RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_08_06_06_Code_Amendment_Ord_546_Fence_Wall_Hedge_PermitsCITY OF ~O RANCHO i=ALOS VERDES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEVEL~~DIRECTOR
AUGUST 6, 2013 0 v
ORDINANCE NO. 546 TO AMEND RPVMC CHAPTER 17.76.030..;,,
THE PROCESSING OF FENCE, WALL AND HEDGE PERMITS (CASE
NO. ZON2012-00346).
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER~~-
Staff Coordinator: Abigail Harwell, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Review Staff's proposal to add a streamlining component to the Fence, Wall and Hedge
Permit process that would reduce fees for some applicants and if acceptable, remand
Ordinance No. 546 back to the Planning Commission to obtain the Commission's feedback
on the additional code language.
BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2013-48, approving Addendum
No. 5 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510, for a Code Amendment to revise
RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges); and introduced Ordinance No.
546, amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a Fence, Wall
and Hedge (FWH) permit for any new fence within a rear or side yard setback; amending
RPVMC Section 17. 76.030(C)( 1 )(b )(iv) to clarify the existing height limitations applicable to
combination walls/hedges; and amending RPVMC Section 17.76.030(D)(1)(a) to clarify that
a Minor Exception permit is not required for any fence higher than 42 inches up to 6 feet
within the street-side setback. The City Council also directed Staff to look into the FWH
application fee, and bring back a subsidized (lower) fee based on a stream-lined process.
Pursuant to Council direction, Staff has identified a streamlining step that will result in a
lower application fee for some applicants. Staff seeks the Council's feedback on the
proposed streamlining step.
DISCUSSION
Atthe July 16th meeting, the bulk of the City Council's discussion focused on the Planning
6-1
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
August 6, 2013
Commission's recommendation to subsidize the current $2, 192 application fee charged to
FWH permit applicants. As explained by Planning Commissioner Paul Tetreault, who
attended the July 161h meeting representing the Planning Commission, the Commission felt
that the current $2, 192 application fee is a burden for residents and may prompt residents
to install a new fence, wall or hedge without City approval due to the application cost. A
majority of the Council agreed with this sentiment and noted that it was imprudent to
require the payment of a fee that may cost more than the actual construction of the
requested fence, wall or hedge. Thus, the Council directed Staff to see if the fee could be
lowered, possibly by instituting a more "stream-lined" review process.
Existing Fee
Staff reviewed the fee study that was completed in 2008 which was used to establish all of
the City's current fees, including the current FWH Permit fee. The study concluded that the
processing of a FWH Permit application involved a combination of approximately 17 hours
of total staff time (Director, Deputy Director, Staff Planner and Administrative Assistant). In
order to achieve 100% cost recovery, the current $2, 192 fee is based on this total staff
time. Staff believes that the total amount of Staff time identified by the last fee study is
necessary to process FWH Permits in accordance with the present code. Therefore, Staff
believes that in order to lower the fee, an amendment to the existing FWH application
review process is necessary.
Staff Proposed Streamlined Process
Given the Council's discussion on July 16 about finding a way to streamline the current
FWH Permit process to help reduce the application fee, Staff has given this issue some
additional thought and has come up with a proposal that would streamline the review
process. Specifically, Staff is proposing that the current review process be modified to
require an initial site visit at the very beginning of the application process at which time a
determination can made if there is any view impairment caused by the proposed (or ·
existing) fence, wall or hedge. If the site visit results in Staff confirming that there will be
absolutely no view impairment caused by the proposed (or existing) fence, wall or hedge,
Staff would administratively "over-the-counter" approve the request for a FWH Permit. If
Staff were to find that there is possible view impairment caused by the proposed fence,
wall or hedge, the requested application would require processing through the established
process. All applicants would still be required to submit an application and appropriate
plans for review and be subject to all the findings and conditions of the current Ordinance.
Staff believes that the cost of the initial site visit should be $198 as this is the fee currently
charged to applicants who propose additions that trigger the need for Staff to go out and
conduct a foliage analysis of their property. Staff feels that a $198 fee would adequately
capture Staff's time to assess and approve a FWH application where it is determined that
absolutely no view impairment will occur. If the initial site visit concludes that the applicant
must go through the regular FWH review process, the applicant may opt to relocate their
proposed wall, fence or hedge to a location or height where the need for the permit
process is not triggered or may proceed with the regular FWH process. If the resident
6-2
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
August6,2013
seeks to pursue the regular permit process, the applicant would only pay the difference
between the two fees ($1,644 -$198 = $1,446) to continue processing the full FWH Permit
application.
Adding this proposed streamlined process to the Code will require further amendments to
Draft Ordinance No. 546 which was introduced at the July 16, 2013 City Council meeting.
Furthermore, because these amendments involve the City's Development Code, according
to the City Attorney, any new proposed amendments will need to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission. Therefore, if the City Council agrees with
Staff's proposal to add a streamlining component to the present Fence, Wall and
Hedge Permit process, Staff is recommending that the Council remand Ordinance
No. 546 back to the Planning Commission to obtain the Commission's feedback on
the additional code language amendments.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Comments Submitted by Commissioner Tetreault
As noted earlier, Planning Commissioner Paul Tetreault attended the July 161h City Council
meeting to explain the Planning Commission recommendations with regards to the
proposed ordinance amendments and application fee. After the meeting, Commissioner
Tetreault submitted an email to the Mayor (attached) with his own personal comments and
suggestions on the matter. Commissioner Tetreault's main points are addressed by Staff
below.
One point made by Commissioner Tetreault is that it does not make sense for someone to
have to get a costly permit for a hedge even if it's obvious to anyone at a moment's glance
that no view will be obstructed by said hedge. Staff believes that this issue will be
addressed with the streamlining amendment proposed by Staff which would institute a site
visit process to make said determination with a nominal site visit fee.
Commissioner Tetreault suggests that the Council establish a "by right" height limit for
FWH so that up to a certain height, regardless of where it might be on someone's property,
a resident can have a fence, wall or hedge even though it may block someone's view. This
was the case before the present FWH ordinance was adopted by the City Council in 1990.
Any resident was allowed a 6-foot high fence, wall or hedge outside of the front and street-
side setback areas regardless of whether it blocked a view. However, after Proposition M
was adopted into the Code in 1989, the City Council adopted the present code language to
afford additional view protection to residents from view impairments from a FWH. If the City
Council would like to go back to a "by-right" height limit for fences, walls and hedges, the
current FWH ordinance could be eliminated and there would be no need for a resident to
apply for a FWH Permit. Staff should note that this would be contrary to the intent of the
code amendment currently before the City Council, as proposed by Councilman Knight,
which is to provide greater view protection to property owners who currently are not
afforded such protections based on how the current FWH ordinance is written.
6-3
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
August 6, 2013
Commissioner Tetreault suggests that FWH issues be worked out as they are under the
City's View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance, whereby the City only intervenes
when a property owner's foliage significantly impairs a neighbor's view. The City's View
Restoration and Preservation process is written in a way where the City becomes involved
only if there is significant view impairment because the remedy is to trim foliage. The FWH
ordinance not only involves foliage (hedges) but also fences and walls which would be
more costly and complicated to reduce in height after they are built. One avenue that
could be pursued is to amend the current FWH ordinance so that it would only apply to
walls and fences, thereby letting hedges be dealt with through the View Restoration and
Preservation process. However, this would mean that hedges lower than 16 feet or the
ridgeline, whichever is lower, would be allowed to impair a neighbor's view.
Fence, Wall and Hedge Application Statistics
Staff did some research and found that in the last ten years, there have been 26 FWH
Permit applications filed (an average of 2 to 3 per year). Of the 26 applications filed, all
were approved by the Director with conditions and only two Director decisions were
appealed to the Planning Commission with no Planning Commission decisions appealed to
the City Council.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above, Staff recommends that the Council remand Ordinance
No. 546 back to the Planning Commission to review the proposed additional code
language to add a streamlining component to the Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit process
at a public hearing. Then, Staff would bring back the ordinance back to the City Council at
a noticed future City Council meeting for re-introduction.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the City
Council to consider:
1) Adopt attached Ordinance No. 546 as introduced at the July 16, 2013 City Council
meeting, amending RPVMC Section 17. 76.030 of the Development Code (Fences,
Walls and Hedges), to expand the applicability of when a Fence, Wall and Hedge
permit is required; or,
2) Direct Staff to amend Ordinance No. 546 for Planning Commission review so that
RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code would only be applicable to
fences and walls, whereby the height of hedges would be addressed through the
City's current View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance; or,
3) Direct Staff to draft a new ordinance for Planning Commission review that would
eliminate RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Development Code (Fence, Walls and
Hedges) and establish a "by-right" height limit for all fences, wall and hedges.
6-4
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment: Fence, Wall and Hedges Permit application
August6,2013
ATTACHMENTS:
• Ordinance No. 546, as introduced July 16, 2013
• E-mail from Commission Paul Tetreault, dated July 17, 2013
6-5
ORDINANCE NO. 546
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING RPVMC
SECTION 17. 76.030(E) TO REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE,
WALL AND HEDGE PERMIT FOR ANY NEW FENCE WITHIN A REAR
OR SIDE YARD SETBACK; AMENDING RPVMC SECTION
17.76.030(C)(1)(B)(IV) TO CLARIFY THE EXISTING HEIGHT
LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO COMBINATION WALLS/HEDGES;
AND AMENDING RPVMC SECTION 17.76.030(D)(1)(A) TO CLARIFY
THAT A MINOR EXCEPTION PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ANY
FENCE HIGHER THAN FORTY-TWO INCHES UP TO SIX FEET WITHIN
THE STREET-SIDE SETBACK (CASE NO. ZON2012-00346).
WHEREAS, on Oct9ber 16, 2012, Councilman Knight presented his request for
the City. Council to move forward with a code amendment to address a possible
loophole in the City's Development Code existing language for when a Fence, Wall and
Hedge permit is required, which results in less view protection to certain residential
properties; and,
WHEREAS, on November 20, 2013, the City Council initiated a Code
Amendment to revise Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges) to
require any new fence, wall or hedge within specified setbacks be subject to a Fence,
Wall and Hedge permit, thereby affording view protection from said new fences, walls
and hedges to more property owners, and also to make minor clean-up amendments to
Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 to clarify hedge heights and applicability of Minor
Exception Permit for fences; and,
WHEREAS, after notice was issued pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Development Code, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on May 14, 2013, at which time Staff presented proposed language to revise
Municipal Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges). Based on public
testimony and discussion, the Planning Commission moved to continue the public
hearing to May 28, 2013, with direction to Staff to: draft a resolution for adopting which
would recommend that the City Council adopt. the code amendment to RPVMC Section
17.76.030, as recommended by Staff, and include a recommendation to the Council that
the $2,192 Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit application fee be partially subsidized by the
City; and,
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2013-10, thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending
RPVMC Section 17.76.030(8)(1) to require the approval of a fence, wall and hedge
permit for any new fence within a rear or side yard setback; amending RPVMC section
17.76.030(c)(1)(b)(iv) to clarify the existing height limitations applicable to combination
walls/hedges; and amending RPVMC section 17.76.030(d)(1)(a) to clarify that a minor
exception permit is not required for any fence higher than forty-two inches up to six feet
Ordinance No. 546
Page 1of9
6-6
within the street-side setback; and recommending that the City Council subsidize the
Fence, Wall and Hedge permit application to minimize the financial obligation of
residents who will be required to obtain a permit from the City in order to install a non-
exempted new fence, wall or hedge on private property when they were not required to
do so prior to the proposed code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, on June 26, 2013, a notice was sent to 65 homeowners associations
within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes informing them of this proposed code
amendment; and,
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2013, notice of the public hearing on the proposed
amendments to RPVMC Section 17.76.030 of the Municipal Code was published in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA
Guidelines, California Code Regulations, Title 14, Section 1500 et seq., the City's Local
CEQA Guidelines, and Government Code Section 65962.5(f) (Hazardous Waste and
Substances Statement), on July 16, 2013, copies of the draft Addendum No. 5 to the
Negative Declaration for Ordinance No. 510 were distributed to the City Council and
prior to taking action on the proposed code amendment, the City Council independently
reviewed and considered the information and findings contained in Addendum No. 5;
and,
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2013, the City Council held a public hearing, at which
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: That the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are
consistent with California Government Code Section 65853, zoning amendment
procedures.
Section 2: The City Council has independently reviewed this item and has
determined that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a new Negative
Declaration is not required for this revision because the proposed amendments will not
result in any new significant environmental effects.
Section 3: That the amendments to Title 17 are consistent with the Rancho
Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold, and do not
hinder, the goals and policies of those plans. Specifically, the revisions to Section
17.76.030 will address concerns as to newly constructed fences, walls and hedges that
may significantly impair the view from adjoining lot, as well as provide language
modifications, all of which assist in enforcement of the Development Code which uphold
the Goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
Ordinance No. 546
Page 2of9
6-7
Section 4: That the amendments to Chapter 17. 76.030(E) are necessary to
preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare, as the proposed amendments
will provide more protection to view owners by requiring all non-exempt fences, walls or
hedges to apply to the City for a Fence, Wall or Hedge permit prior to installation.
Section 5: That the subsections listed below of Section 17.76.030 (Fences,
Walls and Hedges) of Chapter 17.76 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code are hereby
amended as follows (strike-out text is for removed language, and bold and underlined
text is for new language):
17.76.030 -Fences, walls and hedges.
A Purpose. These standards provide for the construction of fences, walls and hedges
as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous
visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment of views.
B. Fence, Wall and Hedge Permit.
1. Permit Required. A fence, wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence,
wall or hedge placed within the rear yard or side yard setback adjacent to a rear
property line or for any wall or hedge placed 1.vithin the side yard setback
acf:jacent to an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as
determined by the director), except as specified below:
a. Fences, walls or hedges located where the grade differential between the
building pads of adjacent lots, measured perpendicular to the boundary
between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence, wall or hedge,
is two feet or less in elevation; or
b. Fences, walls or hedges where the subject lot is located upslope of any
property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence, wall or hedge; or
c. Fences, walls or hedges when the top of the fence, wall or hedge is at a lower
elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot.
2. Findings. A fence, wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director
finds as follows:
a. That the fence, wall or hedge would not significantly impair a view from the
viewing area, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS)
Districts), of another property or a view from public property which has been
identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-
designated viewing area. Views shall be taken from a standing position,
unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated
position;
b. That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds sixteen feet or the
ridgeline of the primary structure, whichever is lower, and impairs a view from
the viewing area of another parcel, as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-
Family Residential (RS) Districts) or a view from public property which has
been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan, as a city-
designated viewing area, shall be removed prior to permit approval. This
Ordinance No. 546
Page 3of9
6-8
requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an
unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on
which the foliage exists and there is no method by which the property owner
can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that
does not impair a view from viewing area of another property;
c. That placement or construction of the fence, wall or hedge shall comply with
all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code and general plan;
d. Notwithstanding finding (2)(a) (subsection (B)(2)(a) of this section), the
applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings
(2)(b) and (2)(c) (subsections (B)(2)(b) and (8)(2)(c) of this section) listed
above can be made and either:
i. Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the
occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by which the
property owner can create such privacy through some other means
permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a
viewing area of another property; or
ii. Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing
requirements contained in subsection E of this section and there is no
reasonable method to comply with subsection E of this section that would
not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property.
3. Notice of Decision. The notice of decision of a fence, wall and hedge permit shall
be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of the subject
property. Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant. Any interested
person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant
to Section 17.80.050 (Appeal to Planning Commission) of this title.
4. This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Appeal to City Council) of this title.
5. The director, the planning commission and city council may impose such
conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public
health, safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section.
6. In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions
of the development code or the building code, the most restrictive provisions
apply.
C. Fences, Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit. Unless restricted by
conditions imposed through a fence, wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of
this section, fences, walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be
allowed without a permit:
1. Residential Zoning Districts
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area shall
meet the following standards:
Ordinance No. 546
Page 4of9
6-9
i. Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted, except as restricted by
the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
Visibility) of this title;
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed
forty-two inches, except as restricted by the intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title; and
iii. When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line
of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot,
up to six feet in height shall be permitted.
b. Fences, walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) of this section
shall meet the following standards:
i. Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of
a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) except as restricted by Section
17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title;
ii. Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot
not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a), except as restricted by the view
preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage, as
described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential (RS) Districts);
iii. When combined with a fence, freestanding wall or retaining wall, the total
height may not exceed eight feet, as measured from grade on the lower
side, and may not exceed six feet, as measured from grade on the higher
side;
iv. When a hedge is combined with a fence, freestanding wall, .Q! retaining
wall or hedge, the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured
from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet, as
measured from grade on the lower side; provided, the height of each
individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed
the height limitations prescribed by this title.
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up
to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,
pursuant to the temporary construct~on fencing provisions of Section
17.56.020(C) of this title.
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a. Fences, walls and hedges located within the front yard and street-side
setback areas shall meet the following standards:
i. Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-
side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection visibility
requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this title.
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed
forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas, except as
Ordinance No. 546
Page 5 of 9
6-10
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title.
b. Fences, walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall
meet the following standards:
i. Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the
front or street-side setback areas, except as restricted by the intersection
visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility) of this
title.
ii. When combined with a retaining wall, the total height may not exceed
eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed
six feet as measured from grade on the higher side.
c. Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), up
to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,
. pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section
17.56.020 (Conduct of Construction and Landscaping Activities) of this title.
D. Fences, Walls and Hedges-Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit.
1. The following fences, walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the approval
of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits):
a. Fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions), higher than forty-two
inches and up to six feet in height located in the front and street side setback
areas; provided, the area between the street and any such fence is
landscaped, per a plan approved by the director of planning;
b. A fence, wall or hedge, or any combination thereof, located outside of a front
yard or street side setback area which exceeds 6 feet in height but does
not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the
lower side and six feet in height as measured from grade on the higher side;
c. Fences higher than six feet and up to ten feet in height and not within the
required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot retaining
wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for downslope and side yard
fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational facilities. The fence above the
six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh, or similar material, capable
of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light
meter.
2. In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception
Permits), the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the following
criteria in assessing such an application:
a. The height of the fence, wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public
safety and welfare;
Ordinance No. 546
Page 6 of 9
6-11
b. The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not
significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as
defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration) of this title;
c. On corner lots, intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility) of this title is not obstructed; and
d. The height of the retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set
forth in Section 17. 76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
E.Hedges Permitted Within the Front Yard Setback. Hedges (not fences, walls or
combination thereof) that exceed forty-two inches in height are allowed within the front-
yard setback, including the intersection visibility triangle, provided that:
1. No portion of the hedge will exceed six feet in height;
2. The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge exceeding forty-two
inches allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by
a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause a visual impairment that
would adversely affect the public health, as determined by the director of public
works; and
3. The height of the hedge exceeding forty-two inches does not significantly impair
a view from the viewing area of residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration) of this title.
4. The property owner submits a complete application and fee for a site plan review
permit and obtains approval of said permit. The approval of said permit shall
include a condition of approval that specifies the hedge's permitted height above
forty-two inches and that the hedge shall be maintained at said height.
5. Hedges that exceed thirty inches in height and are located within the intersection
visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section
17.48.070(0).
F.General Regulations.
1. Fences, walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted
within three feet of each other, as measured from their closest points, unless at
least one of the fences, walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under
separate ownership. Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls
or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of
determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit.
2. Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section; provided, a grading
permit is approved pursuant to Section 17. 76.040 (Grading Permit) of this title.
3. Fences or Walls-Required. All pools, spas and standing bodies of water
eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence
or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at
a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall. Any gate or
door to the outside shall be equipped with a self:.closing device and a self-
latching device located not less than four feet above the ground. Such fences,
Ordinance No. 546
Page 7 of 9
6-12
walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the
satisfaction of the city's building official.
4. The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of
the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may
only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian
Overlay (Q) District) of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,
posted in a visible location, warning that an electrified fence is in use.
5. Chain link, chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-
family residence closest to the front property line, in side yards between the
street-side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family
residence closest to the street side property line, and within a rear yard setback
which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
a .. Crenshaw Boulevard;
b. Crest Road;
c. Hawthorne Boulevard;
d. Highridge Road;
e. Miraleste Drive;
f. Palos Verdes Drive East;
g. Palos Verdes Drive North;
h. Palos Verdes Drive South;
i. Palos Verdes Drive West; and
j. Silver Spur Road.
Section 6: Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
place, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of
this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this
ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause,
phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 7: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3)
public places in the City within fifteen (15) days after its passage, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code. The City Clerk shall further
certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance
and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Section 8: This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at
12:01 AM on the 31st day after its passage.
Ordinance No. 546
Page 8of9
6-13
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 61h day of August 2013.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles ) ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I, Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, hereby certify that the
above Ordinance No. 546 was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on August 6, 2013.
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 546
Page 9 of 9
6-14
Abigail Harwell
Subject:
From: Paul Tetreault
Sent: 7/17/2013 12:45 PM
To: Susan.Brooks@rpv.com
Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr'
FW: Fences, Hedges and Walls
Subject: Fences, Hedges and Walls
Mayor Brooks
I am sorry if my comments last night contributed to going overtime on the matter involving the fences, hedges
and wall code amendment.
Last night I spoke as a representative of the PC. The following comments and suggestions are my own.
The current code respecting walls, hedges and fences is very confusing. I have literally spent more than an hour
reading and re-reading the various code sections, sub sections and sub-sub sections trying to understand when
heights are restricted to 42 inches, six feet, 11.5 feet, 16 or 18 feet, the degree of slope differential between
adjoining properties and the differences between street-side setbacks and side yard setbacks, and when these
restrictions or permit requirements apply to walls and hedges but not fences. After that hour of time I cannot
say that I truly understand when a permit is required and when it is not. As a lawyer I am probably better
trained to understand statutory language and as a planning commissioner I am familiar with our development
code. The average resident stands little chance of understanding what they can do without getting a permit.
The purpose, as I understand it, of Chapter 17.76.030 is to protect views while permitting privacy. The city has
chosen to do that by requiring everyone that falls within rather cryptic parameters to get a costly permit to make
sure they are not creating a view obstruction. However, the city already has a very highly developed procedure
for restoring and preserving views that are obstructed by buildings and foliage, and that process does not require
permits. Rather, it prohibits view obstruction beyond a by-right height limitation. In other words, residents can
have trees that soar 100 feet or more into the sky, without a permit, as long as it does not block anyone's
view. But if they want to plant a 7 foot hedge along their property line they need to get a permit, even if it
obvious to anyone at a moment's glance that nobody's view will be obstructed. We have the same goal of
protecting views but use two entirely different means to do so, depending mostly on where the potential
obstruction is (set back areas) and if they are linear rather than a tree or structure. This does not make sense to
me.
May I suggest that instead of requiring residents who wish to grow a hedge or install a fence or wall within a
setback area that they be able to do so unmolested by city hall as long as it does not block a neighbor's
protectable view in the same way that views are protected with regard to trees and buildings. A by-right height
should be established so that up to a certain height, regardless of where it might be on your property, you can
have a hedge, wall or fence even though it might block a view. We allow that now with houses and trees, the
by-right height being generally recognized as 16 feet or the ridge line of your house (with exceptions and
qualifications for sloping lots, etc.) I don't suggest that we use the same heights for fences, walls and
hedges. Sixteen feet is pretty tall. However, the current code does allow hedge and wall or hedge and fence
combinations up to that height (17.76.030(C)).
1 6-15
These issues have been worked out for our Prop. M view restoration and preservation ordinances and they can
be largely duplicated with regard to setback walls, hedges and fences. The idea should be to have city hall
intervene only when someone is violating a neighbor's rights, rather than making everyone prove that they are
not offending before the fact. Views are an aesthetic, not a health and safety issue, and they do not need that
level of government intervention to protect the public.
I will be happy to work with Jim Knight or Staff to craft suggested language that mirrors Chapter 17.02.040
(View Preservation and Restoration).
Paul
2 6-16