RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_07_16_02_Ordinance_510_Addendum_Fences_Walls_HedgesCITY OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: July 16, 2013
Subject: Adoption of Addendum No. 5 to a Negative Declaration for
Ordinance No. 510 and Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Chapter 17.76.030 -
Fences, Walls and Hedges (Case No. ZON2012-00346)
Subject Property: Citywide
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner
4. Public Testimony:
Appellants: N/A
Applicant: City
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Brooks
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
2-1
CITY OF
4o RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOEL ROJAS, COMM~DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JULY 16, 2013
ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM NO. 5 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).
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER o.)1._,
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution No. __ , adopting Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration
for Ordinance No. 510, for a code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.030 of the
Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges); and Introduce Ordinance No._,
amending RPVMC Chapter 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 as recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission; and,
2. Contrary to the Planning Commission's recommendation that the City Council
subsidize (lower) the existing Fence, Wall and Hedge permit application fee of
$2, 192 since the proposed code amendment will result in more residents having to
obtain a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit for new fences, wall and hedges, Staff
recommends that the existing application fee not be subsidized (lowered) in order to
achieve 100% City cost recovery in processing said application.
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).
2-2
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
July 16, 2013
On May 14, 2013, Staff presented the Planning Commission with proposed code language
changes to RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030 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; and 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. Upon review and discussion with Staff, the Planning Commission
made some modifications to the proposed language and changes to the resolution to be
adopted at the following meeting (May 14, 2013 PC minutes are attached). Staff presented
the Planning Commission with revised language and a resolution on May 28, 2013, which
was adopted without discussion by a 4-0 vote, with Commissioner Lewis recused, and
Commissioners Gerstner and Tetreault absent.
On June 26, 2013, a public notice of the proposed code amendment 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 June 27, 2013. As of the
writing of this report, no comments have been received in response to the notice.
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 pointed out in his memo to the City Council (attached), "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, there are some cases due to lot
configuration 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 protection 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 a new fence's location. Specifically, permit
2-3
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
July 16, 2013
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. As pointed out to the Planning Commission, 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 vision through said surface in a
horizontal plane." Since "fences" by definition allow for visibility 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 noted to the Planning Commission of some situations over the years
where new fences installed along the 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 and the Planning Commission proposed 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 has the potential
to significantly impair 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.
I
In summary, Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending revisions as noted
below to Section 17.76.030(B)(1) (strikethrough text for language removed, and bold and
underlined text 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 rear
property line or for any V'l-8!.' 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 Jots, measured perpendicular to the boundary between
the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is two feet
or Jess in elevation; or
b. Fences, walls or hedges where the subject Jot 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.
2-4
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
July 16, 2013
Amendment to Section 17.76.030(C)(1)(b)(iv) to clarify combined hedge/wall/fence
heights
Staff and the Planning Commission are 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 forthe
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 2-foot differential takes into account differences in adjoining lot
elevations). The proposed code language modification clarifies thatthe 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:
iv. When a hedge is combined with a fence, freestanding wall, or retaining wall 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(D)(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(D)(1)(a) was inadvertently not amended
to reflect this change. As such, Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that
"street-side" be stricken from the code, as follows:
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
2-5
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
July 16, 2013
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.
Applicability of New Amendments
As typically is the case for code amendments, the proposed code amendments which will
expand the applicability of Fence, Wall and Hedge permits and clarify other aspects of the
Fence, Wall and Hedge section will go into effect after 30 days from Ordinance adoption.
As such, the new code language will only apply to new fences, walls and hedges installed
after the effective date. This means that if there is an existing fence, wall or hedge that
does not need a permit under the current code and significantly impairs a neighbor's view,
said fence, wall or hedge will be considered legal non-conforming ("grandfathered") and
can remain without having to obtain a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit even if required by
the new regulations. It should also be noted that pursuant to the City's regulations for
nonconformities, any fences, walls or hedges grandfathered by this new ordinance may be
replaced without having to apply for a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit if they become
damaged or deteriorated.
Subsidizing the Fence, Wall and Hedge permit application fee
At the May 141h 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
adopted resolution recommends that the City Council consider subsidizing a portion of 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
2-6
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
July 16, 2013
so prior to the proposed code amendment. The Planning Commission did not specify how
much the current fee should be subsidized.
While Staff shares the Planning Commission's concern with the application fee, Staff
believes that subsidizing the fee is contrary to the City's current fee policy of setting
application fees to achieve 100% cost recovery. Therefore, Staff respectively disagrees
with the Planning Commission's recommendation and instead recommends that the fee not
be subsidized. Notwithstanding, if the City Council agrees to subsidize the $2, 192 Fence,
Wall and Hedge application fee, then Staff requests that the Council provide direction to
Staff as to how much the application fee should be subsidized so that an updated fee
resolution can be brought back to the City Council for adoption at a future meeting.
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
modifications to miscellaneous provisions of the Development Code, which (with the
certification of the ND) the City Council found to have no significant impacts 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 recommends that the Council adopt the attached
Resolution approved addendum No. 5 to the RDSSC Code Amendme'nt ND to address the
compliance of the revisions to Section 17.76.030 with the provisions of CEQA. Also,
because the changes 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.
FISCAL IMPACT
With the exception to the issue of the subsidy, there are no other fiscal impacts associated
with adopting the Ordinances. However, if the City Council votes to subsidize all or a
portion of the application fee, any Staff costs (estimated at $2, 192) associated with
processing future Fence, Wall and Hedge permit applications will be borne by the City's
general fund.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution
No. __ , adopting Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, for
2-7
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
July 16, 2013
a code amendment to revise Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fences, Walls
and Hedges); and introduce Ordinance No._, amending RPVMC Chapter 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 as recommended by Staff and the Planning
Commission. Furthermore, notwithstanding the Planning Commission's recommendation
that the Fence, Wall and Hedge fee be subsidized to reduce the cost burden to residents,
Staff recommends that the existing $2, 192 fee not be subsidized in order to maintain 100%
cost recovery.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City
Council to consider:
1) Adopt Resolution No. __ , adopting Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration
for Ordinance No. 510 to revise Chapter 17.76.030 of the Development Code
(Fences, Wall and Hedges); and introduce Ordinance No._, amending RPVMC
Chapter 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 as
recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission, and direct Staff to bring back
an updated fee schedule for adoption with a subsidized (lowered) $2, 192 Fence,
Wall and Hedge application fee; or,
2) Propose alternative or additional amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 and
direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments as such for further discussion by
the City Council at a future public hearing date; or,
3) Maintain RPVMC Section 17.76.030 as currently codified.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution No.
• Ordinance No.
• Current Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit Application
• Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-10
• 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
• Staff Report from the November 20, 2012 City Council meeting
• Council Member Knight's Memorandum from the October 16, 2012 Study Session
• Existing Code Language from Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges)
• Minutes from the October 16, 2012 City Council meeting
2-8
Resolution
2-9
RESOLUTION NO. __
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 5
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 Negative Declaration 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 Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 and adopted Ordinance No.
513U, approving minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to correctthe
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 Negative Declaration 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 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; and,
WHEREAS, 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
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,
2-10
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, 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 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 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), 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. 5 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.
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 2 of7
2-11
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Addendum No. 5 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(6)(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
Section 2: In approving Addendum No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance
No. 510, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 3 document,
attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit "A".
Section 3: The Addendum No. 5 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
7. Circulation and Traffic
8. Air Resources
9. Noise
10. Public Services and Utilities
11. Population, Employment and Housing
12. Fiscal Impacts
Section 4: The Addendum No. 5 identifies that the proposed revisions will not result
in any significant environmental impacts, and the circumstances under which to 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.
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. Also, because the changes 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.
Resolution No. 2013-
Page 3 of 7
2-12
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. 5 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.
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 Resolution No. 2012-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting held on July_, 2013.
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page4 of 7
2-13
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 preparation of a subsequent EIR
or Negative Declaration have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no subsequent
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 5 of7
2-14
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 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
Resolution No. 2013-
Page 6 of7
2-15
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.
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 7 of7
2-16
Ordinance
2-17
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION
17.76.030(B)(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 regarding 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 greater view protection pertaining to 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, 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 adoption, which
would recommend that the City Council adopt the 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 1of9
2-18
in height 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 effective date of 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 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), 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: 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 that were not analyzed previously. In
particular, because the proposed amendments to the Municipal 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 3: 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 clarifying provisions of the
Ordinance No.
Page 2of9
2-19
Municipal Code, all of which assist in enforcement of the Development Code and uphold
the Goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
Section 4: 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 certain exempt fences, walls or
hedges to apply to the City for a Fence, Wall or Hedge permit prior to installation.
Section 5: Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 17.76 of
Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows
(strike-out text is for removed language, and bold and underlined text is for new
language):
17.76.0;30 -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-FeaF
property line or f.or 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, 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
Ordinance No.
Page 3 of 9
2-20
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 (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.
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
Ordinance No.
Page 4of9
2-21
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 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, 2! 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.
Ordinance No.
Page 5 of 9
2-22
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.
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
2-23
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
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 a,pproval 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 7of9
2-24
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 sh_all 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.
Page 8of9
2-25
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 9of9
2-26
Current Fence, Wall and
Hedge Permit Application
2-27
City of RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement
FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES
This application is required for any fence, wall, or hedge constructed within the rear yard
setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge constructed within the
side yard setback adjacent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting
parcel. Existing fences, walls or hedges may be replaced without a permit if replaced at
the same height or lower and with the same type of physical barrier (fence for fence,
wall for wall, etc.), or with material which would be less obtrusive to potential views
(stucco wall to wrought iron fence, etc.). A fence is defined as any physical barrier that
allows the passage of at least 80% light and air. If your lot configuration matches one of
the following conditions, you are exempt from this permit application.
1. If the grade differential across the adjoining lots, measured perpendicular to the
boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall, or
hedge does not exceed two feet.
ABUTTING
APPLICANT P/L
LESS THAN 2-FOOT GRADE DIFFERENTIAL
2. If the lot on which the fence, wall, or hedge is proposed is located upslope of
any property contiguous or abutting the location of the fence, wall, or hedge.
APPLICANT P/L
ABUTTING
Page 1
2-28
3. If the top of the fence, wall, or hedge would be at an elevation lower than
the pad elevation of the upslope lot.
ABUTTING
APPLICANT P/L
PAD ELEVATION
The City's primary concern in processing a Fence, Wall, Hedge Application is to ensure that
rear yard and side yard views from upslope lots are protected from intentional or
inadvertent impairment of views.
Some of the major items staff will be checking are:
*
*
The height and location of proposed fences, walls, and hedges.
Whether the fence, wall, or hedge will significantly impair a view from the
viewing area as defined in Section 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Development Code.
If you are unsure of any of the City's requirements in these areas, it is suggested that
you contact the Planning Department before going to the expense of having plans
prepared. Preliminary discussions with the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement
Staff may reveal potential conflicts with the Development Code, or may indicate that a
different application is required.
When you are ready to file your application, make certain the entire form is completed
and that you have all the required materials. This will allow us to process your
application without necessary delay.
The following materials must be submitted to the Planning Department in order to
process your request:
*
*
*
Three (3) copies of a diagram of the side view of the fence, wall, or hedge
the elevations, including the proposed height, materials, and a section drawing
identifying the relationship between the subject property and abutting properties.
Three (3) copies of the site plan (the plan should include dimensions of the
lot, all property lines and streets, dimensions and location of proposed fences,
walls, and hedges, existing and proposed).
Indicate topography of the lot either by elevation call outs or topographic
lines.
Page 2
2-29
*
*
*
*
Two (2) copies of a "vicinity map", prepared to scale, which shows all properties
adjacent to the subject property. The "Vicinity Map" must be prepared exactly as
described in the attached instruction sheet.
Two (2) sets of self-adhesive mailing labels and one (1) photocopy of the labels
which list the property owner of every parcel which is adjacent to the subject
property (applicant). The name and address of every property owner (including
applicant) must be typed on 8 1 /2" X 11" sheets of self-adhesive labels. The
mailing labels must be keyed to the corresponding lots, as shown on the vicinity
map described above. The property owners mailing list must be prepared
exactly as described in the attached instruction sheet. If the property owners
mailing list is not prepared by a Title Company or other professional mailing list
preparation service, the applicant must sign and submit the attached
· "Certification of Property Owners Mailing List" form.
Fences, Walls and Hedges permit application form, signed by the property
owner.
Filing fee: S2.192 Application Fee+ $4 Data Processing Fee= ~2, 196
In addition to the above Filing Fee, the following fee may be assessed if
applicable: :$18.00 Historic Data Entry Fee (one time fee per propertv).
Please remember that if all of the necessary materials are not submitted, the
application cannot be deemed complete for processing.
»Important~
• Notice: CC&R's are private restrictions or agreements. Therefore the City is not
responsible for a property owner's compliance with any CC&R's that may govern their
property and the City does not enforce private CC&R's. The City recommends that
property owners review their title report to see if any CC&R's govern their property, and
if so, consult such CC&R's prior to submittal of their application. Additionally, property
owners should review their title report for any other private property restrictions (Deed
Restriction, Private Easement, etc.) that may govern their property.
Revised: 08/06/07
Page 3
2-30
City of RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Department of Planning, Building & Code Enforcement
FENCES, WALLS, AND HEDGES PERMIT NO. __ zo __ N _____ _
APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR LANDOWNER
(Name) (Name)
(Address) (Address)
Phone: Home Phone: Home
~--------------
Work Work _______ _ -------
Project Location:------------------------
Project Description:-----------------------
GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Maximum height of fences, walls, or hedges.
2. Linear length of the proposed fence, wall, or hedge.
GRADING INFORMATION
If any of the following conditions are proposed, a Grading Application is required:
* Total volume of earth to be moved (sum of cut and fill) is 20 cubic yard
or greater.
* Depth of cut/fill is 3 feet or greater.
__ 1. Total volume if earth to be moved (sum of cut and fill) in cubic yards.
2. Maximum height of fill.
3. Maximum depth of cut.
Page4
2-31
PUBLIC WORKS ENCROACHMENT
Does the project involve any work, activity or encroachment in the public right-of-way or
a public drainage structure? 0 YES 0 NO
If yes, you must obtain approval from the Public Works Department prior to insurance of
construction permits.
SIGNATURES
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, that the information and materials with this
appli9ation are true and correct.
Signature of Applicant/Contractor Signature of Landowner
CONTRACTORS PLEASE READ AND INITIAL:
I UNDERSTAND that in order to perform work in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, a
business license must be obtained from the City's Finance Department prior to obtaining
a building permit from the Building and Safety Department. ____ _
(initials)
W:\Forms\Plng\apps\Fences Walls & Hedges Permit.doc
Page 5
2-32
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2013-10
2-33
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(B)(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 Jess 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
2-34
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 Gene~al 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 rear property line or f.or any 1Nall or hedge placed within the
side yard setback adjacent to an interior side property lino 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
2-35
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, 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;
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 Gf--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 of 7
2-36
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: Commissioners Nelson, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Leon, Chairman Emenhiser
NOES: None
ABSTENTION: None
ABSENT: Commissioners Gerstner, Tetreault
RECUSALS: Commissioner Lewis
Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-10
Page 4of7
2-37
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 of 7
2-38
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 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
2-39
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
2-40
Minutes from May 28, 2013
Planning Commission
Meeting
2-41
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, explaining 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 forward 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.
3. Variance Revision (Case No. ZON2013-00079): 30132 Via Borica
Commissioner Tomblin disclosed that he knows the Armstrongs, but his vote will not be
influenced one way or the other by this.
Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report, giving a brief description of the
property and explaining the scope of the proposed project. She explained the need for
the Variance, stated staff was able to make the required findings to support the
Variance, and was recommending approval.
Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2013
Page2
2-42
Staff Report from
May 28, 2013 Planning
Commission Meeting
2-43
CrTYOF
4o RANCHO PAlDS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPM~R~TOR
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 Planner~
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 applicable 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,
2-44
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 141h 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
2-45
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(B)(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-
Page 1of7
2-46
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
procedures.
Section 2: 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.
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 rear property line or for any wall or hedge plased \'lithin 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
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-
Page 2of7
2-47
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, ...2!
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.
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 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. Resolutio.n No. 2013-
Page 3of7
2-48
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 28th day of May 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 4of7
2-49
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-
Page 5of7
2-50
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 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~
Page 6of7
2-51
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 7of7
2-52
Minutes from May 14, 2013
Planning Commission
Meeting
2-53
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. lhe first proposal is to clarify the allowed sixteen-foot I eighteen-foot combination
height limit that is 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 281h 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 would 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
Page2
2-54
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 staffs 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 existing.
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
Page3
2-55
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.
Director 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, (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 r ilding or repair of existing fences or walls along the City' ajor
arterial streets. Sh viewed the current language, and noted the gre ariety of walls
and fences along Hawt e Boulevard. With the intent of minimi · further changes
and discrepancies along a ·a1 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 rial t. She noted that staff was not
recommending property owners be req · to replace or change their wall, as this is
simply to provide standards to assi · the p ervation and maintenance of the
character of the City's arterial dors. She no staff also provided the Planning
Commission with two alte 1ves 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 wti
in:· ation and foliage is provided up against these walls to help screen the walls.
oted it may take years to work, but the foliage would eventually cover the entire wall.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2013
Page4
2-56
Staff Report from
May 14, 2013 Planning
Commission Meeting
2-57
CrrYOF ?b RANCHO FALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CHAIRMAN & MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS, COM~EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MAY 14, 2013
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(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.) 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
2-58
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(B)(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 viewwhile 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 vision through said surface in a horizontal plane." Since "fences" by definition
allow for visibility 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
2-59
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences, Walls and Hedges
May 14, 2013
has the potential to significantly impair 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 applicantto
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, 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 interior side yard setback that abuts
a developed adjaoent to a rearpff>{Jerly !!ne or for any wa# or hedge placed within
the side yard setback adjaoent to an interior side property line of any oontlgoous or
abl:J#iRg parcel (as determined by the director), except as in the situations
specified below:
a. Fences, walls or hedges located where the grade differential between the
building pads of adjaoent abutting lots, measured perpendicularto the boundary
between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or hedge, is
two feet or Jess 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 uclean-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:
2-60
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences, Walls and Hedges
May 14, 2013
iv. When a hedge is combined with a fence, freestanding wall, JlLretaining wall 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(D)(1)(a), to clarify
that a Minor Exception Permit (MEP) is not required for any fence higher than 42 inches up
to 6 fee.twithin 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(D)(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 slde 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
2-61
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 impacts 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 Staffs 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 Knighfs Memorandum from the October 16, 2012 Study Session
• Existing Code Language from Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges)
• Minutes from the October 16, 2012 City Council meeting
2-62
Staff Report from the
November 20, 2012
City Council Meeting
2-63
CITYOF RANCHO PAIDS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY D~~ENT DIRECTOR
NOVEMBER 20, 2012 u v
SUBJECT: INITIATION OF A CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC SECTION
17.76.030 (FENCES, WALLS AND HEDG_Et).)/
REVIEWED: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER CJ9___
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner.
RECOMMENDATION
Initiate a CodeAmendmentto: 1) revise Section 17.76.030 of the RPVMC (Fences, Walls
and Hedges) to require new fences, wails and hedges within specified setbacks be subject
to a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit, thereby affording view protection from said fences,
walls and hedge to more property owners; and, 2) make minor clean-up amendments to
Section 17.76.030 to clarify combination hedge heights and applicability of a Minor
Exception Permit for fences.
BACKGROUND
At the October 16, 2012 City Council Study Session, Councilman Knight presented his
request for the City Council to move forward on a code amendmentto correct a 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. The City Council
unanimously agreed to place the item on a future agenda to formally initiate the code
amendment.
DISCUSSION
As noted in Councilman Knight's memorandum (attached), the existing language of
Development Code Section 17.76.030(8)(1) was written with the assumption that rear
property lines abut other rear property lines, and side property lines abut other side
property lines. Situations where a rear property line may not abut another rear property
line, or when a side property line does not abut another side property line, which is often
found with flag lots or lots on private streets and/or driveways are not addressed.
2-64
City Council Meeting
Initiation Request: Fences, Walls and Hedges Code Amendment
November 20, .2012
According to Staff's estimate, there are approximately 1,000 properties (about 7% of the
properties} 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, "the purpose of permit requirement is to ensure that the
proposed fence, wall or hedge is approved at a height that does not significantly impair the
abutting nelghbor'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, in some cases a property owner is able to
construct a new fence, wall or hedge along their rear or side property line that may cause
view impairment to another property. 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.
.,.
Staff agrees With Councilman Knight's proposal for the same reason articulated by
Councilman Knight. Therefore, Staff is recommending that a Code Amendment be
initiated by the City Council so that the language within the Fence, Wall and Hedge Section
17.76.030(8)(1) can be amended to address the Issue above. In addition) Staff believes
that this would be an opportunity to clarify the language of the Fences, Walls and Hedges
Permit section and to clear up two other issues within the greater Fence, Wall and Hedge
Permit section. The first involves clarifying the height permitted for combinations of
hedges, walls and fences. The second involves clarifying that a Minor Exception Permit is
not required for fences higher than 42 inches up to 6 feet within the street-side ,setback as
this is currentJy allowed by-right per Section 17.76.030.(C)(1)(b)(i). These issues will be
addressed with the Planning Commission in addition to Councilman Knight's request.
With initiation of the pro.posed code amendment this evening, Staff will work with the City
Attorney to craft the specific code amendment language. 'The language witl be presented
to the Planning Commission for its review and approval. The Planning Commission's
recommendation will then be presented to the City Council for its ultimate review and
adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT
The processing of the requested Code Amendment would have minimal impact on the
Department's budget. It should pe noted that currently, a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit
application has a fee of $2, 192 that is paid by the property owner in order to offset costs
incurred to process the application. As the proposed Code Amendment would affect more
properties, the application fee would be an additional cost to some prope.rty owners who
would have otherwise been exempted from requiring City approval of a Fence, Wall and
Hedge Permit under existing regulations.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council initiate a Code
2-65
City Council Meeting
Initiation Request: Fences, Walls and Hedges Code Amendment
November 20, 2012
Amendment for RPVMC Section 17.76.030 (Fences, walls and hedges) to: 1) revise the
language for when a Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit is required, 2) clarify the height
restrictions for hedges when combined with a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall, and
3) clarify when application of a Minor Exception Permit is required.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City
Council to consider:
1) Do not initiate any code amendments at this time and leave Code Section
17.76.030 as is; or,
2) Initiate a Code Amendment to revise the requirements for when a Fences, Walls
and Hedge Permit is required, but do not revise Sectiop 1·7.76.030{C)(1)(b)(iv) to
clarify the hedge height limitations or Section 17.7G.030(0) clarifying when
application of a Minor Exception Permit is required; or,
3) Pursue another option and direct Staff to bring back additional information at a
future meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Council Member Jim Knight's Memorandum from the October 16, 2012 Study Session
• Existing Code Language from Section 17.76.030 (Fences, walls and hedges)
2-66
Council Member Knight's
Memorandum from the
October 16, 2012
Study Session
2-67
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council Members
From: Council Member Jim Knight
Date: October 16, 2012
I was prepared at our last Council meeting to bring this agenda item forth but we waived
"Future Agenda Items". So I would like to bring this forth In our Oct. 16th Study Session. It
is a rninor oleanwup of our development code and not major policy issue . .
Existing Development Co.de Section 17.76.030.B.1 requires that a .~Fence, Wall & Hedge
Permit" be obtained to place certain fences, walls or hedges on I private property. 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 appUcant's privacy needs.
Currently, with some exceptions, a Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit Is required prior to
Installing a fence, wall or hedge within the rear yard setback (generally the area within 20
feet of the rear property Une) of a resident's lot which abuts the rear property line of an
abutting lot. This is because the code assumes all properties have rear yards abutting,
which is the case for the majority of properties In our city. But the code does not take Into
consideration other types of lot configurations such as some corner lots or flag lots wherein
a rear yard may abut a side or front yard. In these cases, slmply because of how the code
is written to only address fences, walls and hedges in rear yards abutting rear property
lines, there is no view protection to an abutting neighbor because said fence, wall or hedge
does not need to go through the permit review process. A variance to the code is not an
option for relief because variances only allow for an exception to a code standard and
there Is no cod~ standard that addresses these circumstances that can occur with flag or
comer Jots.
I have been contacted by at least one resident in which their lot configuration ls not taken
into consideration under the current code and as a tesult they do not have the same
.property rights as other neighboring residents. I feel that It should be the City's intent to
administer our development code in a fair and even manner leaving no one jn a situation in
which their property's lot configuration denies that property owner a substantial right other
property owners enjoy.
I believe the change would only require an addition of a sentence or two in Sec. 17. 76.030
subsection 81 to accommodate unique situations that can arise with flag lot or corner lot
configurations. Staff will come back wlth their recommendations for our consideration.
If Council agrees that this code change should proceed, then it would go before the
Planning Commission for their review and recommendation after which It would come back
to Council for consideration of final approval.
2-68
Existing Code Language
from Section 17.76.030
(Fences, Walls and Hedges)
2-69
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 intersections and unnecessary lmpalnnent of views.
B. Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit
1. Pennit Required. A fence., wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence, wall or
hedge placed within the rear yard setback adjacent 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, 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, waJt 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 Chanter 17.02 (Slngle-Famlly Residential 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 rldgellne of the
primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a View from the viewing area of
another parcel, as defined In Ch@oter 17.02 (Single-Famfly Residential 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, 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
2-70
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 to the subject property. Notice of denial
shall be given only to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the directors decision
to the planning commission pursuantto Section 17.80.050 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures) of this title.
4. The decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to
Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) 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 pub,ljc·Realth, safety and welfare and to
carry out the purpose and Jnterit 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 reslri.cted 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:
i. UP to fortyMtwo inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, setbacks, open space
areas and building height) 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 (Lots, setbacks, open space areas and building height) of this title; and
iii. When located within 1he 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 visibilfty) 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 Chaoter 17.02 (Single-family
Residential Districts);
2-71
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 combined with a fence, freestanding wall, 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 Qhapter 17.96 (Definltions), 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) (environmental
protection) 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 1].48.070 (Lots, setbacks, open space area and building height) of this title.
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed forty-two
inches In the front or street·slde setback areas, except as restricted by the
intersection vlsibllity requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, setbacks, open space
area and building height) 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•slde setback areas, except as restricted by the Intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.4.S.070 (Lots, setbacks, open space area and building
height) 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 17.56.02Q (f:nvironmental
protection) 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 pursuantto 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;
2-72
b. A fence, wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front 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.
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
~~~ ~ -
b. The line of sight over or through the fence ls adequate for safety and does not
significantly Impair a View from the Viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in
Section jZ.02.040 (Single-Family Residential Districts) of this title;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070 (Lots, Setbacks,
Open Space Area and Building Height) 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. General Regulations.
1. Fences., walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit ff 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 citrs 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 Chaoter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay District) of this title. All
2-73
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. Hlghrldge 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 (palf), 1980; Ord. 90 § 5 (part), 1977; Ord. 75
(part), 1975) (Ord. No. 510, §§ 13, 14, 16, B-29·10}
2-74
Minutes from the
October 16, 2012
City Council Meeting
2-75
MINUTES
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 16, 2012
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P .M. by Mayor Misetich at Fred Hesse
Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard.
CESS TO CLOSED SESSION:
P .M. the meeting was recessed into Closed Session, with all Coun
presen
TO REGULAR SESSION FOR A STUDY SESSIO
At 6:39 P.M., Ma r Misetich reconvened the meeting to Reg
Council Study Sess
PRESENT: Brooks, Campb , Duhovic, Knight
ABSENT: None
er; Carolynn Petru, Deputy City
d Parks; Carol Lynch, City Attorney; Dennis
McLean, Director of Finance/lnforma • Technology; Joel Rojas, Community
Development Director; Jim Hendri on, terim Director of Public Works; and, Carla
Morreale, City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR MS LISTED 0 THE AGENDA FOR THE STUDY
SESSION:
None.
ntative Agendas in Light of City Council Goa
Dis ssion ensued among Council Members, City Attorney Lynch, an taff regarding
· son the upcoming Council Meeting agendas as listed on the Tentati
Future Agenda Items Proposed by Council Members to be Prioritized:
(t>roposed Code Amendment to Fence, Wall & Hedge Permit Process
City Council Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 1of12
2-76
Councilman Knight provided a brief report regarding this item.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff.
Councilman Knight moved, seconded by Councilman Duhovic, to direct staff to place
this item on an upcoming agenda for Council consideration.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Knight, and Mayor Misetich
None
ABSENT: None
Mayor · etich called a brief recess from 6:50 P .M. to 7:03 P .M.
City Council r; call was answered as follows:
PRES.ENT: Brooks, ampbell, Duhovic, Knight, and Mayor
ABSENT: None
Petru, Deputy City
rol Lynch, City Attorney; Dennis
FLAG SALUTE:
The Flag Salute was led by C
Mayor Misetich an need the recent heroic acts of several bystanders
automobile accid t on Montemalaga Drive. He reported that the heroes cued the
accident victi ho was trapped in her car just moments before her car burs · to
flames. He esented Certificates of Recognition to the heroes who were able be
present, · the other certificates to be delivered to those who were unable to att d
the Co ·1 meeting.
M r Misetich announced the recent passing of John Greenwood, a resident of San
P dro and member of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council who worked
City Council Minutes
October 16, 2012
Page 2of12
2-77