent abutting Jots, 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, 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 c. Fences, walls or hedges when the top of the fence, wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. Amendment to Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv) to clarify combined hedge/wall/fence heights In addition, Staff is also recommending two other minor "clean-up" modifications to clarify the existing text within the Fences, Walls and Hedges section of the Code. The first is to Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv) which sets the height limitations for the combination of fences, walls and hedges that do not need a permit . As hedges are allowed to grow up to a maximum of 16 feet in height, a combination of a fence, wall, or hedge where each component is located within 3 feet of each other is allowed up to a 16 feet/18 feet height limit. The proposed code language modification clarifies that the allowed 16 foot/18 foot combination height limit is applicable only when hedges are involved. The proposed code amendment on this specific issue would be as follows: 17. 76.030(C) Fences, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence, wall and hedge permit 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 b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) of this section shall meet the following standards: ATTACHMENT 1-93 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fences, Walls and Hedges May 14, 2013 iv. When a hedge is combined with a fence, freestanding wall, ..QLretaining waif er hedge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, as measured from grade on the lower side; provided, the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. Amendment to Section 17.76.030(0)(1)(a) to clarify when a MEP is not required The second proposed code clean-up item is to amend Section 17.76.030(0)(1)(a), to clarify that a Minor Exception Permit (MEP) is not required for any fence higher than 42 inches up to 6 feet within the street-side setback. In June 2010, a code amendment was adopted by the City Council to allow fences, walls and hedges within street-side yard areas up to 6 feet in height. Before said code change, the code limited such fences, walls and hedges to not exceed 42 inches in height without approval of a Minor Exception Permit or Variance Permit. Staff has noticed that Section 17.76.030(0)(1)(a) was inadvertently not amended to reflect this change. As such, Staff is recommending that "street-side" be stricken from the code, as follows: 17. 76. 030(0) 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 six 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 planning; b. A fence, wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front er street side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured from grade on the higher side; c. Fences higher than six 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 six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT On June 29, 2010, the City Council certified a Negative Declaration (ND), which was prepared in conjunction with the adopted Ordinance No. 510, adopting the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC) Code Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case No. ZON2007-00377). The RDSSC Code Amendment involved ATTACHMENT 1-94 Planning Commission Meeting Code Amendment: Fences, Walls and Hedges May 14, 2013 modifications to miscellaneous provisions of the Development Code, which (with the certification of the ND) the City Council found to have no significant lmpacts upon the environment. Since then, several other addendums have been adopted in order to address Development Code language changes that were consistent with the original ND. The proposed code amendment is to revise code language related to the Fence, Wall and Permit requirements of Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code. Staff believes that the proposed code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous Development Code revisions analyzed in the ND for Ordinance No. 510 for the RDSSC Code Amendment. Therefore, Staff has prepared Addendum No. 5 to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND to address the compliance of the revisions to Section 17.76.030 with the provisions of CEQA, which will be attached to the P.C. Resolution presented to the Planning Commission at the June 25, 2013 public hearing. CONCLUSION Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and provide feedback for the proposed code amendment language, and continue the Public Hearing to June 28, 2013 for Staff to come with finalized language in the form of a resolution for adoption. ALTERNATIVES In addition to Staff's recommendation, below are alternatives for Planning Commission to consider: 1) Recommend the City Council make none of the proposed code amendments and maintain RPVMC Section 17.76.030 as currently codified; or 2) Propose alternative or additional amendments to Chapter 17.76.030 and direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments as such for further discussion by the Planning Commission at a future public hearing date. ATTACHMENTS: • Staff Report from the November 20. 2012 City Council meeting • Council Member Jim Knight's Memorandum from the October 16, 2012 Study Session • Existing Code Language from Section 17.76.030 (Fences, WaHs and Hedges) • Minutes from the October 16, 2012 City Council meeting ATTACHMENT 1-95