RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_08_06_02_Addendum_6_Negative_Declaration_Ordinance_No_510
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: August 6, 2013
Subject: Adoption of Addendum No. 6 to a Negative Declaration for
Ordinance No. 510 and Introduction of an Ordinance to amend
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code Chapter 17.76.030(F) –
Arterial Walls and Fences (Case No. ZON2012-00355)
Subject Property: Citywide
1. Declare the Hearing Open: Mayor Brooks
2. Report of Notice Given: City Clerk Morreale
3. Staff Report & Recommendation: Community Development Director Rojas
Assistant Planner Harwell
4. Public Testimony:
Appellants: N/A
Applicant: N/A
5. Council Questions:
6. Rebuttal:
7. Declare Hearing Closed: Mayor Brooks
8. Council Deliberation:
9. Council Action:
2-1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECT
AUGUST 6, 2013
ADOPTION OF ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR ORDINANCE NO. 510 AND INTRODUCTION OF AN
ORDINANCE TO AMEND RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.030(F) -
ARTERIAL WALLS AND FENCES (CASE NO. ZON2012-00355).
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER c[)__,
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Resolution No. _, adopting Addendum No. 6 to the Negative Declaration
for Ordinance No. 510, for a code amendment to RPVMC Section 17.76.030(F) of
the City's Development Code; and,
2. Introduce Ordinance No. _, amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(F), thereby
requiring privately owned rear and street side yard walls or fences that need to be
repaired and/or replaced by the property owner match the pre-existing and adjoining
wall or fence that abuts the adjacent street, with the exception of chain like fencing
which must be replaced with a City -approved material or new uniform tract
fencing/walls proposed by a Homeowners Association or neighborhood, and add
Western Avenue to the list of arterial streets under Section 17.76.030(F)(5) (Case
No. ZON2012-00355); and,
3. Direct Staff to bring back for discussion at a future City Council meeting the
Planning Commission's recommendation that the Council facilitate the installation of
irrigation and landscaping within the City's public right-of-ways to help screen the
patchwork of existing walls and fences along the City's arterials.
BACKGROUND
In 2012, there was a situation where a privately owned damaged block wall along
Hawthorne Boulevard was repaired by the property owner in a manner that did not match
2-2
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
August 6, 2013
the pre-existing perimeter tract wall that is visible along the public right-of-way. In addition,
it came to Staff's attention that certain property owners were planning to replace their
existing rear property line fences or walls along arterials. Since the City's current
Development code does not provide any specific regulations or restrictions regarding the
repair or replacement of privately owned uniform perimeter fencing or walls, Staff brought it
to the City Council's attention that a property owner could use materials that differ from the
pre-existing wall or fence, thereby constructing segments of walls or fences that do not
match the remainder of the pre-existing original tract wall or fence. As such, on November
7, 2012, the City Council initiated a code amendment to address this issue and adopted
Urgency Ordinance No. 541 U, which imposed a moratorium on the replacement or repair
of privately owned fences or walls along arterial streets within the City (see attached
November 7, 2012 City Council Staff Report and Minutes). As the original urgency
ordinance was effective for only 45-days, on December 8, 2012 the City Council adopted
Urgency Ordinance No. 543U extending the moratorium for an additional 10 months and
15 days, the maximum extension permitted by State law, expiring on November 6, 2013.
On May 14, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which
time Staff presented its recommendation for new code language addressing the
replacement of walls and fences along the City's arterial streets (see attached May 14th
Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes). Upon review and discussion with Staff,
the Planning Commission made some modifications to the proposed language. Ultimately,
the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14 on June 11, 2013 (see
attached June 11th Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes), which made specific
recommendations on the code amendment language. The resolution was adopted by a 4-0
vote, with Commissioner Lewis recused, and Commissioners Gerstner and Tetreault
absent.
In advance of the August 5th public hearing before the City Council, on July 17, 2013, Staff
mailed out public notices to 776 property owners with rear yards that abut the following
arterial streets: Crenshaw Boulevard, Crest Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Highridge Road,
Miraleste Drive, Palos Verdes Drive East, Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos Verdes Drive
South, Palos Verdes Drive West, Silver Spur Road, and Western Avenue. Additionally, a
notice of the public hearing was published at 1 /Sth page size in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Newspaper on July 18, 2013. As of the writing of this report, three items of
correspondence have been received in response to the public notice.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission's Proposed Code Amendment
As summarized in the attached P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14 and described in the attached
P .C. minutes, the Planning Commission is recommending the following code amendments:
1. When desired to be repaired or replaced by the fence or wall owner, a requirement
that arterial street walls and fences on private property be repaired or replaced in a
manner that matches the pre-existing and adjacent wall/fence in terms of location,
2-3
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
August 6, 2013
height and materials;
2. When desired to be repair or replaced by the fence or wall owner, a requirement
that chain link fences along arterial streets to be replaced with black aluminum
fencing; and,
3. A process that allows Homeowners Associations or existing neighborhood groups to
completely change the style of the perimeter fence or wall along their specific tract;
and,
4. The addition of Western Avenue to the current list of major arterial streets listed in
Section 17.76.030(F)(5) as letter 'k.'
The following is the proposed language that the Planning Commission and Staff
recommends be added to Section 17.76.030(F) (striked out text is for removed text, and
bold and underlined text is for new text):
5. · Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and exterior fagade of the existing single-family residence
closest to the front property line; in side yards between the street side property line and the
exterior fagade 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; aru:J
j. Silver Spur Road; and
k. Western Avenue.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Tract Fences and Walls along Arterial
Streets.
a. Any existing fence or wall, including a retaining wall, that is part of a
tract or neighborhood fence or wall and is located within a rear or street
side yard setback of a private property abutting any of the arterial
streets listed in subparagraph 17.76.030(F)(5) shall be replaced or
repaired at the same location as the original fence and/or wall, at the
same height as the original or adjoining fence and/or wall, and with the
same materials and color as the original or adjoining fence or wall, to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, except:
i. Any existing chain link fence shall be replaced with a black
aluminum, steel or wrought iron fence, at generally the same
location, height and in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with
any adjoining fences.
2-4
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
August 6, 2013
ii. A Homeowners' Association or group of residents may propose a
new uniform tract wall or fence to replace existing walls or fences for
properties that abut any of the arterial streets listed in subparagraph
17.76.030(F)(5). Upon the submittal of a written request,
accompanied by plans of the proposed design, the Director shall
review and may approve the new proposed fence or wall design,
provided that permission has been obtained from all impacted
property owners, and the materials proposed are commonly used in
the City and are aesthetically compatible with fences and walls used
in the adjacent area.
b. Appeal. Any applicant may appeal a decision of the Director to the
Planning Commission and decision of the Planning Commission to the
City Council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
. Procedures) of this title.
The proposed code amendment does not require that a permit be obtained for free-
standing walls or fence repair or replacement, unless the repair or replacement involves a
retaining wall, which currently requires review through Grading Permit. Furthermore, the
proposed new language does not compel private fences or walls owners to proactively
replace or repair them. The intent is simply to provide standards which will assist in the
preservation and maintenance of the character of the City's arterial corridors when wall or
fence repairs are desired by the individual fence or wall owner. The exception to this would
be in the case of a fence or wall becoming unsightly in violation of the City's property
maintenance ordinance. In these situations, the owners of private fences or walls would be
notified to repair said fence or wall by the City's Code Enforcement Division. Likewise, any
newly constructed walls or fences that are not repaired or replaced in compliance with the
new code regulation, will be pursued by the City's Code Enforcement Division.
Planning Commission's Proposed Screening of Arterial Walls and Fences
The Planning Commission recognizes that the proposed code amendment requiring
repaired or replaced fences or walls to match existing fences or walls does not address the
overall patchwork of different fencing and barrier wall styles found throughout the City's
arterial streets. After discussing alternatives at the May 14th meeting, the Commission
agreed that the best solution for dealing with the patchwork of fences and walls would be
for the City to facilitate the installation of irrigation and landscaping within the City's right-of-
way along arterial fences and walls to help screen existing walls or fences with vegetation.
The Commission noted how this was done a few years ago by the Monaco HOA along
Hawthorne Blvd between Crest Road and Vallon Drive, with Department of Public Works
approval. Thus, in addition to its recommended code amendment language, the
Commission recommends that the City Council formally facilitate right-of-way improvement
projects on public land along arterials to include irrigation and vegetation to help screen
existing walls and/or fences with vegetation
Staff discussed the feasibility of such capital improvements with the Department of Public
Works. While Public Works Staff is fully in support of conducting such right-of-way
2-5
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
August 6, 2013
improvements, they expressed concern with the cost to implement such improvements.
While there is some drought-tolerant landscaping that may do well with minimal watering,
there are long-term costs associated with maintenance of any irrigation system to
supplement the vegetation as well as the trimming and replacement of vegetation. Similar
to the City's Beautification Grant Program, a process could be established where the
Department of Public Works would work with Homeowners associations or neighborhood
groups to apply for a permit to have screening foliage installed and maintained. This could
involve anything from homeowners associations donating plant material or contributing
funds towards the cost of having irrigation and/or landscaping, which would be installed by
either a licensed contractor or the City's contractor. However, as there are many properties
abutting the major arterial streets that are not part of an organized homeowner's
organization, this would not provide a cover-all solution consistently along corridors like
Hawthorne Boulevard. Further, there are some areas along Hawthorne Blvd or other major
roadways that may not have enough room for irrigation and/or landscaping, making efforts
to the screen fences or walls very limited. There is some concern related to the
vegetation's installation affecting adjacent private property, as has happened in the past
when the City has to remove trees and foliage that cause damage to retaining walls and/or
driveways. However, since all future installations will be approved by the Department of
Public Works prior to installation and will be in conformance with the City's approved plant
species list, cases of planted foliage causing damage to private property would be
minimized.
In order to more fully flush out the issues associated with the Planning Commission's
recommendation, Staff is recommending that this issue be brought back at a future City
Council meeting for further discussion.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
In response to the public notice, Staff received three items of correspondence at the time
of the writing of this report. The first item was an e-mail received from Robert King, of
30764 Via La Cresta, whose property abuts Hawthorne Boulevard (see attached e-mail).
Mr. King wrote to Staff asking about what the required replacement fencing woutd be for
the chain link at the rear of his property and if the City would assist in contributing to the
cost for replacement of the fence. Staff informed Mr. King that the proposal is to require
black aluminum fencing and other alternative options for replacing chain link fencing and
that no homeowner is being forced or required to replace their existing wall and/or fence
abutting the major arterial streets.
An e-mail was also received from Mr. Sam Josephson, who owns property between Silver
Spur Road and Blackhorse Road. Mr. Josephson described how at the bottom of his
property abuts Hawthorne Blvd and the developer installed stone pilaster and chain link
fencing has been destroyed over time, and he asked for the City's assistance in locating
his property line. Staff response (included) stated that the most accurate way to locate a
property line is through procuring the services of a surveyor, but tt~e City's Public Works
2-6
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
August 6, 2013
Department has maps that indicate distances from curbs to property lines citywide, which
may assist Mr. Josephson with location of his property line. Further, as was relayed to Mr.
King in the previous correspondence, Staff informed Mr. Josephson that property owners
are not being required to repair or replace their fences or walls at this time, unless it was
damaged or a property maintenance issue.
The third item received was an e-mail from Dwight and Vicki Hanger, who live at 2938 Vista
Del Mar and whose back yard abuts Palos Verdes Drive East. Mr. and Mrs. Hanger agree
that chain link fences are unattractive and suggest that black or green coated chain-Unk
fences may be an alternative material other than the Staff recommended aluminum
fencing.
Staff also received several phone calls from residents with similar concerns as Mr. King
and Mr. Josephson, and Staff gained the impression that those who called were satisfied
that the p·roposed code amendment would only be applicable in the situation in which the
existing fence/wall need to be repaired or chose to be repaired by the property owner, and
that they found the intent of the code amendment to be a positive change to improve the
overall appearance of the City's corridors.
Properties not part of a Tract or Neighborhood Fence or Wall Design
It should be pointed out that the proposed code language applies only to the replacement
or repair of fences or walls that are part of a uniform tract or neighborhood fence or wall
design. The intent was not to make individuals with their own walls or fences match
adjacent tract walls or fences. Thus, individual property owners who are not part of a tract
or development where a uniform wall or fence exists will not be required to rebuild their wall
like-for-like.
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 insert new code language within the Fence, Wall and
Hedge Permit requirements of Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code regulating the
replacement and/or repairs of existing walls or fences along the major arterial streets in the
City. Staff believes that the proposed code amendment language is 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. 6 to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND to
2-7
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
August 6, 2013
address the compliance of the revisions to Section 17.76.030 with the provisions of CEQA.
Also, because the changes to the Code merely addresses fences and walls that have
already been constructed, the proposed Code amendment does not result in an
environmental impact that was not evaluated previously in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with adopting the Ordinance and Resolution. Any
Staff time associated with implementing the proposed ordinance would be minimal and
absorbed by the Department's current budget.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution
No. __ , adopting Addendum No. 6 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, for
a code amendment to revise RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030(F) of the Development Code
(Fences, Walls and Hedges); and introduce Ordinance No. _, amending RPVMC
Chapter 17.76.030(F) of the Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges), so that
future repaired and/or replaced rear and side yard tract fences and walls match the pre-
existing wall or fence and adjoining wall or fence, with the exception of chain like fencing
which must be replaced with a City approved material or new uniform tract fencing/walls
proposed by a Homeowners Association or neighborhood, in order to maintain a consistent
and harmonious appearance along the major arterial streets within the City, and add
Western Avenue to the list of arterial streets under Section 17.76.030(F) (Case No.
ZON2012-00355).
ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution No.
• Ordinance No.
• E-mail from Robert King, dated July 22, 2013
• E-mail from Sam Josephson, dated July 29, 2013
• E-mail from Dwight & Vicki Hanger, dated July 30, 2013
• Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013-14
• Minutes from the June 11, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting
• Staff Report from June 11, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting
• Minutes from May 14, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting
• Staff Report from May 14, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting
2-8
Resolution
2-9
RESOLUTION NO. --
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 6
TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE NO.
510, FOR A CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC
CHAPTER 17.76.030(F) (FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES).
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-43,
thereby adopting a Negative Declaration ("ND") for miscellaneous amendments to Title 17
bf 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 certifit?d ND for Ordinance No. 510 and adopted Ordinance No. 513U, approving minor
changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to correct the omission of Specific
Plan District VII, and to change the designation of specific plan districts from numbered to
descriptive titles; and,
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2011, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 2 to
the certified ND for Ordinance No. 510 and adopted Ordinance No. 529, approving
miscellaneous "clean-up" code amendments to Title 17 (Zoning) of the City's Development
Code, which clarified code language, removed code language discrepancies, and codified
existing policy procedures and/or application requirements; and,
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 532,
thereby approving 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; and,
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council adopted Addendum No. 5 to the
certified ND for Ordinance No. 510 and introduced Ordinance No. 546, regarding revisions
to expand the applicability of when a Fence, Wall and Hedge permit is required; and,
WHEREAS, the City's current Development Code does not provide any specific
regulations or restrictions regarding the type of materials that should be used to repair or
replace a privately owned wall or fence that was built as part of a residential tract along the
City's arterial streets; and,
WHEREAS, residential tract walls or fences along the City's arterial streets are
sometimes repaired or replaced in a manner that is inconsistent with the previous wall and
surrounding walls, creating visually unappealing arterial corridors in the City; and,
2-10
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance
No. 541 U, which imposed a moratorium on the repair or replacement of privately owned
walls or fences along arterial streets in the City, and initiated a Code Amendment to amend
RPVMC Section 17.76.030(F); and,
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2012, the City Council extended Urgency Ordinance
No. 541 U for an additional 10 months and 15 days, which will expire on November 6, 2013;
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 requirements addressing
the replacement of walls and fences along the City's arterial streets. Based on public
testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing
to June 1·1, 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(F);
and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 2013-14, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance revising
Section 17.76.030(F) of the City's Municipal Code, as recommended by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2013, Staff mailed out 776 notices to property owners
whose rear yards were identified as abutting the following arterial streets: Crenshaw
Boulevard, Crest Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Highridge Road, Miraleste Drive, Palos
Verdes Drive East, Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos Verdes Drive South, Palos Verdes
Drive West, Silver Spur Road, and Western Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2013, notice of the public hearing on the proposed
amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030(F) 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), 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. 6 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, has been prepared;
and,
WHEREAS, on August 6, 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:
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 2 of 7
2-11
Section 1: Addendum No. 6 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(F)] that would require privately owned rear and street
side yard walls or fences that abut an arterial street and need to be repaired and/or
replaced by the property owner to match the pre-existing and adjc;>ining wall or fence that
abuts the adjacent arterial street.
Section 2: In approving Addendum No. 6 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance
No. 510, the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 6
document, attached hereto and is made a part thereof as Exhibit "A".
Section 3: Addendum No. 6 identifies no new significant adverse environmental
impacts that were not identified and analyzed previously in connection with the Negative
Declaration for Ordinance No. 510.
Section 4: Addendum No. 6 states that the proposed revisions will not result in any
significant environmental impacts, and the circumstances under which the Code
amendment is being undertaken have not substantially changed, since the CEQA
determination was made for the Negative Declaration adopted through Resolution No.
2010-43 for Ordinance No. 510.
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 when the
Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 was adopted, or which identifies a new
significant environmental effect that was not analyzed previously, has arisen. Also,
because the proposed changes to the Code result in enhanced aesthetic protection along
the City's arterial streets, the proposed Code amendments do not result in an
environmental impact that was not evaluated previously in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Section 6: All findings and attachments contained in Resolution No. 2010-43, as
adopted by the City Council on June 1, 2010 are hereby incorporated by reference.
Section 7: The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution, if available, must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California
Code of Civil Procedure or any other applicable short period of limitations.
Section 8: For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
contained in the staff reports, minutes, and evidence presented at the public hearings, the
City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby approves Addendum No. 6 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 the State and local guidelines with respect thereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this_ day of August 2013.
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 3 of 7
2-12
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. 2013-_ was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting held on August_, 2013.
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 4 of 7
2-13
EXHIBIT "A"
(Addendum No. 6 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background: On June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-43,
thereby adopting a Negative Declaration (ND) 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 (ND) 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 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 1 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 VI I, 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
approving Addendum No. 3 to the certified ND and approving a change in the allowable
movement of an open space hazard boundary line from thirty feet to one hundred feet through
an interpretation procedure. On April 3, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 535,
thereby approving Addendum No. 4 to the certified ND for a code amendment to revise
Chapters 17.02, 17.04, and 17.98 of the Municipal Code to regulate the number of residential
garage sales. On July 15, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-48, thereby
approving Addendum No. 5 to the certified ND for a code amendment to revise Section
17. 76.030 of the Municipal Code to expand the applicability of when a Fence, Wall and Hedge
permit is required.
Proposed Amendments: The City Council is currently reviewing a code amendment to revise
Section 17.76.030(E) of the Development Code (Fences, Walls and Hedges). The proposed
amendment will require that privately owned rear yard and street side walls or fences that need
to be repaired and/or replaced by the property owner match the pre-existing and adjoining wall
or fence that abuts the adjoining arterial street, as listed in Section 17. 76.030(F)(5) and (6), with
the exception of chain link fencing which must be replaced with a City-approved material and
new uniform tract fencing walls proposed by Homeowners Associations or neighborhood
groups.
Purpose: This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being prepared
pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, which
allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an adopted Negative Declaration if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in
Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have
occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, no subsequent Negative Declaration shall be
prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence
in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 5 of 7
2-14
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
sig!1ificant 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(F) to determine if
any impacts would result. The Planning Commission and the City Council have independently
reviewed this item and have determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a
new Negative Declaration is not required for this Code revision because the proposed
amendments will not result in any new significant environmental effects because the
amendment will protect and enhance the aesthetics of the City's arterial roadways:
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 revision to Title 17 (Zoning) does not present new significant
environmental impacts because the revision merely modifies or clarifies certain
requirements, or codifies policy procedures and/or application requirements. Therefore,
the proposed revision does 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 revision 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 revision relates to minor modifications that add code language related to
existing development. There are no changes with respect to the circumstances under
which the amendments are undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous
Negative Declaration.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior Negative
Declaration was adopted, identifies a significant environmental effect. Because the
proposed amendment 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.
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 6 of 7
2-15
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds that no further environmental review is
necessary for this Addendum No. 6.
Resolution No. 2013-_
Page 7 of 7
2-16
Ordinance
2-17
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ADOPTING
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTION 17. 76.030(F) TO REGULATE PRIVATELY OWNED REAR
AND STREET SIDE YARD WALLS OR FENCES THAT ABUT CITY
ARTERIAL STREETS (CASE NO. ZON2012-00355).
WHEREAS, Section 17. 76.030(F)(5) of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code prohibits the installation of chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences within a rear
yard setback which abuts the following 10 arterial streets identified in the City's general
plan: Crenshaw Boulevard, Crest Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Highridge Road, Miraleste
Drive, Palos Verdes Drive East, Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos Verdes Drive South,
Palos Verdes Drive West, and Silver Spur Road; and,
WHEREAS, the City's current Development Code does not provide any specific
regulations or restrictions regarding the type of materials that a privately owned wall or
fence built as part of a residential tract along the City's arterial streets should be
constructed of when they are being repaired or replaced; and,
WHEREAS, residential tract walls or fences along the City's arterial streets are
sometimes repaired or replaced in a manner that is inconsistent with the previous wall and
surrounding walls, creating visually unappealing arterial corridors in the City. Additionally,
the Development Code has a "grandfather" provision that allows legal, non-conforming
chain link fences to be replaced like for like without having to comply with Section
17.76.030(F)(5); and,
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance
No. 541U, which imposed a moratorium on the repair or replacement of privately owned
walls or fences along arterial streets in the City, and initiated a Code Amendment to amend
RPVMC Section 17.76.030(F); and,
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2012, the City Council extended Urgency Ordinance
No. 541U for an additional 10 months and 15 days, so that it will expire on November 6,
2013; 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 addressing the
replacement of walls and fences along the City's arterial streets. Based on public
testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing
to June 11, 2013, with direction to Staff to draft a resolution for adoption which would
recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to RPVMC Section
17.76.030(F); and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution
No. 2013-14, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance revising
2-18
Section 17.76.030(F) of the City's Municipal Code, as recommended by Staff; and,
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2013, Staff mailed out public notices to 776 property owners
whose rear yards were identified as abutting the following arterial streets: Crenshaw
Boulevard, Crest Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Highridge Road, Miraleste Drive, Palos
Verdes Drive East, Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos Verdes Drive South, Palos Verdes
Drive West,.Silver Spur Road, and Western Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2013, notice of the public hearing on the proposed
amendments to Section 17.76.030(F) 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), 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. 6 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, has been prepared;
and,
WHEREAS, on August 6, 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 ORDAINS 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 by the
adoption of Resolution No._ has determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, a new Negative Declaration is not required for this revision because the proposed
amendments will not result in any new significant environmental effects.
Section 3: 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 Chapter 17.76.030(F) will
require the repair and replacement of walls or fences to match the existing or previous
fences or walls as well as the adjoining fences or walls, which will provide consistency and
uniformity to the structures along the City's arterial corridors, except for chain link fences
which will be required to be replaced with a black aluminum, steel or wrought iron fence,
and when a Homeowners' Association proposes a new uniform tract wall or fence, all of
which will improve the appearance of the City's arterial corridors.
Section 4: The amendments to Chapter 17.76.030(E) are necessary to preserve
Ordinance No._
Page 2 of 5 2-19
the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing regulations that preserve and
maintain the character of the City's arterial corridors.
Section 5: Subsection F of 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
by amending subparagraph 5 and adding new subparagraph 6 to read as follows (striked
out text is for removed text, and bold and underlined text is for new text):
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and exterior fa<;ade of the existing single-family residence
closest to the front property line; in side yards between the street side property line and the
exterior fa<;ade 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; 800
j. Silver Spur Road; and
k. Western Avenue.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Tract Fences and Walls along Arterial
Streets.
a. Any existing fence or wall, including a retaining wall, that is part of a
tract or neighborhood fence or wall and is located within a rear or street
side yard setback of a private property abutting any of the arterial streets
listed in subparagraph 17.76.030(F)(5) shall be replaced or repaired at
the same location as the original fence and/or wall, at the same height as
the original or adjoining fence and/or wall, and with the same materials
and color as the original or adjoining fence or wall, to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director, except:
i. Any existing chain link fence shall be replaced with a black
aluminum, steel or wrought iron fence, at generally the same
location, height and in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with
any adjoining fences.
ii. A Homeowners' Association or group of residents may propose a
new uniform tract wall or fence to replace existing walls or fences for
properties that abut any of the arterial streets listed in subparagraph
17.76.030(F)(5). Upon the submittal of a written request,
accompanied by plans of the proposed design, the Director shall
Ordinance No._
Page 3 of 5 2-20
review and may approve the new proposed fence or wall design,
provided that permission has been obtained from all impacted
property owners, and the materials proposed are commonly used in
the City and are aesthetically compatible with fences and walls used
in the adjacent area.
b. Appeal. Any applicant may appeal a decision of the Director to the
Planning Commission and decision of the Planning Commission to
the City Council pursuant to Chapter 17 .80 (Hearing Notice and
Appeal Procedures) of this title.
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 31 51 day after its passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this_ day of August 2013.
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor
Ordinance No._
Page 4 of 5 2-21
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 August_, 2013.
City Clerk
Ordinance No._
Page 5 of 5 2-22
E-mail from Robert King,
dated July 22, 2013
2-23
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Abigail Harwell
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8: 11 AM
'Robert Kina'
Subject: RE: Arterial Fences and Walls Ordinance
Hi Mr. King -
Thank you for your e-mail. If you need to replace your combination wall/fence along Hawthorne, the proposed
new code language requires that your new block wall match what was previously there and that of your
neighbor's walls along Hawthorne Blvd. (basically like for like), with the exception of chain link. Currently, the
City's Development Code prohibits the use of chain link fencing along the City's major arterial streets (like
Hawthorne Blvd). While chain link is currently being used at the site, if the wall needs to be replaced then
chain link cannot continue to be used. Therefore, as part of the proposed code amendment, Staff and the
Planning Commission are recommending that aluminum, wrought iron or steel fencing, all black in color, be
installed instead of the chain link. The cost of installation of aluminum fencing costs only slightly more than
chain link fencing and will have a more appealing, residential appearance than the industrial chain link, thus
improving the appearance of the roadways when driving through the City.
The proposed code change is an effort to improve the appearance of the City with regulations that apply only
when a property owner needs or wants to replace the applicable walls. No one is being made to change
anything at this time. This proposed code would only come into play if or when you need to fix this wall.
Hopefully this information helps. Please contact me with any further questions.
-Abigail Harwell
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
From: Robert King _
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 5:23 PM
To: Abigail Harwell
Cc:
Subject: Arterial Fences and Walls Ordinance
Hi Abigail,
We received the PUBLIC NOTICE and are trying to figure out what it means for us. We live at 30764 Via La
Cresta with property that extends down to Hawthorne Blvd. Our frontage on Hawthorne is opposite the
Salvation Army property on Hawthorne and is not accessible.
Currently the fence on our frontage is a block wall topped by chain-link fencing which was installed in 1967 by
the original developer of our tract.
If we have to replace this what effect will the new regulation have on the design of the replacement fence?
Particularly with respect to the chain-link section of the fence. If RPV insists on some special design treatment
for the replacement wall/fence are they prepared to contribute to the cost?
Robert E King
1 2-24
E-mail from Sam Josephson,
dated July 29, 2013
2-25
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Joel Rojas
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:38 AM
Sam
Abigail Harwell
Subject: RE: Fence and Wall Mending Proposal
Dear Mr. Josephson
While the most accurate method to determine the location of your property line along Hawthorne Blvd. is through a
property line survey, the City's Public Works Department maintains maps that indicate distances from curbs to property
lines citywide. The information on these maps should suffice for determining where the dividing line is located between
your property and the City's street right-of-way. I have copied Assistant Planner Abigail Harwell on this email as she is
processing the code amendment regarding arterial walls/fences that prompted your question. If you provide your
address to Ms. Harwell, she will provide you with the information contained on the City's maps as to the location of your
property line.
I should also note that the subject code amendment is being presented to the City Council for review and discussion on
August 6th. We will include your comments on this matter with the staff report to the City Council.
Sincerely,
Joel Rojas
Community Development Director
From: Sam -__ _
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 6:44 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Subject: Fw: Fence and Wall Mending Proposal
Mr. Rojas, this is the email I sent to Brian Campbell concerning the letter about fixing the fences along
Hawthorne Blvd. I believe you wrote the letter.
Thank you for responding,
Sam Josephson
From: Sam
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 7:52 PM
To: Brian Campbell
Subject: Fence and Wall Mending Proposal
Hi Brian, I hope you are well and doing good in the forth coming election. I have a problem and I hope you can
help my neighbors and me.
In the matter of the restoration project for those who have property extending to Hawthorne Blvd., I am one
of those people. I live between Silver Spur and Black Horse.
When we moved into our homes in 1966, the contractor, Zuckerman erected stone columns and chain link
fences at the bottom of our property on Hawthorne Blvd. Over the years, vegetation, kids and who knows
1 2-26
what, have knocked over the stone columns and caused the chain link fences to fall. We have one of the fallen
stone columns (I think) and of course the chain link fence on both sides of the column is also on the ground.
Also, there used to be property markers on Hawthorne Blvd which no longer exist or I cannot find them.
think when the City put in the cement curbs, what ever markers were there are now gone.
So the question is, can the City and/or the Planning Dept. help us determine where the property lines are that
run from Silver Arrow to Hawthorne Blvd. This proposal could cost each of us thousands of dollars to put the
property back as it was in 1966.
Regards,
Sam Josephson
5067 Silver Arrow Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, 90275
310-377-5464
2 2-27
E-mail from
Dwight & Vicki Hanger,
dated July 30, 2013
2-28
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello Abigail:
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 2:50 PM
Abigail Harwell
Comment on Case No. ZON2012-00355
Please forward this to the City Council. Thank you in advance!
As a point of reference, our back yard is on PVDE.
I understand the issue with chain link fences may be the rusting. The newer black or green, coated chain-link fences last
for a very long time (25+ years) and are not an eye sore. The requirement to use walls or metal bar fences will increase
the cost and not necessarily improve the look. That is because most of the painted metal fences start to peel in about 3-4
years and look much worse than a coated chain link fence. Even though they may be galvanized (however some are not
and therefore rust). they still require much more effort and cost to keep them painted nicely.
Dwight & Vicki Hanger
2938 Vista Del Mar
Rancho Palos Verdes
Unfortunately, we are on vacation in Hawaii and can not come to the meeting on August 6th.
1 2-29
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2013-14
2-30
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL 1)
FIND THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE
ENVIRONMENT RELATED TO THIS CODE AMENDMENT AND THUS ADOPT
ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE
NO. 51 O; 2) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION
17.76.030{E), THEREBY REQUIRING PRIVATELY OWNED REAR AND
STREET SIDE YARD WALLS OR FENCES THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED
AND/OR REPLACED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER MATCH THE PRE-
EXISTING WALL OR FENCE THAT ABUTS THE ADJOINING ARTERIAL
STREET, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHAIN LINK FENCING WHICH MUST
BE REPLACED WITH A CITY APPROVED MATERIAL AND NEW UNIFORM
TRACT FENCING/WALLS PROPOSED BY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS
OR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND ADD WESTERN AVENUE TO THE LIST OF
ARTERIAL STREETS UNDER SECTION 17.76.030(E)(5);AND 3) PURSUE A
CITY-WIDE PROJECT THAT WOULD FACILITATE THE INSTALLATION OF
IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY TO
ALLOW THE SCREENING OF PRIVATE WALLS/FENCES ALONG THE
CITY'S MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS (CASE NO. ZON2012-00355).
WHEREAS, the City's current development code does not provide any
specific regulations or restrictions regarding the type of materials that a privately
owned wall or fence built as part of a residential tract along the City's arterial
streets should be constructed of when being repaired or replaced; and,
WHEREAS, residential tract walls or fences along the City's arterial
streets are sometimes repaired or replaced in a manner which is inconsistent
with the previous wall and surrounding walls, creating visually unappealing
arterial corridors in the City; and,
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Urgency
Ordinance No. 541 U, which imposed a moratorium on the repair or replacement
of privately owned walls or fences along arterial streets in the City, and initiated a
Code Amendment to amend RPVMC Section 17.76.030(E); and,
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2012, the City Council extended Urgency
Ordinance No. 541 U for an additional 10 months and 15 days, expiring on
November 6, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2013, Staff mailed out 776 notices to property
owners whose rear yard was identified to abut the following arterial streets:
Crenshaw Boulevard, Crest Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Highridge Road,
Miraleste Drive, Palos Verdes Drive East, Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos
Verdes Drive South, Palos Verdes Drive West, Silver Spur Road, and Western
Avenue; and,
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14
Page 1 of 8
2-31
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2013, notice of a public hearing on the proposed
amendments to Chapter 17.76.030(E) 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 Planning Commission has
determined that there is no substantial evidence that the code amendment would
result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, Addendum
No. 6 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(E). At the May 14,
2013 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 11,
2013, with direction to Staff to add language to the Code specifying that 1) chain
link can only be replaced with an alternate barrier to be selected by the City, and
2) tracts should be allowed to propose an updated perimeter fence or wall plan.
The Commission also directed Staff to include in the Planning Commission
Resolution a recommendation to the City Council to pursue a City plan t-0
facilitate the installation of landscaping and irrigation along the private arterial
walls; and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 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 Chapter 17.76 will require the repair and replacement of walls or
fences to match the existing or previous fence or walls, providing consistency
and uniformity to the structures along the City's arterial corridors, except for chain
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14
Page 2 of 8
2-32
link fences which will be required to be replaced with a black, aluminum, steel or
wrought iron fence, and when a Homeowners Association proposes a new
uniform tract wall or fence, all which will improve the appearance of the City's
arterial corridors.
Section 3: That the amendments to Chapter 17.76.030(E) are
necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing
regulations that preserve and maintain the character of the City's arterial
corridors.
Section 4: That subsections of Section 17.76.030(E) (Fences, Walls
and Hedges) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows
(striked out text is for removed text, and bold and underlined text is for new
text):
17. 76.030(5)(E) -General Regulations
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front
yards between the front property line and exterior fac;ade of the existing single-
family residence closest to the front property line; in side yards between the
street side property line and the exterior fa9ade 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; a-AG
j. Silver Spur Road; and
k. Western Avenue.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Tract Fences and Walls along
Arterial Streets.
a. Any existing fence or wall, including a retaining wall, that is part of
a tract or neighborhood fence or wall design and is located within
a rear or street side yard setback of a private property abutting any
of the arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030(E)(5) shall be
replaced or repaired at the same location as the original fence
and/or wall, at the same height as the original or adjoining fence
and/or wall, and with the same materials and color as the original
or adjoining fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, except:
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14
Page 3 of 8
2-33
i. Any existing chain link fence shall be replaced with a black
aluminum, steel or wrought iron fence, at generally the same
location, height and aesthetically compatible to any adjoining
fences.
ii. A Homeowners Association or group of residents may
propose a new uniform tract wall or fence to replace existing
walls or fences for properties that abut any of the listed arterial
streets in Section 17.76.030(E)(5). Upon the submittal of a
written request, accompanied by plans of the proposed
design, the Director shall review and may approve the
proposed fence or wall design, provided that permission has
been obtained from all impacted property owners, and the
materials proposed are commonly used in the City and are
aesthetically compatible with the adjacent area.
b. Appeal. Any applicant may appeal a decision of the Director to the
· Planning Commission and decision of the Planning Commission
to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and
Appeal Procedures) of this title.
Section 5: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council pursue a project for capital improvements on public land to include
irrigation and vegetation along the Hawthorne Boulevard to help screen existing
walls or fences with vegetation.
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 1) Adopt Addendum No. 6 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance
No. 510, and 2) Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.76.030(E) of the
City's Municipal Code to amend RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030(E), so that future
repaired and/or replaced rear and street side yard fences and walls match the
pre-existing wall or fence in order to maintain a consistent and harmonious
appearance along the major arterial streets within the City, add Western Avenue
to the list of arterial streets under Section 17.76.030(E)(5), and that the City
Council pursue capital improvements to install irrigation and vegetation along
Hawthorne Boulevard (Case No. ZON2012-00355)
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14
Page 4 of 8
2-34
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11 1h day of June 2013, by the
following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Nelson, Tetreault, Tomblin, Vice Chairman Leon, and
Chairman Emenhiser
NOES: None
ABSTENTION: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Gerstner
RECUSALS: Commissioner Lewis
Chairman
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14
Page 5 of 8
2-35
EXHIBIT "A"
(Addendum No. 6 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 (ND) 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 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 approving 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.
The City is currently considering another separate code amendment, which is
proposed to be adopted through an Ordinance that would approve Addendum No.
5 to the certified ND.
Proposed Amendments: The City Council is currently reviewing a code
amendment to revise Section 17.76.030(E) of the Development Code (Fences, Walls
and Hedges) that would add code language. The proposed amendment will require
that privately owned rear yard walls or fences that need to be repaired and/or
replaced by the property owner match the pre-existing wall or fence that abuts the
adjoining arterial street, as listed in Section 17. 76.030(E)(5).
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14
Page 6 of 8
2-36
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(E) 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 revision to Title 17 (Zoning) do not present
new significant environmental impacts because they merely modify or clarify
certain requirements, or codify policy procedures and/or application
requirements. Therefore, the proposed revisions do not represent a
substantial change in the code, and will not result in new significant
environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any
impacts.
2. The proposed rev1s1ons will not result in any significant environmental
impacts, and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for
Ordinance No. 510. The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor
modifications that clarify code language discrepancies and/or codify policies
and procedures that are currently in place. There are no changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will
require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14
Page 7 of 8
2-37
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. 6.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-14
Page 8 of 8
2-38
Minutes from the
June11,2013
Planning Commission
Meeting
2-39
CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. Zone text amendment -arterial fences and walls
Commissioner Lewis disclosed that he may have a financial impact based on this item
and would therefore recuse himself from the item. He left the dais.
Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report,. giving a brief background of the
text amendment and reviewing the direction given to staff at the previous Commission
meeting. She noted the Commission had asked staff to research an alternative to chain
link fencing, and explained that staff had found that aluminum fencing seemed to be the
most viable replacement option. Staff felt it was more aesthetically pleasing than chain
link and noted that it is readily available. She displayed photos of examples of similar
fencing c1.;1rrently found in the City.
Commissioner Tomblin asked staff if there was any input in terms of a wrought iron
fence design, as there are many different designs available.
Assistant Planner Harwell answered that at this time staff has not included in any design
standards for wrought iron, however if the Commission wishes to be more specific on
the wrought iron they can. Staff wanted to stay basic and if residents choose to invest
in additional design staff did not feel it would be inconsistent, as the actual fencing
would still be black and consistent with other similar fences.
Director Rojas stated staff was focusing on a replacement for chain link fencing and
tried to leave it open and not get too regulated. He clarified that while staff and the
Commission may refer to these fences as wrought iron, the recommendation is to
designate aluminum fencing as the approved replacement fence which resembles
wrought iron fencing but is less expensive. If a resident chooses to use the more
expensive wrought iron or steel, that would be allowed.
Vice Chairman Leon expressed concern with the language in that how do you get an
individual resident replacing a fence to match what the neighbor replaced two years
earlier.
Director Rojas understood and suggested putting the same language that is in 6.A.2
into Section 1, which would require the new fence to reasonably blend with other
existing fences.
Commissioner Nelson moved to approve staff's recommendation as amended to
add the language from section 6 into section 1, seconded by Commissioner
Tomblin. Resolution 2013-14 was approved, (5-0) with Commissioner Lewis
recused.
Commissioner Lewis returned to the dais.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2013
Page 2 2-40
Staff Report from the
June11,2013
Planning Commission
Meeting
2-41
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~R
JUNE 11, 2013
CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.030(E)-
ARTERIAL WALLS AND FENCES (CASE NO .. ZON2012-00355)
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner*"
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P .C Resolution No. 2013-_,
recommending that the City Council: 1) find that there is no significant adverse impact to
the environment related to this code amendment and thus adopt addendum No. 6 to the
Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510; 2) adopt an Ordinance amending RPVMC
Section 17..76.030(E), thereby requiring privately owned rear and street side yard walls or
fences that need to be repaired and/or replaced by the property owner match the pre-
existing wall or fence that abuts the adjoining arterial street, with the exception of chain link
fencing which must be replaced with a City approved material and new uniform tract
fencing/walls proposed by Homeowner Associations or neighborhoods, and add Western
Avenue to the list of arterial streets under Section 17.76.030(E)(5); and
3) Pursue a City-wide project that would facilitate the installation of irrigation and
landscaping within the City's right-of-way to allow the screening of private walls/fences
along the City's major arterial streets (Case No. ZON2012-00355).
BACKGROUND
On May 14, 2013, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which
time Staff presented its recommendation for possible code amendment language dealing
with the replacement of walls and fences along the City's arterial streets. After hearing
public testimony and discussing the issue, the Planning Commission provided Staff with
feedback and direction with regards to the proposed code amendment and continued the
public hearing to June 11th for follow-up discussion.
DISCUSSION
Itemized below is the Planning Commission's direction from the May 14th public hearing
2-42
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
June 11, 2013
(highlighted in bold), followed by Staff's commentary.
1) Agreed with Staff's proposed code language requiring that repaired or replaced
walls and/or fences along arterial streets match the pre-existing wall/fence, with
certain exceptions.
The Planning Commission agreed that an ordinance is necessary to require private arterial
street walls and fences to be repaired or replaced in a manner that matches the pre-
existing and/or adjacent wall or fence in terms of location, height and materials. Based on
Commission feedback, Staff has modified the proposed code language so that the repaired
or replaced wall or fence not only matches that of the original wall or fence, but that of the
adjoining property, with the intent that property owners match their new walls or fences to
that of their neighbors as best as possible to create a continuous, uniform barrier.
2) That existing chain link along arterial streets not be allowed to be replaced with
chain link, but with an alternative fencing material.
At the May 14th public hearing, there was much discussion involving the continued use of
chain link fencing along major arterial streets. Staff pointed out to the Planning
Commission that while new chain link is prohibited along arterial streets, the replacement
of existing legal, non-conforming chain link fences is allowed by the current code. The
Planning Commission raised a concern with this because they felt that continued use of
chain link would impair any efforts to improve the appearance of the City's arterial
corridors, despite the fact that many of the existing chain link fences were installed prior to
City incorporation. Thus, the Planning Commission directed that Staff draft code
amendment language that would prohibit the replacement of chain link fences along
arterial streets and directed Staff to identify an alternative fencing material to replace chain
link fencing. Per the Planning Commission's direction, Staff conducted research and found
there are options available that are comparative in cost to chain link fencing and would be
an improvement in appearance.
Based upon Staff's research, the most reasonable fencing option available would be
installation of aluminum fencing. With a similar appearance to that of wrought iron fencing,
but at a more affordable cost, aluminum fencing is a lightweight metal that does not rust.
Commonly available at major hardware stores or online, this is an accessible material that
would provide an attractive barrier along major arterial streets. In addition to the noted
aluminum fencing, Staff is also recommending the options of steel or wrought iron, which
are more expensive, but are also an attractive fencing option other than chain link. For
each of these three proposed fencing options (aluminum, steel, or wrought iron), Staff is
specifically requiring the fence have a black appearance. As this is the most common and
accessible material color available for these three fencing options, Staff believes specifying
that the fencing be black in color will result in minimal appearance discrepancies when
installed at different times and by different property owners. Further, although there are
other various colors available for these fencing options, Staff believes that black presents a
clean, classic and sophisticated appearance that should withstand the test of time. As
such, additional code language is proposed to incorporate this recommended chain link
2-43
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
June 11, 2013
material replacement as an exemption.
3) That Homeowners Associations or neighborhoods be allowed to replace the
original perimeter tract wall or fence with a new, more modern, uniform wall or
fence.
The Planning Commission also directed Staff to provide a provision that allows
Homeowners Associations or existing neighborhoods to completely change the style of the
perimeter fence or wall along their specific tract. Staff believes that if written authorization
is provided by each involved property owner, the Homeowners Association or a group of
residents have the flexibility to choose the design and construction of a new tract perimeter
fence or wall they find both practical and aesthetically pleasing. As such, proposed code
language has been included to allow this exemption.
4) Recommendation to City Council to pursue a City-wide plan to facilitate the
installation of landscaping and irrigation within the public right-of-way along
private walls that abut the arterial streets.
Recognizing that the proposed code amendment requiring repaired or replaced fences or
walls to match existing fences or walls does not address the overall patchwork of different
fencing styles found throughout the City's arterial streets, Staff identified some alternatives
for the Commission's consideration for obtaining more uniform arterial street fencing. After
discussing the alternatives at the May 14rh meeting, the Commission felt that it would be
difficult to select and implement a uniform wall/fence plan for all of the City's arterials.
Thus, the Commission felt that a better solution would be for the City to facilitate the
installation of irrigation and landscaping by HOA's within the City's right-of-way along
arterial fences and walls to help screen existing walls or fences with vegetation. Thus, the
Commission directed Staff to add text to the resolution recommending that the City Council
pursue improvements on public land to include irrigation and vegetation along the major
arterial streets in the City. Staff has included this recommendation with the attached
Resolution {Section 5).
Therefore, based upon the direction given and comments above, the City Attorney has
reviewed and approved Staff's recommendation for the following new proposed language
be added to existing Development Code Section 17.76.030(E):
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Tract Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets.
a. Any existing fence or wall, including a retaining wall, that is part of a tract or
neighborhood fence or wall design and is located within a rear or street side
yard setback of a private property abutting any of the arterial streets listed in
Section 17. 76. 030(E)(5) shall be replaced or repaired at the same location as
the original fence and/or waif, at the same height as the original or adjoining
fence and/or wall, and with the same materials and color as the original or
adjoining fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director, except:
i. Any existing chain link fence shall be replaced with a black aluminum,
2-44
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
June 11, 2013
steel or wrought iron fence, at generally the same location and generally
the same height as any adjoining fence.
ii. A Homeowners Association or group of residents may propose a new
uniform tract wall or fence to replace existing walls or fences for properties
that abut any of the listed arterial streets in Section 17. 76. 030(E) (5).
Upon the submittal of a written request, accompanied by plans of the
proposed design, the Director shall review and may approve the
proposed fence or wa/J design, provided that permission has been
obtained from all impacted property owners, and the materials proposed
are commonly used in the City and are aesthetically compatible with the
adjacent area.
b. Appeal. Any applicant may appeal a decision of the Director to the Planning
Commission and decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council
. pursuant to Chapter 17. 80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures) of this
title.
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 insert new code language within the Fence, Wall and
Permit requirements of Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code regulating the
replacement and/or repairs of existing walls or fences along the major arterial streets in the
City. Staff believes that the proposed code amendment language is 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. 6 to the
RDSSC Code Amendment ND to address the compliance of the new language to Section
17.76.030 with the provisions of CEQA, which is attached to this report as Exhibit 'A.'
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt
P.C Resolution No. 2013-_, recommending that the City Council: 1) find that there is no
significant adverse impact to the environment related to this code amendment and thus
adopt addendum No. 6 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 51 O; 2) adopt an
Ordinance amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(E), thereby requiring privately owned rear
and street side yard walls or fences that need to be repaired and/or replaced by the
property owner match the pre-existing wall or fence that abuts the adjoining arterial street,
with the .exception of chain link fencing which must be replaced with a City approved
2-45
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
June 11, 2013
material and new uniform tract fencing/walls proposed by Homeowner Associations or
neighborhoods, and add Western Avenue to the list of arterial streets under Section
17.76.030(E)(5); and 3) Pursue a City-wide project that would facilitate the installation of
irrigation and landscaping within the City's right-of-way to allow the screening of private
walls/fences along the City's major arterial streets (Case No. ZON2012-00355).
ATTACHMENTS
• P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_
• Exhibit 'A' -Addendum No. 6 to Negative Declaration
• DRAFT Minutes excerpt from the May 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting
• Staff Report from the May 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting
2-46
P .C. RESOLUTION NO. 2013-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL 1)
FIND THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE
ENVIRONMENT RELATED TO THIS CODE AMENDMENT AND THUS ADOPT
ADDENDUM NO. 6 TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE
NO. 510; 2) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC SECTION
17.76.030(E), THEREBY REQUIRING PRIVATELY OWNED REAR AND
STREET SIDE YARD WALLS OR FENCES THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED
AND/OR REPLACED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER MATCH THE PRE-
EXISTING WALL OR FENCE THAT ABUTS THE ADJOINING ARTERIAL
STREET, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHAIN LINK FENCING WHICH MUST
BE REPLACED WITH A CITY APPROVED MATERIAL AND NEW UNIFORM
TRACT FENCING/WALLS PROPOSED BY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS
OR 'NEIGHBORHOODS, AND ADD WESTERN AVENUE TO THE LIST OF
ARTERIAL STREETS UNDER SECTION 17.76.030{E)(5);AND 3) PURSUE A
CITY-WIDE PROJECT THAT WOULD FACILITATE THE INSTALLATION OF
IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY TO
ALLOW THE SCREENING OF PRIVATE WALLS/FENCES ALONG THE
CITY'S MAJOR ARTERIAL STREETS (CASE NO. ZON2012-00355).
WHEREAS, the City's current development code does not provide any
specific regulations or restrictions regarding the type of materials that a privately
owned wall or fence built as part of a residential tract along the City's arterial
streets should be constructed of when being repaired or replaced; and,
WHEREAS, residential tract walls or fences along the City's arterial
streets are sometimes repaired or replaced in a manner which is inconsistent
with the previous wall and surrounding walls, creating visually unappealing
arterial corridors in the City; and,
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Urgency
Ordinance No. 541 U, which imposed a moratorium on the repair or replacement
of privately owned walls or fences along arterial streets in the City, and initiated a
Code Amendment to amend RPVMC Section 17.76.030(E); and,
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2012, the City Council extended Urgency
Ordinance No. 541 U for an additional 10 months and 15 days, expiring on
November 6, 2013; and,
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2013, Staff mailed out 776 notices to property
owners whose rear yard was identified to abut the following arterial streets:
Crenshaw Boulevard, Crest Road, Hawthorne Boulevard, Highridge Road,
Miraleste Drive, Palos Verdes Drive East, Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos
Verdes Drive South, Palos Verdes Drive West, Silver Spur Road, and Western
Avenue; and,
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-
Page 1 of 8
2-47
WHEREAS, on April 25, 2013, notice of a public hearing on the proposed
amendments to Chapter 17.76.030(E) 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 Planning Commission has
determined that there is no substantial evidence that the code amendment would
result in a significant adverse effect on the environment. Accordingly, Addendum
No. 6 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 t~is 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(E). At the May 14,
2013 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 11,
2013, with direction to Staff to add language to the Code specifying that 1) chain
link can only be replaced with an alternate barrier to be selected by the City, and
2) tracts should be allowed to propose an updated perimeter fence or wall plan.
The Commission also directed Staff to include in the Planning Commission
Resolution a recommendation to the City Council to pursue a City plan to
facilitate the installation of landscaping and irrigation along the private arterial
walls; and,
WHEREAS, on June 11, 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 Chapter 17.76 will require the repair and replacement of walls or
fences to match the existing or previous fence or walls, providing consistency
and uniformity to the structures along the City's arterial corridors, except for chain
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-
Page 2 of 8
2-48
link fences which will be required to be replaced with a black, aluminum, steel or
wrought iron fence, and when a Homeowners Association proposes a new
uniform tract wall or fence, all which will improve the appearance of the City's
arterial corridors.
Section 3: That the amendments to Chapter 17.76.030(E) are
necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing
regulations that preserve and maintain the character of the City's arterial
corridors.
Section 4: That subsections of Section 17.76.030(E) (Fences, Walls
and Hedges) of Title 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby amended as follows
(striked out text rs for removed text, and bold and underlined text is for new
text):
17.16.030(5}(E)-General Regulations
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front
yards between the front property line and exterior fa9ade of the existing single-
family residence closest to the front property line; in side yards between the
street side property line and the exterior fa9ade 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; al*f.
j. Silver Spur Road; and
k. Western Avenue.
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Tract Fences and Walls along
Arterial Streets.
a. Any existing fence or wall, including a retaining wall, that is part of
a tract or neighborhood fence or wall design and is located within
a rear or street side yard setback of a private property abutting any
of the arterial streets listed in Section 17.76.030{E)(5) shall be
replaced or repaired at the same location as the original fence
and/or wall, at the same height as the original or adioining fence
and/or wall, and with the same materials and color as the original
or adjoining fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director, except:
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-
Page 3 of 8
2-49
i. Any existing chain link fence shall be replaced with a black
aluminum, steel or wrought iron fence, at generally the same
location and generally the same height as any adjoining fence.
ii. A Homeowners Association or group of residents may
eropose a new uniform tract wall or fence to replace existing
walls or fences for properties that abut any of the listed arterial
streets in Section 17.76.030(E)(5). Upon the submittal of a
written request, accompanied by plans of the proposed
design, the Director shall review and may approve the
proposed fence or wall design, provided that permission has
been obtained from all impacted property owners, and the
materials proposed are commonly used in the City and are
aesthetically compatible with the adjacent area.
b. Appeal. Any applicant may appeal a decision of the Director to the
Planning Commission and decision of the Planning Commission
to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and
Appeal Procedures) of this title.
Section 5: That the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council pursue a project for capital improvements on public land to include
irrigation and vegetation along the Hawthorne Boulevard to help screen existing
walls or fences with vegetation.
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 1) Adopt Addendum No. 6 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance
No. 510, and 2) Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.76.030(E) of the
City's Municipal Code to amend RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030(E), so that future
repaired and/or replaced rear and street side yard fences and walls match the
pre-existing wall or fence in order to maintain a consistent and harmonious
appearance along the major arterial streets within the City, add Western Avenue
to the list of arterial streets under Section 17.76.030(E)(5), and that the City
Council pursue capital improvements to install irrigation and vegetation along
Hawthorne Boulevard (Case No. ZON2012~00355)
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-
Page 4 of 8
2-50
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June 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 5 of 8
2-51
EXHIBIT "A 11
(Addendum No. 6 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background: On June 1, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
201 OM43, 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.
51 O). Prior to its adoption, the Negative Declaration (ND) 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 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 approving 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.
The City is currently considering another separate code amendment, which is
proposed to be adopted through an Ordinance that would approve Addendum No.
5 to the certified ND.
Proposed Amendments: The City Council is currently reviewing a code
amendment to revise Section 17.76.030(E) of the Development Code (Fences, Walls
and Hedges) that would add code language. The proposed amendment will require
that privately owned rear yard walls or fences that need to be repaired and/or
replaced by the property owner match the pre-existing wall or fence that abuts the
adjoining arterial street, as listed in Section 17.76.030(E)(5).
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
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-
Page 6 of 8
2-52
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(E) 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 revision to Title 17 (Zoning) do not present
new significant environmental impacts because they merely modify or clarify
certain requirements, or codify policy procedures and/or application
requirements. Therefore, the proposed revisions do not represent a
substantial change in the code, and will not result in new significant
environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any
impacts.
2. The proposed revisions will not result in any significant environmental
impacts, and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for
Ordinance No. 510. The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor
modifications that clarify code language discrepancies and/or codify policies
and procedures that are currently in place. There are no changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will
require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-
Page 7 of 8
2-53
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. 6.
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-
Page 8 of 8
2-54
Minutes from the
May 14, 2013
Planning Commission
Meeting
2-55
and Hedge Permit application. He asked if that should be part of the
c ent that staff would take to Council.
hought a motion would be more appropri
Vice Chairman Leon ved to amend the mof
that the permit fee for th1
to suggest to the City Council
to a more reasonable level, not to
exceed $250.
Commissioner Tetreault asked staff· e · Council has made other exceptions to the
permit fee process.
Director Rojas explained t when the City Council e the determination that
application fees would ully subsidized, they did make exception for very simple
over-the-counter tyP. pplications. He noted that energy savr
also subs'idized b 0 percent.
missioner Tetreault felt that a fee of $250 was too much o discount on
the appl" tion fee and would prefer the City Council review the cost and st
make determination based on those figures.
T e motion to approve staff's recommendations was approved, (7-0).
2. Zone Text Amendment -Arterial fences and walls
Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report, noting the text amendment was in
regards to the rebuilding or repair of existing fences or walls along the City's major
arterial streets. She reviewed the current language, and noted the great variety of walls
and fences along Hawthorne Boulevard. With the intent of minimizing further changes
and discrepancies along arterial streets listed in the Development Code, staff is
proposing a section be added to the Fence Wall and Hedge section of the Code which
will require homeowners, if needed, to match the pre-existing uniform tract perimeter
wall or fence that abuts the adjoining arterial street. She noted that staff was not
recommending property owners be required to replace or change their wall, as this is
simply to provide standards to assist in the preservation and maintenance of the
character of the City's arterial corridors. She noted staff also provided the Planning
Commission with two alternatives that would provide long-term solutions. She stated
staff was recommending the Planning Commission review the proposed code
amendments, provide feedback to staff, and continue the public hearing to June 28th for
staff to return with finalized language.
Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if the City has considered a program whereby
irrigation and foliage is provided up against these walls to help screen the walls. He
noted it may take years to work, but the foliage would eventually cover the entire wall.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2013
Page4
2-56
Director Rojas explained that over the past several years there have been several
discussions as to how to improve the aesthetics of the private walls along arterials and
whether it would dictate a public solution where the City might fund a beautification
project within the public right-of-way, or whether a private solution is needed where the
City proactively pursues repairs or replacement through code enforcement. He
explained there have also been discussions in the past on possibly pursuing a private I
public partnership solution which was ultimately not pursued. He stated that this
proposed Ordinance is not intended to force private wall owners to fix their walls but
only requires that when walls are damaged the replacement wall must be replaced with
the same material that was there and not a completely new material that doesn't match
anything else on the street.
Commissioner Gerstner agreed that there probably is a public solution that would
include the use of vegetation, however that is not what is currently before the Planning
Commission. In the interim, he agreed that the walls in these tracts should be replaced
in a like manner to what was there before. He did think there was a problem with the
old chain link fences placed between stone pilasters that have no foundation. He also
felt that if a HOA were to come to the Director and want to change their standard that
exception should exist in the language. Finally, he noted that chicken wire is no longer
an acceptable term, as the fencing is now called poultry netting.
Vice Chairman Nelson noted a letter from the public discussing the heights of walls, and
the opinion that walls along arterials should be of the same height. He stated he would
like to see language in the Ordinance that adjoining walls be of the same height.
Commissioner Leon questioned the use of the chain link fence, and if it was the City's
desire for the resident to simply fix the chain link fence or replace the chain link fence,
or to choose an alternate material for a new fence.
Director Rojas explained that many of the tracts were built before City incorporation,
and therefore the chain link fences are grandfathered in, which is why a resident can
replace their chain link fence with a new chain link fence. He stated that the City would
rather the resident fix the chain link fence than construct a new fence or wall out of a
different material. He also added that there is currently a moratorium adopted by the
City Council on repairing walls along the City's arterials. Therefore, if a wall along an
arterial needs repair, it cannot be done until this Ordinance is approved.
Vice Chairman Leon suggested language be added to the text discussing the
grandfathering of chain link fences.
Chairman Emenhiser opened the public hearing.
Dan Murdoch stated he owns a home that backs up to Hawthorne Boulevard. He noted
his home is below Hawthorne Boulevard that therefore he does have privacy issues.
He explained that he currently has vegetation interlaced in his chain link to help provide
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2013
Page5
2-57
privacy. He stated he is in favor of uniformity, however he is not in favor of having to
replace the chain link fence he does not like or want, with another chain link fence.
Mark Granger stated he lives on Falcon Rock, which backs up to Blackhorse. He stated
many of the neighbors' yards are fenced with chain link. He encouraged the City to ban
chain link, as he felt it is very unsightly and cheapens the look of a neighborhood.
Chairman Emenhiser closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tetreault discussed chain link fences and since such fences are
currently grandfathered, do property owners then have a property right to have chain
link fencing in their backyard that we're contemplating taking away.
Director Rojas answered staff will check with the City Attorney.
Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if there was a way out of this bind where the City will
require residents to replace their chain link fence with a new chain link fence, even
though that is not the material the homeowner, the City, or the public may want.
Director Rojas suggested writing the Ordinance so that the fence must be replaced with
the same material, unless that material is on the prohibited material list in the Code.
Commissioner Tetreault moved staff's recommendation that whenever a fence or
wall along the listed arterials in the City needs to be replaced, it be replaced with
like material and height; however, with respect to chain link, it not be replaced
with chain link and that the City come up with some standard, to be determined,
that will be used in its stead, seconded by Commissioner Gerstner.
Commissioner Tomblin moved to amend the motion to add language that the
Planning Commission supports a Hawthorne CIP project, or other alternative, to
be developed. The amendment was accepted without objection.
Vice Chairman Leon suggested that the improvement simply facilitate landscaping and
irrigation as opposed to a GIP project, as that is something the City can do that is
uniform and reasonably affordable ..
Commissioner Tetreault asked staff if it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to
discuss specifics of a GIP with respect to what is currently before the Commission.
Director Rojas explained the GIP consists of numerous projects, funded and unfunded.
Given the subject matter, he did not think it was inappropriate to discuss the specifics of
the GIP.
Commissioner Gerstner suggested language saying that, since the suggested
Ordinance does not completely solve the problem, and the Planning Commission does
not have the purview to deal with public land, the Commission recommends to the City
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2013
Page6
2-58
Council they continue to pursue capital improvement projects on public land that would
include irrigation and vegetation along the Hawthorne Blvd. arterial. The Commission
agreed with this language.
The motion to approve staff's recommendation with the exception that chain link
not be replaced with chain link but rather with an alternative material of a
standard to be set by the City, and that the Planning Commission recommend to
the City Council that they pursue improvements on public land to facilitate
irrigation and vegetation along the Hawthorne Blvd arterial.
Vice Chairman Leon suggested an amendment to the motion that would allow the HOA
to change the style of the perimeter fence, with the approval of the Director. The
amendment to the motion was accepted without objection.
The moti.on was approved, (7-0).
General Plan Update -"Draft" land use change to add the Open Space
Preserve desi nation to the Trum National ro·ect site
Deputy ·rector Pfost presented the staff report, explaining the City's NC requires
the City to end the General Plan to identify all preserve properties i e City, both on
the Land Us ap and in the text of the General Plan. While worki on the General
Plan update, st has taken the opportunity to add a new land u designation over the
preserve properti which is entitled Open Space Preserve. explained in May 2011
the Planning Comm1 ·on approved the changes to the La se Map to add this
designation to all of the operties in the City except the ump property. At that time
the City was in litigation w the Trump organization did not want to push any
changes on the property at t time. Since then, litigation has been resolved and
staff is bringing the portion bac the Planning ommission. He showed a graphic
depicting the Open Space Preserv ver the ump property. He stated staff was
recommending the Commission appra mg the Open Space Preserve designation
to the Trump property as discussed int aff report.
Chairman Emenhiser asked staff if
organization on this proposal.
Deputy Director Pfost ans ed that he had received fee ack, and the Trump
organization did not hav ssues. They understood the obli ion to dedicate the
property to the City, mg that most of the property has alrea
City.
nhiser opened the public hearing.
Linee · ki noted the City Council approved the NCCP for the City in 2004, h ever it
has t yet been approved at the State or Federal levels. She felt this proposal 1
p[ ature, as the NCCP has only been submitted and not formally adopted. She a o
Planning Commission Minutes
May 14, 2013
Page 7
2-59
Staff Report from the
May 14, 2013
Planning Commission
Meeting
2-60
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY OEVEL¥CTOR
MAY 14, 2013
CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.030(E)-
FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES (CASE NO. ZON2012-00355)
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Review Staff's proposed code
amendment language that would require privately owned rear or street side yard walls or
fences that need to be repaired and/or replaced by the property owner to match the pre-
existing uniform tract perimeter wall or fence that abuts the adjoining arterial street; and
2) Provide feedback on the alternatives identified by Staff and continue the public hearing
to June 11, 2013 for Staff to come back with finalized language in the farm of a resolution
for adoption (Case No. ZON2012-00355).
BACKGROUND
In 2012, there was a situation where a privately owned damaged block wall along
Hawthorne Boulevard was repaired by the property owner in a manner that did not match
the pre-existing perimeter tract wall that is visible along the public right-of-way. In addition,
it came to Staff's attention that certain property owners were planning to replace their
existing rear property line fences or walls along arterials. The City's current Development
code prohibits fences constructed of chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass along the City's
arterial streets, but does not provide any specific regulations or restrictions regarding the
repair or replacement of privately owned uniform perimeter fencing or walls. Therefore,
when repairing or replacing such existing walls or fences, a property owner could use
materials that differ from the pre-existing wall or fence, thereby constructing segments of
walls or fences that do not match the remainder of the pre-existing original tract wall or
fence.
While there are already some examples of non-matching repairs to perimeter tract walls or
fencing along different arterials in the City, Staff believes that due to the age of these walls
and fences, together with the desire for more modern looking walls or fences by property
2-61
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
May 14, 2013
owners, there may be a higher frequency of these repairs and replacements without
regulation. Since this may result in visually unappealing arterial corridors in the City, Staff
recommended that the City Council initiate a code amendment to address this issue.
On November 7, 2012, the City Council initiated said code amendment and adopted
Urgency Ordinance No. 541 U, which imposed a moratorium on the replacement or repair
of privately owned fences or walls along arterial streets within the City (see attached
November 7, 2012 City Council Staff Report and Minutes). As the original urgency
ordinance was effective for only 45-days, on December 8, 2012 the City Council adopted
Urgency Ordinance No. 543U extending the moratorium for an additional 10 months and
15 days, the maximum extension permitted by State law, expiring on November 6, 2013.
On April 22, 2013, Staff mailed notices of the proposed code amendment to 776 property
owners. identified as having rear yards abutting the major arterial roadways in the City,
providing a minimum 15-day time period for the submittal of comments and concerns.
Additionally, a notice of the code amendment proposal was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News on April 25, 2013. In response to the notice that was mailed and
published thus far, five letters or e-mails were submitted to the City in regards to the
proposed code amendment. If additional comment letters are received after the transmittal
of this Staff Report, Staff will provide them to the Commission as late correspondence.
DISCUSSION
The City's Development Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) regulates
where and how privately owned fences, walls and hedges can be erected within the City.
Currently, the only portion of this Code Section addressing privately owned fences or walls
along arterial roadways is Section 17.76.030(E)(5), which states that chain link, chicken
wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in the rear yard setback of private property along
the following arterial streets:
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.
Staff recommends that language be added to this section that would require property
owners to repair or replace privately owned tract perimeter fences or walls along the
arterials listed above with a perimeter tract fence or wall that is the same height, location,
materials and color as the pre-existing original tract perimeter fence or wall. In addition,
Staff recommends that Western Avenue be added to the list of arterial streets. The
2-62
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
May 14, 2013
following is the proposed language that Staff recommends be added to Section
17.76.030(E):
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Tract Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets.
Any existing fence or wall, including a retaining wall, that is part of a tract or
neighborhood fence or wall design and is located within a rear or street side yard
setback of a private property abutting any of the arterial streets listed in Section
17. 76. 030(E)(5) shall be replaced or repaired at the same height and location as the
original or adjoining fence and wall, and with the same materials ancl color as the
pre-existing or adjoining fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
Many of continuous walls or fences along the City's major arterial streets, in particularly
along 1-:lawthorne Boulevard, were constructed during development of the respective
residential tracts. The above language ensures that repaired or replaced portions of said
perimeter tract walls or fences match the existing walls so that there is a uniform
appearance as seen from the arterial streets. Residential properties which are not part of a
residential tract would not be required to comply with this requirement, as individually
developed lots typically do not have uniform perimeter fencing or walls. Additionally,
retaining walls are included as there are currently many existing retaining walls which face
the noted arterial streets that were also built in conjunction with the development of the
tract or created over time due to grade sliding down a hillside.
It is important to note that the proposed code amendment does not require that a permit be
obtained for free-standing walls or fence repair or replacement, unless the repair or
replacement involves a retaining wall. Furthermore, the proposed new language does not
compel private fences or walls owners to proactively replace or repair them. The intent is
simply to provide standards which will assist in the preservation and maintenance of the
character of the City's arterial corridors when wall or fence repairs are desired by the
individual fence or wall owner. The exception to this would be in the case of a fence or wall
becoming unsightly in violation of the City's property maintenance ordinance. In these
situations, the owners of private fences or walls would be notified to repair said fence or
wall by the City's Code Enforcement Division. Likewise, any newly constructed walls or
fences that are not repaired or replaced in compliance with the new code regulation, will be
pursued by the City's Code Enforcement Division.
As previously noted, chain link fences along arterial streets are currently prohibited by the
Code. However, Development Code Section 17.84.060.C.2 allows any non-conforming
structures that do not require a permit (which applies to free-standing walls and fences 6
feet or less in height) that are damaged or deteriorated to be restored to their original
condition provided such restoration does not pose a "significant safety hazard". Therefore,
existing chain link fences along arterials are allowed to be legally replaced.
Western Avenue
Currently, Municipal Code Section 17. 76.030(E)(5) lists 10 major arterial roads in the City.
2-63
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
May 14, 2013
As noted previously, since Western Avenue is a major thoroughfare that is absent from the
code, it is recommended that Western Avenue be added to the list of major City
thoroughfares as letter 'k' under Section 17. 76. 030(E)(5).
ALTERNATIVES
Creation of Uniform Standards for all City Arterial Walls and Fences
An alternative to amend the code to solely require that fence and wall repairs match the
pre-existing fences or walls, which differ throughout the City, the City may want to consider
amending the code to specify the use of uniform materials, colors and construction designs
for walls or fences along all of the City's major arterial streets. Requiring specific design
regulations would require residents to replace existing walls and fences that become
damaged with a new fence or wall that meets the specified design regulations. Over time,
this would eventually create a uniform appearance of all tract walls and fences along the
arterial streets throughout the City.
However, Staff feels that this option may not be entirely effective in creating a uniform
appearance because unless the City mandates that all existing fences or walls be replaced
within a specific time period, replacement would occur slowly over time. This would result
in replacement walls and fences differing significantly from the existing walls or fences on
the adjoining lots, resulting in further inconsistency and a patch-work appearance that may
take years to be modified into a uniform appearance. Further, as replacement of these
walls and fences would be required to comply with specific standards, City Staff review,
permitting and inspection of the newly constructed walls or fences may be required, adding
both costs and time to the process. If the Planning Commission prefers this option, then
Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt Staff's current proposal as an
interim measure and recommend to the City Council that Staff be directed to pursue this
option in the long term.
Expansion of Street Beautification Projects in the City's CIP
The City's 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (GIP) currently includes an unfunded project
called "Hawthorne Blvd Right Of Way Beautification." The description of this project is:
"The City's Right of Way along Hawthorne Blvd will be beautified by landscaping and
masking blight conditions created by failed fences, walls and other private improvements.
The medians in this area will be improved by landscape and/or hardscape improvements."
By targeting the appearance of the Hawthorne Boulevard corridor, this GIP project would
address the issue of perimeter wall appearance by the City pro-actively working to beautify
the area through landscaping or other means within the public right-of-way without having
to rely on the participation of the adjacent private property owners.
As this project has already been identified in the City's GIP, the Planning Commission may
wish to recommend that the City Council pursue this project in addition to or in lieu of
Staff's recommended code amendment. Furthermore, the Planning Commission may also
want to recommend that the City Council expand the project to include the other arterial
2-64
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
May 14, 2013
streets listed above in addition to Hawthorne Boulevard. One benefit of this approach is
that beautification will not rely on adjacent private properties to beautify the arterial
corridors on their own when ready. Instead, the City would be able to beautify the corridors
in a manner that could be consistent and harmonious City-wide and ideally on a schedule.
However, Staff feels that there are some concerns with this approach. First, like the
previous approach, implementation may occur at different times, depending on funds and
the priority of projects within the City. Second, the use of landscaping to screen the subject
walls or fences could have some significant long-term costs for maintenance or re-planting,
and may take years for the installed landscaping to significantly screen these arterial street
walls and fences.
The Planning Commission may recommend that the City Council pursue this program in
lieu or in addition to Staff's recommended code amendment. If pursued, Staff
recommends adoption of the current code amendment as an interim measure while the
City Council considers funding this proposed GIP project.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
In response to the notice that was sent, Staff recelved five items of correspondence. First,
Michael Friedman, a RPV resident whose property abuts Hawthorne Boulevard, wrote in
favor of the proposed code amendment, stating "that all the walls bordering the streets for
each development should be the same."
The second item received was a letter submitted by Christina Bothamley, owner of 30714
Via La Cresta, who asked three comprehensive questions, to which Staff would like to
respond. Ms. Bothamley asks if the new walls or fence "turns a corner away from the
arterial street," "would the new wall or fence need to be continguous?" As noted in this
report, Staff is recommending a code requiring uniform repair and replacement to any tract
fence or wall located within a rear or side yard setback along the arterial street. If the wall
or fence continues onto a different side of a property that is not along one of the arterial
streets listed in Section 17.76.030(E)(5), this new code section would not apply. Ms.
Bothamley goes on to question how a property owner is to replace their wall or fence when
the adjacent walls or fences on the adjoining properties are also in poor condition. The
new code language only requires a property owner who chooses to replace their own wall
or fence to match the existing wall or fence. This may include the use of chain link. If a
property owner chooses to work with the neighboring property owners to replace the walls
with a different material, said request would need to be discussed with the Director on a
case-by-case basis. The intent of the code is to maintain the existing situation, by
prohibiting random changes to existing fences and walls.
Another question Ms. Bothamley asks is if something could be added to the Municipal
Code "requiring painting of [existing walls and fences} to be more uniform." While this is
more of a suggestion, Staff believes this would be difficult to implement. As discussed
prior in this report, any code language added that specifies materials, colors and
2-65
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
May 14, 2013
construction design would be complicated in both implementation and enforcement.
Lastly, Ms. Bothamley asks about the use of chain link as an option of replacement, which
the code currently prohibits from being placed along the noted arterial streets. It is Staffs
understanding that many of these existing chain link fences along the arterial streets were
installed when the original tract was developed, often prior to City incorporation. As they
are considered legal, non-conforming structures, a property owner may replace an existing
chain link fence with a new chain link fence, as long as it is in the same location and height.
With adoption of the proposed new code language, Staff is basically recommending that all
of these existing arterial walls and fences be "grandfathered" in order to minimize the
diversity of new fences and walls. If the Planning Commission or City Council decides to
pursue one of the previously discussed alternatives, reconstruction or replacement criteria
could be established which would specify specific materials. Otherwise, the intent of the
proposed code language is to maintain the status quo.
The third item consists of two e-mails from Gary Palmer, owner of 31009 Rue Langlois.
Mr. Palmer does not support the proposed code amendment, with several concerns: the
financial responsibility associated with the repair or replacement of walls or fences; how the
code will enforcement future repairs or replacement of fences or walls in an area where
there is already breaks in the uniform appearance; walls or fences that require repair or
replacement due to damage caused by trees within the City right-of-way; and removal of an
existing wall or fence that a homeowner may choose not to replace. Mr. Palmer concludes
that the proposed code amendment "is inconsistent and a poorly planned attempt to make
homeowners pay for a city mandated aesthetic." Staff would like to address a few of Mr.
Palmers concerns. As previously stated, no homeowner is forced to repair or replace their
existing private wall or fence unless it constitutes a property maintenance issue. In order to
combat future haphazard reconstruction of the walls and fences along the arterial streets,
the code amendment only applies when repair or reconstruction is needed or wanted by
the property owner. In situations where there is already inconsistency of the tract walls or
fence, Mr. Palmer is correct that the proposed code amendment will not necessarily be
fixing this problem, but will require the property owner be conscious of the fact that their
portion of the wall is part of a continuous wall or fence that is visible from major public
streets. Also, if a property owner choses to remove their portion of the tract wall or fence,
the code does not require them to reconstruct the wall or fence. Although it will look odd
and most property owners would probably not choose to demolish and not replace their
wall or fence due to privacy and security concerns, the City cannot require a home owner
to build a wall, unless an ordinance requiring such is adopted.
A fourth e-mail was received from Joanne Lewis and Philipp Huber, owners of 30929 Rue
Langlois, who also do not support to the proposed code amendment for the same reasons
stated by Mr. Palmer.
A fifth e-mail was received from April Sandell, property owner of 28026 Pontevedra Drive.
Ms. Sandell first questioned why her neighbors received the public notice, but she did not.
Next, Ms. Sandell comments that the continuous wall adjacent to Western Avenue at the
rear of her property was constructed originally by CalTrans in the 1960's, but was replaced
2-66
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
May 14, 2013
in 1992 by CalTrans and did not match due to inability to find the same materials that were
previously used. Lastly, Ms. Sandell mentions that the proposed Western Avenue Corridor
Plan proposes bike lanes and other various right-of-way improvements in front of the wall
at the rear of her property, making enforcement of the new code amendment questionable.
In response, Staff first would like to apologize to Ms. Sandell for a notice not being sent to
her, as her property is listed as an affected property and it was merely an inadvertent .
oversight in which her address somehow did not get on the print out of mailing labels.
Secondly, if the wall Ms. Sandell references is indeed not on her property but in the public
right-of-way, which is indeed maintained by CalTrans, then this proposed code amendment
would not be applicable to her or her neighbors, as the City would not require private
property owners to repair or replaces walls or fences not actually located on their property.
Lastly, the Western Avenue Corridor Plan seeks to improve the overall aesthetics of the
corridor which includes uniformity to the existing tract perimeter walls.
Other improvements along Arterial Streets
During the public noticing period, Staff also received many phone calls asking if vegetation
and hedges are subject to the proposed code amendment. Staff is recommending the
proposed new code language only be applicable to tract walls or fences, including retaining
walls. As these are permanent structures that can be built with a consistent and uniform
appearance, the proposed language is intended to require that they be replaced or
repaired as such in order to provide a harmonious appearance to the streets. There is no
code amendment being proposed that would regulate the type of landscaping on private
property adjacent to such a wall or fence. As the proposed code language requires a
repaired or replacement wall or fence to match the existing or previously wall or fence, this
would not allow a hedge to replace a wall or fence. Further, as the proposed code
language also requires that any new walls or fences be placed at the same location and
height, this would not allow a property owner to move any new wall or fence in order create
a space along the public right-of-way for the planting of a hedge. As most of the subject
tract walls or fences currently abut the public right-of-way and there's likely minimal space
for a new hedge, Staff does not believe there should be an issue of property owners
planting hedges along the arterial streets in front of any existing walls or fences.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that Planning Commission adopt
P.C. Resolution No. 2013-_, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an
ordinance to amend RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030(E), so thatfuture repaired and/or replaced
rear and side yard tract fences and walls match the pre-existing wall or fence in order to
maintain a consistent and harmonious appearance along the major arterial streets within
the City, and add Western Avenue to the list of arterial streets under Section
17.76.030(E)(5) (Case No. ZON2012-00355).
2-67
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
May 14, 2013
ATTACHMENTS
• E-mail from Michael Friedman, MD -dated April 25, 2013
• Letter from Christina Bothamley -dated May 5, 2013
• E-mails from Gary Palmer -dated May 7, 2013
• E-mail from Joanne Lewis & Philipp Huber -dated May 7, 2013
• E-mail from April Sandell -dated May 7, 2013
• City Council Minutes from November 7, 2012 meeting
• City Council Minutes from December 18, 2012 meeting
• Urgency Ordinance No. 543U
• City Council Staff Report from the December 18, 2012 meeting, which includes:
·o Draft Ordinance No. 543U
o Urgency Ordinance No. 541 U
o City Council Staff Report from the November 7, 2012 meeting
2-68
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michael Friedman MD
Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:59 PM
Abigail Harwell
Planning CAse No. ZON2012-00355
Dear Ms. Harwell: As a long time resident of Rancho Palos Verdes and a homeowner who backs up to Hawthorne Blvd. I
would like to express my opinion in this matter. I think that all the walls bordering the streets for each development
should be the same. If there is an accident or repair work requiring a hole in the wall it should be repaired to its original
shape and color. If we do not pass this, our developments will look like crazy quilts or like the San Fernando Valley has
become. We would like everything homogenious. Thanks.
Michael L.Friedman, MD.
1
2-69
May 5, 2013
Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Re: Planning Case No. zon2012-00355 (code amendment)
Dear Ms. Harwell:
Thank you for sending out this notice for a hearing by the
Planning Commission. I have a few questions regarding
amendments to the municipal code.
L " ... rear yard walls and fences ... "
a. What if the rear yard wall or fence turns a corner
away from the arterial street? Would the new wall or
fence need to be contiguous?
b. What if the adjacent neighbor's rear yard wall or
fence is damaged; chainlink, block wall, wood, etc. or
just ugly? (Sorry-had to put that in.) How would a
homeowner choose a material to replace their wall or
fence?
2. There are some locations along Hawthorne Blvd. where
existing walls and fences are in good condition. Would it be
possible to put something in the code requiring painting of
the materials to be more uniform ?
3. If there is currently a long run of chainlink fencing, and one
homeowner wants to change it due to damage, what would be
the options ? I have been told by city staff that if you take
chainlink down, it cannot be replaced by new chainlink,
chickenwire or fiberglass.
Thank you for your time and effort in handling these issues.
Christina Bothamley Cb; ivc.
30714 Via La Cresta, Rancho Palos Verdes
310 541-6640
2-70
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Gary Palmer <Gary@getmymail.org>
Tuesday, May 07, 2013 9:21 PM
Abigail Harwell
Subject: RE: Please vote no on planning case ZON2012-00355
Thank you, it is unfortunate I will be out of town next week as I would like to attend the meeting. I look forward to the
notes and to see if others have responded to this issue.
I do not agree that the city should assess a fiscal responsibility on home owners to maintain a wall's aesthetics.
If you were to view my wall, I have one side where the wall cannot be seen because that neighbor let the ivy overgrow
the whole wall, that side is now a green wall. My wall is leaning because of the city tree.
I removed ivy on my side and the city removed ivy on the other side to reveal the wall, otherwise I would also have had a
green wall. My other neighbor has half the wall connected to and matching mine, the other half was replaced by a very
plain cinder block wall that does not match.
Continuing to the next neighbor, they are missing half the wall on their yard and the other half is covered in bushes and
trees (not ivy). It continues that way making it hard to justify what the "standard wall"
would look like.
On the entrance to Rue Beaupre the two corners are stone walls. Both have greenery in front. One wall has had the
greenery pruned and looks nice; but with ivy trying to take it over. The other side wall is almost 100% obscured by trees.
I asked the city about trimming those trees to make the neighborhood entrance nicer; rejected.
So I believe this new amendment is unfair and ill-concieved.
Cheers,
Gary
On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 15:19 +0000, Abigail Harwell wrote:
> Mr. Palmer N
>
>Thank you for your e-mail. I will be sure to attach your e-mail to the Staff Report being given to the Planning
Commission this week for next Tuesday's meeting.
>
>Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> N Abigail Harwell
> Assistant Planner
> City of Rancho Palos Verdes
> www.palosverdes.com/rpv
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Palmer [mailto:Garv@getmymail.org)
>Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 8:33 PM
>To: Planning
>Subject: Please vote no on planning case ZON2012-00355
>
> Planning Commission
>Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
1
2-71
>
>I protest the proposed planning case number ZON2012-00355 which would amend Municipal code 17.76.030(E). I am
submitting this prior to the initial submission cutoff of noon May 7 in preparation for the 14-May hearing.
>
>Several of the reasons we object to the proposed amendment as as
>follows:
> 1-The proposed change is to a municipal code specific to front yard hedges, this amendment changes the focus
significantly to include rear walls and responsibility for repair.
> 2-The current code is for hedge height, setback, and view concerns, it does not place financial responsibility, the
proposed change clearly makes the homeowner responsible for all repair and replacement expenses for a wall design
the homeowner is not able to change.
> 3-There are many walls where the continuity of the original design has already been broken by repairs, while your
proposal is to grandfather them, there is no explanation of how new replacements would determine the correct design
to apply.
> 4-Some houses have one style of wall on one side and another style on the other side. A homeowner willing to pay to
replace a broken wall, could still chose the wrong style.
> 5-There are walls which had their foundations undermined by City planted trees. The tree was later removed but no
repairs made to the wall. The city is trying to unfairly remove its liability.
> 6-The proposed ordinance covers repair and replacement of an existing wall, no provision is made for a homeowner
who. decides to remove and not replace the wall. A homeowner could chose to first erect a fence on his own property
and later remove the current wall.
>
>This proposal is inconsistent and a poorly planned attempt to make homeowners pay for a city mandated aesthetic.
request you vote NO on this amendment.
> --
>Thank you,
>Gary Palmer
> 31009 Rue Langlois
> RPV, CA 90275
>
>
2
2-72
Abigail Harwell
Subject: FW: Please vote no on planning case ZON2012-00355
From: ]S!wjsja59@verizon.net [mailto:lewisja59@verizoQ.,nfil]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07 1 2013 9:42 AM
To: Planning
Cc: IlliillJ:mh uber@ha !!mark-aviation .com
Subject: Re: Please vote no on planning case ZON2012-00355
Dear Planning Commission
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
As property owners in RPV, we protest the proposed planning case number ZON2012-00355 which would amend Municipal code
17. 76.030(E).
We are submitting this prior to the initial submission cutoff of noon May 7 in preparation for the 14-May hearing.
As put forward by neighbor and fellow resident Gary Palmer, please allow us to reiterate several of the reasons we object to the
proposed amendment:
1-The proposed change is to a municipal code specific to front yard
hedges, this amendment changes the focus significantly to include rear
walls and responsibility for repair.
2-The current code is for hedge height, setback, and view concerns, it
does not place financial responsibility, the proposed change clearly
makes the homeowner responsible for all repair and replacement expenses
for a wall design the homeowner is ndt able to change.
3-There are many walls where the continuity of the original design has
already been broken by repairs, while your proposal is to grandfather
them, there is no explanation of how new replacements would determine
the correct design to apply.
4-Some houses have one style of wall on one side and another style on
the other side. A homeowner willing to pay to replace a broken wall,
could still chose the wrong style.
5-There are walls which had their foundations undermined by City
planted trees. The tree was later removed but no repairs made to the
wall. The city is trying to unfairly remove its liability.
6-The proposed ordinance covers repair and replacement of an existing
wall, no provision is made for a homeowner who decides to remove and not
replace the wall. A homeowner could chose to first erect a fence on his
own property and later remove the current wall.
This proposal is inconsistent and a poorly planned attempt to make
homeowners pay for a city mandated aesthetic. We request you vote NO on
this amendment.
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Joanne Lewis and Philipp Huber
30929 Rue Langlois
RPV, CA 90275
(310) 265-0490
1
2-73
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Ms. Harwell,
April Sandell <hvybags@cox.net>
Tuesday, May 07, 2013 3:11 PM
Abigail Harwell
PlanningCommission
NOTICE re: Planning Case No. ZON2012-0035 (Code Amendment)
First of all, let me say I understand and appreciate the city's long term beneficial goals in this case.
Secondly, that we own the a portion of the block wall abutting Western Avenue , yet we did not receive the timely
mailed "NOTICE". Frankly, it would be very surprising to learn that we are not subject to receive "NOTICE", but if that
is indeed the case please let me know asap. In any event ..... my next door neighbor share his "NOTICE' with me just
yesterday.
Third, as you may be aware, the pre-existing wall along Western Avenue was first constructed some time in the early
1960's by Ca IT rans and not part of the neighborhood housing tract plans. Our portion of the wall "matched" until 1992
when Cal Trans tore it out eventually replacing it with existing unmatched block. CalTrans explained in 1992 that
matching block did not exist and pressed on by painting the block wall with a horrible pinkish colored paint.
Finally, I want to mention the recent RPV public meeting (Peck Park) regarding the city's presentation/plans to improve
Western Avenue which include installing bike lanes. It's my understanding these state mandated bike lane plans could
include adding new planters, trees and sidewalks directly in front of the same existing block wall along the Western Ave.
wall. In light of these long term plans as they may effect the matter at hand, I think it would be helpful to gain some
clarity as to WHERE and WHEN the city intends to enforce the relevant code amendment along Western Avenue.
Moreover, to consider that Western Avenue has special concerns unlike many of the other listed arterial roads
impacted by subject amendment.
Can you provide any recommendations or insight as to possible exemptions to the subject code amendment? It would
be very helpful to know where we are headed over the long haul.
Thank you in advance for your timely response.
Sincerely,
April L Sandell
28026 Pontevedra Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275,
P.S. Please let me know if we are not subject to receive notice in this case.
2-74
· Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the
me ing and there was one request to speak regarding this item.
Depu ommunity Development Director Mihranian provided a brief staff re
regardin is item.
Sunshine, Ra ho Palos Verdes, stated that there is confusion regar · g the
Conceptual Tra1 Plan and the Trails Network Plan. She stated th e Conceptual
Trails Plan should comprised of the trails the City would like t eep, and the Trails
Network Plan shoul ot dictate who is allowed to use the trail . She opined on the
staff recommendations t the request of the Council.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, s ended by MaY, Misetich, to approve staffs
recommendations regarding polic irection o of the 11 recommendations made by
the Open Space Planning Recreatio nd P. s Task Force related to the forthcoming
update of the City's Trails Network Pia , th Staff to consider portions of the Trails
Criteria document dated July 4, 2012 i usion in the updated Trails Network Plan.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Brooks, Cam
None
None
called a brief recess from 8:35 P.M. to 8:45 P.M.
Dis ssion ensued among Council Members and staff regarding the reordering of e
a nda.
Urgency Ordinance to Immediately Impose Regulations for Repairing/Replacing
Original Tract Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets (ZON2012-00355) (Harwell)
City Clerk Morreale reported that there was one request to speak regarding this item.
Ken Dyda, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that this was an opportunity for the City to
partner with the affected residents in beautifying the arterials with uniformity in fences
and walls and spoke in favor of the use of recycling funds to help in this effort to
improve the aesthetics for the benefit of the community.
City Council Minutes
November 7, 2012
Page 8of13
2-75
Assistant Planner Harwell provided a brief staff report regarding this item.
Discussion ensued among Council Members and staff.
In response to a question from Councilman Duhovic, Community Development Director
Rojas stated that the area along Western Avenue would be added to the arterial streets
listed in the resolution.
Councilwoman Brooks moved, seconded by Councilman Duhovic, to: 1) ADOPT
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 541U, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE WESTERN
AVENUE TO THE LIST OF ARTERIAL STREETS, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ON THE REPLACEMENT
OR REPAIR OF PRIVATELY OWNED FENCES AND WALLS ALONG ARTERIAL
STREETS WITHIN THE CITY SO THE CITY CAN ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT
WILL REQUIRE SUCH FENCES AND WALLS TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED
WITH WALLS AND FENCES THAT ARE THE SAME HEIGHT, LOCATION,
MATERIALS AND COLORS AS THE PRE-EXISTING UNIFORM FENCES OR WALLS;
and, 2) Initiate a Code Amendment to amend RPVMC Section 17.76.030(E) to require
consistency between walls or fences that are being repaired or replaced and the pre-
existing wall or fence.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Knight, and Mayor Misetich
None
None
LIC HEARINGS (continued):
nd Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) Hearin
requests to speak on the matter, Mayor Misetic
C cilman Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman Knight, to: ADOPT
ESOLUTION NO. 2012-83, AS AMENDED, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
City Council Minutes
November 7, 2012
Page 9of13
2-76
C1 ttorney Lynch stated that restrictions on the street parking would e to be
broug ack as a future agenda item.
mpbell, Duhovic, Knight, Misetich and May
None
None
Extension to Urgency Ordinance No. 541 U which Establishes a Moratorium on the
Replacement or Repair of Privately Owned Fences or Walls along Arterial Streets
(ZON2012-00355)
City Clerk Morreale reported that notice of the public hearing was duly published, no
written protests received, and there were no requests to speak regarding this item.
Mayor Brooks declared the public hearing open.
As there were no requests to speak, Mayor Brooks declared the public hearing closed.
Mayor Pro Tern Duhovic moved, seconded by Councilman Knight, to: ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 543U, AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ENACTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858 EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY URGENCY
ORDINANCE NO. 541U, REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF
PRIVATELY OWNED FENCES OR WALLS ALONG ARTERIAL STREETS WITHIN
THE CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Campbell, Duhovic, Knight, Misetich and Mayor Brooks
None
None
City Clerk M reported that late correspondence was distributed prior he
ms~el:i.l~t:rrnd there were no requests to speak regarding this item.
City Council Minutes
December 18, 2012
Page 9of12
2-77
ORDINANCE NO. 543U
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ENACTED
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 EXTENDING A
MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 541U REGARDING THE
REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF PRIVATELY OWNED FENCES OR WALLS ALONG
ARTERIAL STREETS WITHIN THE CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
WHEREAS, over the past few years existing fences and walls along major arterial streets within
the City have needed repair or replacement due to aging conditions, vehicle accidents or other
factors; and,
WHEREAS, in some cases these fences and walls have been repaired or replaced with materials
that differ from those that were installed originally and, by their inconsistency, have adversely
altered the visual character of the area and have adversely affected the aesthetic condition of the
arterial corridor; and,
WHEREAS, currently the City's Development Code does not regulate the repair or reconstruction
of fences or walls along the arterial streets within the City and only specifies that chain link, chicken
wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in rear yard setbacks which abut specified arterial streets;
and,
WHEREAS, residents have alerted City Staff that the owners of certain properties are planning to
replace their existing rear property line fences or walls along arterial streets. Because the City's
development code does not provide any specific regulations or restrictions regarding the repair or
replacement of privately owned fences or walls along the City's arterial streets, property owners
could use materials that differ from the pre-existing wall or fence, thereby constructing segments of
walls or fences that do not match the remainder of the pre-existing original wall or fence, which
could create an aesthetic blight within these areas of the City;
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordiiiance No. 541U,
imposing a moratorium on the replacement or repair of privately owned fenqes or walls along
arterial streets within the City, which is effective for 45-days and will expire oh De6.ember 21, 2012;
WHEREAS, in order to improve the uniformity and visual character of the City's arterial corridors,
an extension to the moratorium on the replacement or repair of privately owned te'nces or walls
along arterial streets is needed to allow additional time for the City to develop various options for the
Planning Commission and City Council to consider to establish criteria for the consistent and
aesthetically pleasing repair or replacement of such fences or walls;
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
of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) et seq., the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, and
Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement), the City
Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that there is no substantial evidence
that approval o~ this Ordinance would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The interim moratorium prohibiting the replacement or repair of privately owned
fences or walls along arterial streets within the City, which was adopted as Ordinance No. 541U
on November 7, 2012, is hereby extended pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 for a
period of ten months and fifteen days, up to and including November 6, 2013.
2-78
Section 2: The City Council further finds that this ordinance has no likelihood of causing a
significant adverse impact on the environment and, accordingly, both the City Council's action of
adopting this ordinance and the effects that are derived from that adoption are found to be exempt
from the application of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section
15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 CCR. 15061(b}(3).) This finding is premised
on the fact that the adoption of this ordinance extending the moratorium will maintain the current
environmental conditions arising from the existing fences or walls, and that repair or replacement
of these fences or walls on residential properties will not alter these environmental conditions.
Section 3: In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare it is necessary for the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt an ordinance to extend the moratorium on the repair and
reconstruction of walls or fences along the arterial streets in order for the City to establish criteria
through a code amendment that would regulate the repair and reconstruction of these walls and
fences in a manner which is uniform and harmonious with the arterial streets' visual corridors.
Therefore, this ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and shall
·take effect immediately upon its adoption as an urgency Ordinance.
Section 4: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify to the passage
and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner required by
law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THJS 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012.
City Clerk
STATE OF C.ALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the whole
number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance No. 543U was
duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said Ci_ty at a regular meeting thereof held on December
18, 2012, and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Campbell, Duhovic, Knight, Misetich and Mayor Brooks
None
None
None
City Clerk
Ordinance 543U
Page 2 of2
2-79
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS~ COMMUNITY DEVELO
DECEMBER 18, 2012
EXTENSION TO URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 541U WHICH
ESTABLISHES A MORATORIUM ON THE REPLACEMENT OR
REPAIR OF PRIVATELY OWNED FENCES OR WALLS ALONG
ARTERIAL STREETS (ZON2012-00355)
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER Q9_
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner~
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an urgency ordinance extending Urgency Ordinance No. 541 U, to November 6, 2013
(the maximum time permitted by State Law) to allow Staff adequate time to research and
prepare an ordinance that would regulate the repair and reconstruction of fences or walls
along specified arterial streets.
BACKGROUND
Atthe November 7, 2012 City Council Meeting, the Council approved Urgency Ordinance
No. 541 U which imposed a moratorium on the replacement or repair of privately owned
fences or walls along certain arterial streets within the City. In addition, the City Council
initiated a Code Amendment to amend RPVMC Section 17.76.030(E) to develop
regulations to achieve consistency between walls or fences that are being repaired or
replaced along major arterials. The establishment of a moratorium through an urgency
ordinance was in response to a recent increase in walls or fences being repaired or
reconstructed along major arterial streets in a manner that can adversely alter the visual
character of the area. The adopted Urgency Ordinance is effective for 45 days, and is
currently set to expire on December 22, 2012. Tonighf s request before the City Council is
to extend the moratorium period for up to an additional 1 O month and 15 days, the
maximum extension permitted by State law.
2-80
City Council Meeting
Urgency Ordinance Extension: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
December 18, 2012
DISCUSSION
While the City's Development Code prohibits the installation of chain link, chicken wire and
fiberglass fences in the rear yard setback of private properties along certain major arterial
streets, the Code does not provide any specific regulations or restrictions regarding the
repair or replacement of privately owned fences or walls along the same arterial streets. As
such, property owners could use materials that differ from the pre-existing wall or fence,
thereby constructing segments of walls or fences along major arterials that do not match
the remainder of the pre-existing original wall or fence. In response to recent fence or wall
repairs that did not match the pre-existing walls or fences, and other similar repairs that
Staff believes to be imminent, the City Council imposed a moratorium on the repair and
repl~cement of fences and walls along the following arterial streets:
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;
j. Silver Spur Road; and
k. Western Avenue.
In addition to an inconsistency in materials used for the rebuilding or reconstruction of walls
or fences, there are also existing walls or fences which are not visually appealing because
of their aging condition. The combination of inconsistent new walls or fences mixed with the
irregular and visually unappealing appearance of existing walls aesthetically affects the
general health, safety and welfare of the general public when traveling along the major
thoroughfares in the City. Establishing criteria for the rebuilding of these walls or fences will
provide a long-term solution to improving the visual character of the City by creating a
cohesive and uniform appearance of the City's arterial corridors.
While Staff has begun the process of evaluating existing walls and fences along existing
arterial corridors, including creation of a map identifying all impacted properties, additional
time is needed for Staff to develop various options for the Planning Commission and City
Council to consider. One such option being examined by Staff is amend the code language
to identify specific types of materials, colors or fence or wall designs that property owners
would be required to adhere to for new walls or fences to create long-term visual
consistency along arterial corridors. Another option involves creation of a draft arterial
corridor design program that would link specific private fence or wall designs with a
streetscape plan that could also address landscaping installed within the public right-of~
way. In addition, there is the option of leaving the code as it currently reads which does not
regulate the building of the walls or fences at all, as well as considering other options
presented by property owners during the public noticing period.
2-81
City Council Meeting
Urgency Ordinance Extension: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
December 18, 2012
Staff will present options to the Planning Commission at a duly notice public hearing for
consideration sometime in early 2013. Upon their review and consideration of the Staff
Report and public comments, the Planning Commission will then forward its code
amendment recommendation to the Council for its consideration. As part of the public
hearing process, all property owners abutting the noted arterial streets will receive a public
notice announcing the date and time of all public hearings related to this matter and the City
Council will make the final decision.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
While the extended moratorium will prohibit property owners from rebuilding or
reconstructing existing walls or fences along the major arterial streets until a final decision
is approved by the City Council, it is understood that circumstances may result in the
necessity of rebuilding or reconstructing existing fences or walls along the arterial streets
due to security or safety concerns. As such, the extended moratorium Ordinance allows
the Director to issue a permit to a property owner to repair or replace a fence or wall due to
security or safety concerns provided the property owner submits a written declaration that
the wall or fence will be repaired or rebuilt in the same location and at the same height wfth
the same materials and colors as the pre-existing fence or wall.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council adopt an urgency
ordinance extending Urgency Ordinance No. 541U, to November6, 2013 (the maximum
time permitted by State Law) to. allow Staff adequate time to research and prepare an
ordinance that would regulate the repair and reconstruction of fences or walls along
specified arterial streets.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staffs recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City
Council to consider:
1) Do not extend the moratorium past it's current December 22, 2012 expiration
thereby directing Staff to process the initiated Code Amendment to amend Section
17.76.030(E)(5), while residents are allowed to rebuild fences or walls without any
regulations during the public hearing and review process; or
2) Extend the moratorium to a deadline less than the maximum 10 month and 15 day
extension allowed by State law.
ATTACHMENTS
• Ordinance No. __ U
• Urgency Ordinance No. 541 U
• City Council Staff Report from the November J1h meeting
2-82
ORDINANCE NO. __ U
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ENACTED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65858 EXTENDING A MORATORIUM ESTABLISHED BY URGENCY
ORDINANCE NO. 541U REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF
PRIVATELY OWNED FENCES OR WALLS ALONG ARTERIAL STREETS
WITHIN THE CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
WHEREAS, over the past few years existing fences and walls along major arterial
streets within the City have needed repair or replacement due to aging conditions, vehicle
accidents or other factors; and,
WHEREAS, in some cases these fences and walls have been repaired or replaced with
materials that differ from those that were installed originally and, by their inconsistency, have
adversely altered the visual character of the area and have adversely affected the aesthetic
condition of the arterial corridor; and,
WHEREAS, currently the City's Development Code does not regulate the repair or
reconstruction of fences or walls along the arterial streets within the City and only specifies that
chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in rear yard setbacks which abut
specified arterial streets; and,
WHEREAS, residents have alerted City Staff that the owners of certain properties are
planning to replace their existing rear property line fences or walls along arterial streets.
Because the City's development code does not provide any specific regulations or restrictions
regarding the repair or replacement of privately owned fences or waits along the City's arterial
streets, property owners could use materials that differ from the pre-existing wall or fence,
thereby constructing segments of walls or fences that do not match the remainder of the pre-
existing original wall or fence, which could create an aesthetic blight within these areas of the
City;
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2012, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.
541U, imposing a moratorium on the replacement or repair of privately owned fences or walls
along arterial streets within the City, which is effective for 45-days and will expire on December
21, 2012;
WHEREAS, in order to improve the uniformity and visual character of the City's arterial
corridors, an extension to the moratorium on the replacement or repair of privately owned
fences or walls along arterial streets is needed to allow additional time for the City to develop
various options for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider to establish criteria
for the consistent and aesthetically pleasing repair or replacement of such fences or walls;
2-83
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 of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) et seq., the City's local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.S(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that there is no
substantial evidence that approval of this Ordinance would result in a significant adverse effect
on the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The interim moratorium prohibiting the replacement or repair of privately
owned fences or walls along arterial streets within the City, which was adopted as Ordinance
No .. 541U on November 7, 2012, is hereby extended pursuant to Government Code Section
65858 for a period of ten months and fifteen days, up to and including November 6, 2013.
Section 2: The City Council further finds that this ordinance has no likelihood of
causing a significant adverse impact on the environment and, accordingly, both the City
Council's action of adopting this ordinance and the effects that are derived from that adoption
are found to be exempt from the application of the California Environmental Quality Act, as
amended, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 CCR.
15061 (b)(3).) This finding is premised on the fact that the adoption of this ordinance extending
the moratorium will maintain the current environmental conditions arising from the existing
fences or walls, and that repair or replacement of these fences or walls on residential properties
will not alter these environmental conditions.
Section 3: In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare it Is necessary for
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt an ordinance to extend the moratorium on the repair
and reconstruction of walls or fences along the arterial streets in order for the City to establish
criteria through a code amendment that would regulate the repair and reconstruction of these
walls and fences in a manner which is uniform and harmonious with the arterial streets' visual
corridors. Therefore, this ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare
and shall take effect immediately upon its adoption as an urgency Ordinance.
2-84
Section 4: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner
required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 181H DAY OF DECEMBER 2012.
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, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Urgency
Ordinance No. __ was duly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting
thereof held on December 18, 2012, and that the same was passed and adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
City Clerk
2-85
ORDINANCE NO. 541 U
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPOSING A
MORATORIUM ON THE REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF PRIVATELY
OWNED FENCES OR WALLS ALONG ARTERIAL. STREETS WITHIN THE
CITY, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
WHEREAS, over the past few years existing fences and walls along major arterial
streets within the City have needed repair or replacement due to aging conditions, vehicle
accidents or other factors; and,
WHEREAS, in some cases these fences and walls have been repaired or replaced with
materials that differ from those that were installed originally and, by their inconsistency, have
adversely altered the visual character of the area and have adversely affected the aesthetic
condition of the arterial corridor; and,
WHEREAS, currently the Cify's Development Code does not regulate the repair or
reconstruction of fences or walls along the arterial streets within the City and only specifies that
chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in setbacks which abut specified
arterial streets; and,
WHEREAS, recently, residents have alerted City Staff that the owners of certain
properties are planning to replace their existing rear property line fences or walls along arterial
streets. Because The City's Development code does not provide any specific regulations or
restrictions regarding the repair or replacement of privately owned fences or walls along the
City's arterial streets, property owners could use materials that differ from the pre-existing wall
or fence, thereby constructing segments of walls or fences that do not match the remainder of
the pre-existing original wall or fence, which could create an aesthetic blight within these areas
of the City;
WHEREAS, in order to preserve the uniformity and visual character of the City's arterial
corridors, a moratorium on the replacement or repair of privately owned fences or walls along
arterial streets is needed to allow time so the City can adopt an ordinance that wlll require such
fences and walls to be repaired or replaced with walls and fences that are placed in the same
location, and are the same height and constructed of the same materials and colors as the pre-
existing uniform fences or walls; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQAn), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061(b)(3) et seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.S(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement), the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
2-86
Verdes has determined that there is no substantial evidence that approval of this Ordinance
would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the moratorium on the
replacement or repair of privately owned fences and walls along arterial streets within the City
and concurs that each of the recitals set forth above is true and correct and are hereby made a
part of this urgency ordinance.
Section 2: The City Council adopts this interim ordinance, effective immediately,
prohibiting the replacement or repair of privately owned fences or walls along the following
arterial streets in any zoning district of the City, pursuant to the authority set forth in California
Government Code Section 65858:
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;
j. Silver Spur Road; and
k. Western Avenue
Section 3: The City Council finds that the moratorium will allow the City to initiate
and process a code amendment to the City's Municipal Code to regulate the repair and
replacement of fences and walls along the above-listed arterial streets within the City.
Section 4: To avoid a situation from arising where a property owner, due to damage
to an existing wall or fence, cannot secure his or her property while an ordinance is being
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, this urgency ordinance exempts from
the provisions of this urgency ordinance, and allows the Director, following receipt of an
application from a property owner, to issue a permit to the property owner so that the property
owner may repair or replace a pre-existing wall or fence along any of the arterial streets listed
above with a wall or fence that is in the same location and is the same height and is constructed
of the same materials and colors as the pre-existing fence or wall.
Section 5: The City Council further finds that this urgency ordinance has no
likelihood of causing a significant adverse impact on the environment and, accordingly, both the
City Council's action of adopting this ordinance and the effects that are derived from that
adoption are found to be exempt from the application of the California Environmental Quality
Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061{b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 CCR.
15061{b)(3).) This finding is premised on the fact that the adoption of this urgency ordinance
will maintain the current environmental conditions arising from the existing fences or walls, and
that repair or replacement of these fences or walls on residential properties will not alter these
Ordinance No. 541U
Page2 of3
2-87
environmental conditions.
Section 6: In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare it is necessary for
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt an urgency ordinance to establish a moratorium on
the repair and reconstruction of walls or fences along the arterial streets in order for the City to
establish criteria through a code amendment that would regulate the repair and reconstruction
of these walls and fences in a manner which is uniform and harmonious with the arterial streets'
visual corridors. Therefore, this ordinance is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare
and shall take effect immediately upon adoption as an Urgency Ordinance.
Section 7: The Community Development Director and the City Clerk shaH undertake
all actions legally necessary to extend this interim ordinance in the event the direction desired
by the this City Council will not be concluded on or before the forty-fifth day subsequent to the
adoption of this interim ordinance.
S'ection 8: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted in the manner
required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012.
ATTEST:
/s/ Qarla Morreale
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
Isl Anthony M. Misetich
Mayor
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Urgency
Ordinance No. 541 U was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular
meeting thereof held on November 7, 2012, and that the same was passed and adopted by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Brooks, Campbell, Duhovic, Knight and Misetich
None
None
None
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 541U
Page3 of3
2-88
CrrYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECt:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY ~MENT DIRECTOR
NOVEMBER 7, 2012
URGENCY ORDINANCE TO IMMEDIATELY IMPOSE REGULATIONS
FOR REPAIRING/REPLACING ORIGINAtt TRACT FENCES AND
WALLS ALONG ARTERIAL STREETS (ZON2012-00355)
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER~
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Urgency Ordinance No. __ , imposing a Moratorium on the replacement or
repair of privately owned fences and walls along arterial streets within the City so the
City can adopt an ordinance that will require such fences and walls to be repaired or
replaced with walls and fences that are the same height, location, materials and
colors as the pre-existing uniform fences or walls; and,
2. Initiate a Code Amendment to amend RPVMC Section 17.76.030(E) to require
consistency between walls or fences that are being repaired or replaced and the pre-
existing wall or fence.
BACKGROUND
. Earlier this year, there was a situation where a privately owned damaged block wall along
Hawthorne Boulevard was repaired by the property owner in a manner that did not match
the pre-existing perimeter tract wall that is visible along the public right-of-way. More
recently, residents have alerted Staff that certain properties are planning to replace their
existing rear property line fences or walls along arterials. The City's current Development
code does not provide any specific regulations or restrictions regarding the repair or
replacement of privately owned fences or walls along the City's arterial streets. Therefore,
when repairing or replacing such existing walls or fences, a property owner could use
materials that differ from the pre-existing wall or fence, thereby constructing segments of
walls or fences that do not match the remainder of the pre-existing original wall or fence.
2-89
City Council Meeting
Urgency Ordinance: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
November 11 2012
While there are examples of this occurring along different arterials in the City over the
years, Staff believes that due to the age of these walls and fences, together with the desire
for more modern looking walls or fences by property owners, Staff believes that there may
be a higher frequency of these repairs and replacements without regulation. Since this
may result in visually unappealing arterial corridors in the City, Staff is proposing to Initiate
a code amendment to address this issue. Furthermore, because of information received
from residents of some imminent private wall replacements, Staff is proposing that an
Urgency Ordinance be adopted this evening that would impose a moratorium to prevent
walls and fences from being replaced while an ordinance is being drafted by Staff and
reviewed by the public, the Planning Commission and the City Council at duly noticed
public hearings.
DIS'CUSSION
,.
The City's Development Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, W~!ls and Hedges) regulates
where and how privately owned fences, walls and hedges can be erected within the City.
Currently, the only portion of this Code Section addressing privately owned fences or walls
along arterial roadways is Section 17.76.030(E)(5), which states that chain link, chicken
wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in the rear yard setback of private property along
the following arterial streets:
a. Crenshaw Boulevard;
b. Crest Road;
c. Hawthorne Boulevard;
d. tfighridge 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.
Staff Is recommending that language be added to this section that would require property
owners to repair or replace privately owned tract perimeter fences or walls along arterials
with a fence or wall that is the same height, location, materials and color as the pre-existing
. original tract perimeter fence or wall. Below is proposed language that Staff recommends
be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council at future public hearings to be
added to Section 17.76.030(E):
6. Replacement of Privately Owned Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets. Any
existing fence or wall that is part of an existing uniform fence or wall design and is
located within a rear yard setback of a private property located along any of the
arterial streets listed in Section 17. 76.030(E)(5) shall bf! replaced or repaired at the
same height and location as the original fence and wall, and with the same materials
and color as the pre-exist;ng uniform fence or wall, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
2-90
City Council Meeting
Urgency Ordinance: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
November 7, 2012
As previously noted, chain link fences along arterial streets are currently prohibited by the
Code. However, Development Code Section 17.84.060.C.2 allows any non-conforming
structures that do not require a permit (which applies to free-standing walls and fences 6
feet or less in height) that are damaged or deteriorated to be restored to original condition
provided such restoration does not pose a "significant safety hazard". Therefore, existing
chain link fences along arterials are allowed to be replaced.
Because of recent information received from residents about pending wall replacements,
along arterial streets, Staff believes that an Urgency Ordinance is needed to prevent the
possibility of new walls being constructed along arterial streets that are inconsistent with
the existing visual character of the area and the tract within which the residence is located.
The adoption of an Urgency Ordinance will impose a moratorium immediately for a period
of forty-fi\Ee ( 45) days to prevent Inconsistent walls and fences from being constructed while
the formal public hearing and review process occurs.
The 45-day period may be extended one time by the City Council, following a duly noticed
public hearingi for an additional ten months and fifteen days. To avoid a situation from
arising where a property owner cannot secure his or her property while an ordinance is
being considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, the proposed urgency
ordinance allows the Director to issue a permit to allow a pre-existing waif or fence along
an arterial to be replaced with a wall or fence that is the same as the pre-existing wall or
fence.
In order to begin the public hearing process, the City Council is also being asked to initiate
a Code Amendment. By initiating the Code Amendment process, the new code language
will be vetted by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council through a public
hearing process. As part of the public hearing process, all property owners abutting the
noted arter!al streets will receive a public notice announcing the date and time of any public
hearings. The City Council will have final decision on the matter.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
During the public review process of the Code Amendment, Staff will develop various
alternatives for the Planning Commission and City Council to consider. For example, an
alternative may include additional language identifying specific types of materials, colors
. and fence or wall designs that property owners would be required to adhere to for new
walls or fences to create long-term visual consistency along arterial corridors. Another
alternative could include the City creating an arterial corridor design program that would
link specific private fence or wall designs with a streetscape plan that could also address
landscaping installed within the public right-of-way. Other alternatives may consider
leaving the code as it currently exists, or other options presented by property owners during
the public noticing period.
2-91
City Council Meeting
Urgency Ordinance: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
November 7, 2012
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council adopt Urgency
Ordinance No. _, which would create a moratorium on the repair and replacement of
existing walls until RPVMC Section 17.76.030(E) is amended to require fences and walls
repaired along arterial streets to be replaced with walls and fences which are the same
height, location, materials and colors as the pre-existing wall or fence, and to initiate a code
amendment to formally adopt changes to this section through the public hearing process.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives .are available for the City
Council to consider:
I)> ,. ..
1) Retain Chapter 17.76.030(E)(5) as currently codified, which prohibits certain
materials from being used along major arterials and do not Initiate a code
amendment; or
2) Initiate a Code Amendment to amend Section 17.76.030(E)(5), without an urgency
ordinance, and allow residents to rebuild fences or walls as currently regulated
during the public hearing and review process; or
3) Direct Staff to explore other options for addressing this issue.
ATTACHMENTS
• Existing Code Language from Section 17.76.030(E) (General Regulations)
• Urgency Ordinance No. _u
2-92
.,.
"''
ATTACHMENT 1
Existing Code Language from Section
17.76.030(E) (General Regulations)
2-93
City Council Meeting
Urgency Ordinance: Fences and Walls along Arterial Streets
November 7, 2012
17.76.030(E) 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 titl~.
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 doqr t'o 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, wails 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 17.48 (Equestrian Overlay District) of this
title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign, posted in a visible location,
warning that an electrified fence is in use.
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the
front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family residence closest
to the front property line; in side yards between the street side property line and the
exterior facade of the existing slngle~famlly 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.
2-94
ORDINANCE NO. U
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES IMPOSING
A MORATORIUM ON THE REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF PRIVATELY
OWNED FENCES OR WALLS ALONG ARTERIAL STREETS WITHIN THE
CITY, AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.,
WHEREAS, over the past few years existing fences and walls along major arterial
streets within the City have needed repair or replacement due to aging conditions, vehicle
accidents or other factors; and,
WHEREAS, In some cases these fences and walls have been ~epalred or replaced
with materials that differ from those that were installed originally and, by their inconsistency,
have adversely altered the visual character of the area and have adversely affected the
aesthetic condition of the arterial corridor; and, .
WHEREAS, currently the City's Development Code dQ.eS"n.ot. regulate the repair or
reconstruction of fences or walls along the arterial streets within the City and only specifies
that chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited In setbacks which abut
specified arterial streets; and,
WHEREAS, recently, residents have alerted City Staff that the owners of certain
properties are planning to replace their existing rear property line fences or walls along
arterial streets. Because The City's Development code does not provide any specific
regulations or restrictions regarding the repair or replacement of privately owned fences or
walls along the City's arterial streets, property owners could use materials that differ from
the pre-existing wall or fence, thereby constructing segments of walls or fences that do not
match the remainder of the pre-existing original wall or fence, which could create an
aesthetic blight within these areas of the City;
WHEREAS, in order to preserve the uniformity and visual character of the City's
arterial corridors, a moratorium on the replacement or repair of privately owned fences or
walls along arterial streets is needed to allow time so the City can adopt an ordinance that
will require such fences and walls to be repaired or replaced with walls and fences that are
placed in the same location, and are the same height and constructed of the same
materials and colors as the pre-existing uniform fences or walls; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Califomla Environmental Quality Act,
. Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15061{b){3) et seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guldelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement}, the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has determined that there
is no substantial evidence that approval of this Ordinance would result in a significant
adverse effect on the environment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The City Council has reviewed and considered the moratorium on the
replacement or repair of privately owned fences and walls along arterial streets within the
2-95
City and concurs that each of the recitals set forth above is true and correct and are hereby
made a part of this urgency ordinance.
Section 2: The City Council adopts this interim ordinance, effective immediately,
prohibiting the replacement or repair of privately owned fences or walls along the following
arterial streets in any zoning district of the City, pursuant to the authority set forth in
California Government Code Section 65858:
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 3: The City Council finds that the moratorium will allow the City to initiate
and process a code amendment to the City's Municipal Code to regulate the repair and
replacement of fences and walls along the above-listed arterial streets within the City.
Section 4: To avoid a situation from arising where a property owner, due to
damage to an existing wall or fence, cannot secure his or her property while an ordinance is
being considered by the Planning Commission and City Councill this urgency ordinance
exempts from the provisions of this urgency ordinance, and allows the Director, following
receipt of an application from a property owner, to issue a permit to the property owner so
that the property owner may repair or replace a pre-existing wall or fence along any of the
arterial streets llsted above with a wall or fence that ls In the same location and is the same
height and is constructed of the same materials and colors as the pre-existing fence or wall.
Section 5: The City Council further finds that this urgency ordinance has no
likelihood of causing a significant adverse Impact on the environment and, accordingly, both
the City Council's action of adopting this ordinance and the effects that are derived from
that adoption are found to be exempt from the application of the California Environmental
Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Sectlon.15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines
(Title 14 CCR. 15061 (b)(3).) This finding is premised on the fact that the adoption of this
. urgency ordinance will maintain the current environmental conditions arising from the
existing fences or walls, and that repair or replacement of these fences or walls on
residential properties will not alter these environmental conditions.
Section 6: In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare It Is necessary
for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to adopt an urgency ordinance to establish a
moratorium on the repair and reconstruction of walls or fences along the arterial streets in
order for the City to establish criteria through a code amendment that would regulate the
repair and reconstruction of these walls and fences in a manner which is uniform and
harmonious with the arterial streets' visual corridors. Therefore, this ordinance Is necessary
Ordinance No.
Page 2 of3
2-96
for the public health, safety and welfare and shall take effect immediately upon adoption as
an Urgency Ordinance.
Section 7: The Community Development Director and the City Clerk shall
undertake all actions legally necessary to extend this Interim ordinance in the event the
direction desired by the this City Council will not be concluded on or before the forty-fifth day
subsequent to the adoption of this Interim ordinance.
Section 8: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted In the
manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7tn DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
)
)
)
SS
,,. 'i" MAYOR
I, CARLA MORREALE, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes 1 do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City Is five; that the
foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. _u was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council
of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on November 7, 2012, and that the same was
passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY CLERK
Ordinance No.
Page3 of3
2-97