RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_02_07_01_Revise_RPVMC_Chapter_17.90Date:
Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING
February 7,2012
Code Amendment to Revise the Interpretation Procedure Described
in RPVMC Chapter 17.90 to allow Greater Administrative Flexibility for
the Adjustment of Open-Space Hazard Boundary Line Locations on
Private Property Case (Case No.lON2011-00168)
Subject Property:Citywide
1.Declare the Hearing Open:Mayor Misetich
2.Report of Notice Given:City Clerk Morreale
3.Staff Report &Recommendation:Assistant Planner Harwell
4.Public Testimony:
Appellants:N/A
Applicants:City
5.Council Questions:
6.Rebuttal:
7.Declare Hearing Closed:Mayor Misetich
8.Council Deliberation:
9.Council Action:
1-1
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR &MEMB RS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVII::~r-rw,
FEBRUARY 7,2012
SUBJECT:CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE INTERPRETATION
PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 TO ALLOW
GREATER ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE ADJUSTMENT
OF OPEN-SPACE HAZARD BOUNDARY LINE LOCATIONS ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY (CASE NO.ZON2011-00168).
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGERW~CL.
Staff Coordinator:Abigail Harwell,Assistant Planner ~
RECOMMENDATION
1.Adopt Resolution No.__,adopting Addendum NO.3 to the Negative Declaration
for Ordinance No.510,for a code amendment to revise the Interpretation Procedure
(RPVMC 17.90);and
2.Introduce Ordinance No._,amending RPVMC Chapter 17.90,to allow a property
owner to make an adjustment of an open-space hazard (OH)zoning district
boundary line location on their property from thirty (30)feet to one-hundred (100)
feet through an administrative interpretation procedure;and,
3.Waive all application fees and any appeal fees associated with a request for an
Interpretation Procedure to adjust an open-space hazard district boundary line until
an update of the General Plan,which will include updated mapping of the hazard
areas Citywide,has been adopted by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
When the City's Official Zoning Map was first adopted in 1975,one of the zoning districts
identified on the map was the open-space hazard (OH)zoning district.According to the
City's Development Code (Chapter 17.32),the OH district ''prevents unsafe development of
hazardous areas that must be preserved or regulated for public health and safety
purposes."The OH zoning district areas identified in the 1975 zoning map were based
1-2
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment Interpretation Procedure for Open-Space Hazard Boundary Lines
February 7,2012
upon general topographic information available to the City at that time.Generally
speaking,the OH zoning district is comprised of areas where the slope exceeds 35%,
areas experiencing down slope movement,areas unstable for development,areas where
grading of the land may endanger public health and safety due to erosion,the ocean bluff
areas,and areas subject to flooding from storm water.As such,the OH zoning district
boundary lines adopted in 1975 do not follow lot lines but instead cross over lot lines and
often even cross over developed residences.Most property owners are usually unaware
that an OH zoning designation is on their property until they propose development or
changes to their property.In such cases,the property owner will choose to work around
the OH area,adjustthe OH zoning designation,or not pursue the project envisioned within
the OH area.
In 2011,as part ofthe on-going General Plan update,the Planning Commission conducted
a series of public hearings to match the hazard areas depicted on the General Plan Land
Use Map to the OH areas depicted on the City's parcel specific Zoning Map.Over 600
property owners received public notice of this action if portions of their property contained
OH areas.As a result,many residents wrote letters and spoke at the hearings with
concerns about the presence of OH areas on their property.While Staff explained that the
OH areas have been in place since adoption of the Zoning Map in 1975 (and since 1984
for the annexed Eastview area)and are not being changed,many residents felt that it was
wrong to have imprecisely mapped OH areas located over improved portions of their
property.In response to the public concerns,Staff noted that the City's mapped hazard
areas would be re-evaluated as part of the on-going General Plan update effort.In
addition,to provide an interim remedy for property owners,Staff proposed to initiate a code
amendment to provide greater ability for property owners to adjust the OH boundary lines
on their property.The Planning Commission agreed with this approach.
On October 18,2011,the Community Development Director recommended that the City
Council initiate a Code Amendment to amend the Interpretation Procedure (RPVMC
Chapter 17.90)to allow,upon the request of a property owner,the Director to make
adjustments to an Open-Space Hazard zoning district boundary line on a specific property
up to one-hundred (100)feet without the processing of a Zone Change.The purpose of
Staff's proposal was to create a more stream-lined and less costly process for a property
owner to adjust the location of the Open-Space Hazard zoning district boundary line on
their property.The City Council agreed with the proposal and initiated the proposed Code
Amendment on a 3-0 vote with Councilman Campbell and then Mayor Long absent.
On December 13,2011,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at
which time Staff presented the proposed language to implement the amended
interpretation procedure,and public testimony on the proposed code amendment was
heard.Based upon the ensuing discussion,the public hearing was continued to January
10,2012 in order for Staff to make additional revisions to the proposed code language and
provide some additional information.On January 10,2012,the Planning Commission
reviewed Staff's revisions and,with the inclusion of additional language,adopted
Resolution No.2012-01 (attached),thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an
ordinance revising Section 17.90 of the City's Municipal to increase the allowable
1-3
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure for Open-5pace Hazard Boundary Lines
February 7,2012
movement of an Open-Space Hazard zoning district boundary line through the
Interpretation Procedure from 30 feet to 100 feet through a simplified administrative
process.Furthermore,the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council
waive all application and appeal fees associated with the interpretation procedure for
Open-Space Hazard zoning district boundary lines until the City has adopted a revised
Official Zoning Map (the January 10th Planning Commission minutes and Staff Report are
attached).
On January 19,2011,Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to property owners with property that
was identified to have some portion of the Open-Space Hazard zoning district on their
property,with publication of said notice in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on January
19,2011.As of the writing of this Staff Report,no items of correspondence have been
received by Staff.It should be noted that multiple property owners who received the notice
either ca11ed or visited the Community Development Department to further understand the
issue,although they did not submit written comment.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Code Amendment recommended by Staff and the Planning Commission
would create the following simplified process for property owners wishing to adjust the
location of the OH boundary line on their property:
•The property owner would submit a written request to the City along with a site plan
showing the subject property lines,the location of the existing OH boundary line and
the proposed new OH boundary line location provided it does not exceed 100 feet
from its current location.
•The applicant would pay the $255 Geological Site Inspection fee for the City
Geologist to go to the site and verify that the proposed new location of the OH
boundary line will not adversely impact the public health,safety and welfare.
•Upon a determination by the City Geologist,an interpretation will be made by the
Director for the adjustment of the OH boundary line,and a notice of the
interpretation would be given the to the property owner,all abutting property owners,
and any interested parties with a 5-calendar day appeal period.
•If there is an appeal of the interpretation within 5-calendar days of the notice being
sent,the appellant will have 15-calendar days in which to submit evidence
supporting their appeal.
•If no appeal is filed within the 5-calendar day period,the decision is final and will be
noted in the City's file on the subject property and then updated on the City's Official
Zoning Map.
The revised code language the implements this new interpretation process is proposed as
follows (strikethrough text for language removed,and bold and underlined text for new
language):
17.90.010 -Purpose and scope.
This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the Municipal
1-4
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment Interpretation Procedure for Open-Space Hazard Boundary Lines
February 7,2012 -
Code:
A.In case!of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of
Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code,or to further define or enumerate the uses permitted
in the various zones zoning districts.and upon proper initiation as provided in
Section 17.90.020 of this chapter,the following procedure shall be followed if a
code amendment is not initiated.Said interpretations shall be generally
applicable to all situations of the same type and shall not be limited or
directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
B.An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district boundary line
(except within the coastal zone)up to one hundred (100)feetfrom the location
depicted on the city's official zoning map except fur a coastal specific plan
setback zone boundary of up to thirty feet from the scaled location on the zoning
map also may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not
initiated,and if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and
precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official
zoning map.based on site conditions and geology of such zoning or special
district boundary.
C.An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines.or open-
space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone.up to five (5)feet
from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map.may only be
adjusted up to five feet if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more
accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line
on the official zoning map.based on site conditions and approved geology.
under the interpretation procedure described in this chapter.Except in the case ofa
zoning or special district boundary adjustment,interpretations shall be generally
applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not be limited or
directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
O.An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line.other than the
open-space hazard district boundary line or a coastal specific plan setback
zone boundary line.of up to thirty (30)feet from the location depicted on the
official zoning map.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.020 -Initiation.
A.The preparation of An interpretation related to Section 17.90.01 O.A.17.90.01 O.C or
17.90.010.0 may be initiated by the city council,planning commission,¥iew
restoration commission or director,or by any person upon the written request and
payment of fee,as established pursuant to city council resolution,by any person.
B.An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.B may only be initiated by the
owner of the property on which said open-space hazard zoning district is
located.
1.The written interpretation request shall include the property address.the
requested distance that the zoning district boundary line or area is to be
adjusted from the location depicted on the zoning map.and the property
owner's original signature.Furthermore.said written request shall be
1-5
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment Interpretation Procedure for Open-Space Hazard Boundary Lines
February 7,2012
accompanied by a scaled site plan,including the property lines,the existing
open-space hazard boundary line,and the proposed new boundary line with
the scaled distance of the proposed movement ofthe boundary line,as well
as a fee for a geological site inspection by the city's geotechnical staff to
verify that the proposed adjustment of an open space hazard zoning district
boundary line will not adversely impact the public health,safety and
welfare.
2.Requests for interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.8 for any lot or
parcel cannot exceed a cumulative total of 100 feet from the original
location of the open-space hazard line.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.0~0 -Basis of interpretation.
A.An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code,
considering all the relevant provisions thereof,and shall be consistent with such
intent.Consideration shall be given to the relationship among the regulations of the
various zoning classifications and the uses and development standards therein.
B.In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses
permitted in a particular zone,consideration shall be given to the similarities and
differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and the
characteristics of those uses expressly permitted in the zone.
C.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open spaoe hazard
zoning distriot or!coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line,consideration
shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports.
O.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard
zoning district boundary line,consideration shall be based on geotechnical
and/or soils reports,only if required by the city's geotechnical staff after the
initial geological site inspection.Otherwise,the interpretation will be based
upon the geological site inspection and site conditions.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.040 -Preparation,notice and transmittal.
A.For interpretations related to Section 17.90.01 O.A,)l1!ithin thirty days after the
initiation of an interpretation,the director shall prepare a written interpretation and
transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give public
notice that such interpretation has been prepared.Such notice shall be published
and given to the property owner,any interested parties,and any affected
homeowner associations,as required for a code amendment,pursuant to Chapter
17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments)of this title.
£h Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice,the planning commission,
city councilor any interested person may make a written request to the director for a
hearing.If no such request for a hearing is received,the interpretation shall become
effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice.
8.For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or
17.90.010.0.,within thirty days after the initiation request has been deemed
1-6
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment Interpretation Procedure for Open-Space Hazard Boundary Lines
February 7,2012
complete by Staff,the director shall prepare a written interpretation and
transmit it to the person requesting the interpretation,owners of all abutting
properties,and any interested person.Within five calendar days after the date
of the Director's notice,the person requesting the interpretation,the abutting
property owners,and any interested person may file a written appeal of the
decision of the director to the planning commission,and any decision of the
planning commission to the city council,pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing
Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Within 15 calendar days of filing
an appeal,the appellant appealing a decision related to Section 17.90.010.8
and C must submit the basis for the appeal supported by a letter or report
from a registered geologist or geotechnical engineer.If no timely written
appeal is submitted or if a written appeal is submitted but no follow-up
geological letter or report is submitted within the time frame specified,the
decision will be final.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.050 -Planning commission hearing and action.
A.If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.01 O.A is
received,or if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section
17.09.010.8,17.09.010.C,or 17.09.010.0 is filed,a hearing shall be held by the
planning commission within thirty calendar days of the date of such request or
appeal.
B.After the hearing,the planning commission may,by resolution,adopt the proposed
interpretation,adopt a modified or different interpretation,or refer the matter to the
director for further study.Failure of the planning commission to act within sixty
calendar days after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an approval of the
director's interpretation.
C.If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study,the
director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the
provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter.
D.Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further
study,the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning
commission to the applicant,any interested person,and any affected homeowner
association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)
of this title.The decision of the planning commission shall become effective and
final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of its action,unless an appeal to
the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and
Appeal Procedures)of this title.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.060 -Book of interpretations.
When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval by the
director,planning commission or city council,the director shall enter the interpretation in a
book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made accessible to any interested
person.When an interpretation pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.01 O.C or
1-7
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment Interpretation Procedure for Open-Space Hazard Boundary Lines
February 7,2012
17.90.010.D is given final approval,the interpretation shall be noted in the city's file
on the subject property and updated on the city's official zoning map through the
procedure identified in Section 17.88.020.E.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On June 29,2010,the City Council certified a Negative Declaration (NO)in conjunction
with the adoption of Ordinance No.510 for 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 NO)the City
Council found to have no significant impacts upon the environment.In addition,on
September 21,2010,the City Council adopted Addendum No.1 to the certified NO for
Ordinance No.513U,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.Further,on November 11,2011,
the City Council adopted Addendum NO.2 to the certified NO for Ordinance No.529,to
make various miscellaneous "clean-up"amendments to Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's
Municipal Code
The proposed code amendment is to revise code language related to the Interpretation
Procedure requirements of Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code.Staff believes that
the proposed code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous
Development Code revisions analyzed in the NO for the RDSSC Code Amendment
adopted as part of Ordinance No.510.Therefore,Staff has prepared Addendum NO.3 to
the RDSSC Code Amendment NO in compliance with the provisions of CEQA.Addendum
NO.3 is attached to the resolution presented for the City Council's consideration.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Cost of Geology Reports
Per the existing RPVMC Section 17.90,the Director must base an interpretation to adjust
the OH boundary line upon geotechnical and/or soils reports submitted by the applicant
and reviewed by the City Geologist.According to the City Geologist,the costs to property
owners to acquire such reports are in the range of $2,000 to $5,000,with the required fee
of $1,530 for the City Geological Staff to review these documents.The Planning
Commission wanted to make sure Staff identified these costs to the City Council as it is the
impetus for recommending a process that tries to avoid the generation of a geology report
in order to make a "common sense"adjustment to an OH boundary line,except in cases
where the City Geologist finds that a geology report is necessary.
City Geologist Review of OH Zoning District
As noted in the earlier background section,some residents have commented that due to
1-8
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment Interpretation Procedure for Open-Space Hazard Boundary Line,s
February 7,2012
the lack of precision of the City's Official Zoning Map depiction of the OH zoning districts,
the City should proceed to correct the mapping instead of requiring a property owner to go
through the interpretation procedure process and expense where there are "common
sense"adjustments.As part of the on-going General Plan update,Staff has tasked the
City Geologist to assess the location of the OH zoning districts on all properties within the
City to see if adjustments and/or corrections can be made to accurately and safely reflect
the existing built environment of these areas.Staff will provide notice to all property
owners currently with OH zoning district areas on their property when these proposed City
Geologist changes are to be publicly heard by the Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the City Council votes to adopt the ordinance and waive all application and appeal fees
associated with this proposal,any Staff time associated with processing Interpretation
Procedure requests and/or appeals will be paid for out of the City's general fund.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the discussion above,Staff recommends that the Council adopt Resolution
No._,adopting Addendum No.3 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No.510,
and introduce Ordinance No._,amending RPVMC Chapter 17.90,to allow the
administrative adjustment of an open-space hazard (OH)zoning district boundary line from
thirty (30)feet to one-hundred (100)feet through an interpretation procedure,and waive all
application fees and any subsequent appeal fees associated with a request for an
Interpretation Procedure to adjust an open-space hazard district boundary line until an
update of the General Plan,which will include updated mapping of the hazard areas
Citywide,has been adopted by the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,the following alternatives are available for the City
Council to consider:
1)Introduce Ordinance No._,amending RPVMC Chapter 17.90,to allow the
administrative adjustment of an open-space hazard (OH)zoning district boundary
line from thirty (30)feet to one-hundred (100)feet through an interpretation
procedure,but do no waive any application or appeal fees,and direct Staff to return
with a revised Ordinance.
2)Retain Chapter 17.90 as currently codified,continuing the potential 30 foot
movement of a boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure;or
3)Initiate a Code Amendment to eliminate Chapter 17.90,which would then require all
proposed changes to the Zoning Map to be reviewed and approved through a
General Plan Amendment and Zone Change;or
1-9
City Council Meeting
Code Amendment Interpretation Procedure for Open-Space Hazard Boundary Lines
February 7,2012
4)Propose another option and direct Staff to explore these options at a future
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
•Resolution No.
•Ordinance No.
•Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-01
•Minutes from the January 10,2012 Planning Commission Meetirg
•Planning Commission Staff Report,dated January 10,2012
1-10
RESOLUTION NO.__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO.3
TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ORDINANCE NO.
510,FOR A CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE
INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE (RPVMC CHPATER 17.90)
WHEREAS,on April 15,1997,Ordinance No.320 was adopted by the City Council
for various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code,
including the creation of the Interpretation Procedure (Chapter 17.90);and,
WHEREAS,on June 1,2010,the City Council adopted Resolution No.2010-43,
thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to Title 17 of the
City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development Steering Committee Code
Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No.510)and,
WHEREAS,on September 21,2010,the City Council adopted Addendum NO.1 to
the certified Negative Declaration for Ordinance No.510 and adopted Ordinance No.
513U,approving minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to 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 Negative Declaration for Ordinance No.510 and adopted Ordinance No.529,
approving miscellaneous "clean-up"code amendments to Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's
Development Code which clarified code language,removed code language discrepancies,
and codified existing policy procedures and/or application requirements;and,
WHEREAS,Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 allows the discretionary adjustment of
zoning or special district boundary lines depicted on the City's Official Zoning Map without
the processing of a Zone Change,as well as allows interpretations to be made in cases of
uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of the City's Building or Development
Codes;and,
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997,the City has
processed interpretations on six different properties where the Open Space Hazard ("OH")
District was located on the developed portion of a residential property and the OH District
boundary line could be moved a small distance to accurately reflect site conditions;and,
WHEREAS,based upon the comments from the public and the Planning
Commission,it was suggested that the City consider increasing the allowable movement of
a boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure described in Chapter 17.90;and,
WHEREAS,on October 18,2011,the City Council initiated a Code Amendment to
1-11
revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 to amend the Interpretation Procedures to allow the
Community Development Director,upon initiation by a property owner,to make
administrative adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to
one-hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment;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 December 13,2011,at which time Staff presented the proposed language to
implement the amended interpretation procedure.Based on public testimony,the Planning
Commission moved to continue the public hearing to January 10,2012,with direction to
Staff to:add to the recommendation to the Council that they waive appeal fees in addition
to the application fees for an interpretation procedure;add code language which allows the
Director to make "common sense"moves to the OH boundary lines,based upon criteria
established by the City Geologist;address the issue for properties located completely
within the OH area,where the OH boundary line does not "traverse"the property;make the
Council aware of the costs to the property owner for third party geological review;establish
a time limit for how long the Director could conduct discretionary adjustments to OH
boundary lines;and,address the issue of successive applications;and,
WHEREAS,on January 10,2012,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No.2012-01,thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance
revising Section 17.90 of the City's Municipal Code,thereby changing the allowable
movement of an Open-Space Hazard boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure
from thirty (30)feet to one-hundred (100)feet;and,
WHEREAS,on January 19,2012,a notice was sent to all property owners with the
Open-Space Hazard zoning district on their property informing them of this proposed code
amendment;and,
WHEREAS,on January 19,2012,notice of the public hearing on the proposed
amendments to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code was published in the Palos Verdes
Peninsula News;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code Regulations,Title 14,Section 1500 et seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City determined that there is no substantial evidence that the code
amendment would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.Accordingly,
Addendum NO.3 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance No.510,has been prepared;
and,
WHEREAS,on February 7,2012,the City Council held a public hearing,at which
time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence;
Resolution No.2012-_
Page 2 of?
1-12
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:Addendum No.3 is for an environmental assessment in conjunction with
a code amendment to revise Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code (Interpretation
Procedure)that would revise code language,remove code language and codify existing
policy procedures and/or applications to designate the different types of interpretations that
can be requested to the Community Development Director,clarify who can initiate an
interpretation request,provide further direction as to the processing of interpretation
requests,and how such requests shall be recorded for future reference.
Section 2:In approving Addendum NO.3 to the Negative Declaration for Ordinance
No.510,the City Council has reviewed and considered the Addendum NO.3 document,
attached hereto and made a part thereof as Exhibit "A".
Section 3:The Addendum NO.3 identifies no new significant adverse environmental
impacts to the areas listed below:
1.Landform,Geology,and Soils
2.Hydrology and Drainage
3.Biological Resources
4.Cultural and Scientific Resources
5.Aesthetics
6.Land Use and Relevant Planning
7.Circulation and Traffic
8.Air Resources
9.Noise
10.Public Services and Utilities
11.Population,Employment and Housing
12.Fiscal Impacts
Section 4:The Addendum NO.3 identifies that the proposed revisions will not result
in any significant environmental impacts,and the circumstances under which to code
amendment is being undertaken have not substantially changed since the CEQA
determination was made for the Negative Declaration adopted through Resolution No.
2010-43 for Ordinance No.510.
Section 5:No new information of substantial importance,which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior
Negative Declaration for Ordinance No.510 was adopted,identifies a significant
environmental effect.
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 No.2012-_
Page 3 of 7
1-13
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.3 to the
Negative Declaration for Ordinance No.510,based on the City Council's determination that
the document was completed in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act and State and local guidelines with respect thereto.
PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED this i h day of February 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,hereby certify that the
above Resolution No.2012-_was dUly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting held on February 7,2012.
City Clerk
Resolution No.2012-_
Page 4 of 7
1-14
EXHIBIT "A"
(Addendum to No.3 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background:On June 1,2010,the City Council adopted Resolution No.2010-43,
thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to Title 17 of the
City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development Standards Steering
Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No.510).Prior to its adoption,
the Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from April 1,2010,through
May 1,2010.In adopting the Negative Declaration,the City Council found that:1)the
Negative Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law and that there was no
substantial evidence that,with appropriate mitigation measures,the approval of the
Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone
Change (Case No.ZON2007-00377)would result in a significant adverse effect upon the
environment;and 2)that the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee
Code Amendment and Zone Change were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan.On September 21,2010,the City Council
approved Addendum NO.1 to the certified ND and adopted Ordinance No.513U 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.Additionally,on November 15,2011,the City Council
approved Addendum NO.2 to the certified ND 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.
Proposed Amendments:The City Council is currently reviewing a code amendment to
revise Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code (Interpretation Procedure)that would
revise code language,remove code language and codify existing policy procedures and/or
applications.The proposed amendments are to designate the different types of
interpretations that can be requested to the Community Development Director,clarify who
can initiate an interpretation request,provide further direction as to the processing of
interpretation requests,and how such requests shall be recorded for future reference.
Purpose:This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being
prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an adopted
Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of
the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR
or Negative Declaration have occurred.Pursuant to CEQA Section 15162,no subsequent
Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines,
on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record,one or more of the
following:
1.Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will required major revisions of
the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new,significant
Resolution No.2012-_
Page 5 of?
1-15
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:
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.Specifically;
1.The proposed revisions do not result in any new significant environmental effects
and,like Resolution No.2010-43 and Ordinance Nos.513U and 529,no significant
impacts have been identified.The revision to Title 17 (Zoning)does 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
project,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 the original
Negative Declaration (Resolution No.2010-43).The scope of the proposed
revisions relate to minor modifications that clarify code language discrepancies
and/or codify policies and procedures that are currently in place.There are no
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the revisions are
undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3.No new information of substantial importance,which was not known and could not
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the prior
Negative Declaration was adopted,identifies a significant environmental effect.
Because the proposed revisions would not result in any new or more severe
environmental impacts than those associated with Ordinance No.510,there is no
Resolution No.2012-_
Page 6 of?
1-16
need for new or substantially modified mitigation measures.
Therefore,pursuant to CEQA,the City Coucnil finds that no further environmental review is
necessary other than the City Council's adoption of this Addendum NO.3.
Resolution No.2012-_
Page 7 of 7
1-17
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES ADOPTING REVISIONS TO SECTION 17.90 OF THE
CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,THEREBY CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE
MOVEMENT OF AN OPEN-SPACE HAZARD BOUNDARY LINE
THROUGH THE INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE FROM THIRTY (30)
FEET TO ONE-HUNDRED (100)FEET (CASE NO.ZON2011-00168).
WHEREAS,on April 15,1997,Ordinance No.320 was adopted by the City
Council for various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal
Code,including the creation of the Interpretation Procedure (Chapter 17.90);and,
WHEREAS,Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 allows the discretionary adjustment
of zoning or special district boundary lines depicted on the City's Official Zoning Map
without the processing of a Zone Change,as well as allows interpretations to be made
in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of the City's Building or
Development Codes;and,
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997,the City has
processed interpretations on six different properties where the Open Space Hazard
("OH")District was located on the developed portion of a residential property and the
OH District boundary line could be moved a small distance to accurately reflect site
conditions;and,
WHEREAS,based upon the comments from the public and the Planning
Commission,it was suggested that the City consider increasing the allowable
movement of a boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure described in Chapter
17.90;and,
WHEREAS,on October 18,2011,the City Council initiated a Code Amendment
to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 to amend the Interpretation Procedures to allow
the Community Development Director,upon initiation by a property owner,to make
administrative adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to
one-hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment;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 December 13,2011,at which time Staff presented the proposed language to
implement the amended interpretation procedure.Based on public testimony,the
Planning Commission moved to continue the public hearing to January 10,2012,with
direction to Staff to:add to the recommendation to the Council that they waive appeal
fees in addition to the application fees for an interpretation procedure;add code
language which allows the Director to make "common sense"moves to the OH
boundary lines,based upon criteria established by the City Geologist;address the issue
for properties located completely within the OH area,where the OH boundary line does
Ordinance No.
Page 1 of 7
1-18
not "traverse"the property;make the Council aware of the costs of to the property
owner for third party geological review;establish a time limit for how long the Director
could conduct discretionary adjustments to OH boundary lines;and,address the issue
of successive applications;and,
WHEREAS,on January 10,2012,the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No.2012-01,thereby recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance revising
Section 17.90 of the City's Municipal Code,thereby changing the allowable movement
of an Open-Space Hazard boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure from
thirty (30)feet to one-hundred (100)feet;and,
WHEREAS,on January 19,2012,a notice was set to all property owners with
the Open-Space Hazard zoning district on their property informing them of this
proposed code amendment;and,
WHEREAS,on January 19,2012,notice of the public hearing on the proposed
amendments to Chapter 17.90 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 February 7,2012,copies of the draft Addendum NO.3 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.3;
and,
WHEREAS,on February 7,2012,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
Ordinance No.
Page 2 of?
1-19
hinder,the goals and policies of those plans.Specifically,the revisions to Chapter
17.90 will allow property owners more flexibility to adjust the open space hazard zoning
district boundary line to more accurately reflect the site conditions on property.
Section 4:That the amendments to Chapter 17.90 are necessary to preserve
the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area
Section 5:That Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure)of Title 17 of the
Municipal Code is hereby revised as follows (strikethrough text for language removed,
and bold and underlined text for new language):
17.90.010 -Purpose and scope.
This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the
Municipal Code:
A.In case!of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision
of Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code,or to further define or enumerate the uses
permitted in the various zones zoning districts.and upon proper initiation as
provided in Section 17.90.020 of this chapter,the follO'o\'ing procedure shall be
followed if a code amendment is not initiated.Said interpretations shall be
generally applicable to all situations of the same type and shall not be
limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
B.An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district boundary line
(except within the coastal zone)up to one hundred (100)feet from the
location depicted on the city's official zoning map except for a coastal
specific plan setback zone boundary of up to thirty feet from the scaled location
on the zoning map also may be accomplished under this procedure if a code
amendment is not initiated,and if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a
more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district
boundary line on the official zoning map.based on site conditions and
geology of such zoning or special district boundary.
C.An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines,or
open-space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone.up to
five (5)feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map.may
only be adjusted up to five feet if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate
a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district
boundary line on the official zoning map.based on site conditions and
approved geology.under the interpretation procedure described in this chapter.
Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment,
interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same
type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances
thereon.
D.An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line.other than the
open-space hazard district boundary line or a coastal specific plan setback
zone boundary line.of up to thirty (30)feet from the location depicted on
the official zoning map.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
Ordinance No.
Page 30f7
1-20
17.90.020 -Initiation.
A.The preparation of An interpretation related to Section 17.90.01 O.A,
17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 may be initiated by the city council,planning
commission,'lie'....restoration oommission or director,or by any person upon the
written request and payment of fee,as established pursuant to city council
resolution,by any person.
B.An interpretation related to Section 17.90.01 O.B may only be initiated by the
owner of the property on which said open-space hazard zoning district is
located.
1.The written interpretation request shall include the property address,the
requested distance that the zoning district boundary line or area is to be
adjusted from the location depicted on the zoning map,and the property
owner's original signature.Furthermore,said written request shall be
.accompanied by a scaled site plan,including the property lines,the
existing open-space hazard boundary line,and the proposed new
boundary line with the scaled distance of the proposed movement of the
boundary line,as well as a fee for a geological site inspection by the
city's geotechnical staff to verify that the proposed adjustment of an
open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not adversely
impact the public health,safety and welfare.
2.Requests for interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.B for any lot or
parcel cannot exceed a cumulative total of 100 feet from the original
location of the open-space hazard line.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.030 -Basis of interpretation.
A.An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code,
considering all the relevant provisions thereof,and shall be consistent with such
intent.Consideration shall be given to the relationship among the regulations of
the various zoning classifications and the uses and development standards
therein.
B.In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses
permitted in a particular zone,consideration shall be given to the similarities and
differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and
the characteristics of those uses expressly permitted in the zone.
C.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open spaoe hazard
zoning district or !coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line,
consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports.
O.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space
hazard zoning district boundary line,consideration shall be based on
geotechnical and/or soils reports,only if required by the city's geotechnical
staff after the initial geological site inspection.Otherwise,the
interpretation will be based upon the geological site inspection and site
conditions.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
Ordinance No.
Page 4 of7
1-21
17.90.040 -Preparation,notice and transmittal.
A.For interpretations related to Section 17.90.01 O.A,within thirty days after the
initiation of an interpretation,the director shall prepare a written interpretation
and transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give
public notice that such interpretation has been prepared.Such notice shall be
published and given to the property owner,any interested parties,and any
affected homeowner associations,as required for a code amendment,pursuant
to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments)of this title.
~Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice,the planning
commission,city councilor any interested person may make a written request to
the director for a hearing.If no such request for a hearing is received,the
interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date
of the notice.
8.For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or
17.90.010.0.,within thirty days after the initiation request has been deemed
complete by Staff,the director shall prepare a written interpretation and
transmit it to the person requesting the interpretation,owners of all
abutting properties,and any interested person.Within five calendar days
after the date of the Director's notice,the person requesting the
interpretation,the abutting property owners,and any interested person
may file a written appeal of the decision of the director to the planning
commission,and any decision of the planning commission to the city
council,pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures}
of this title.Within 15 calendar days of filing an appeal,the appellant
appealing a decision related to Section 17.90.010.8 and C must submit the
basis for the appeal supported by a letter or report from a registered
geologist or geotechnical engineer.If no timely written appeal is submitted
or if a written appeal is submitted but no follow-up geological letter or
report is submitted within the time frame specified,the decision will be
final.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.050 -Planning commission hearing and action.
A.If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.010.A is
received,or if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section
17.09.010.8,17.09.010.C,or 17.09.010.0 is filed,a hearing shall be held by the
planning commission within thirty calendar days of the date of such request or
appeal.
B.A fter the hearing,the planning commission may,by resolution,adopt the
proposed interpretation,adopt a modified or different interpretation,or refer the
matter to the director for further study.Failure of the planning commission to act
within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an
approval of the director's interpretation.
Ordinance No.
Page 5 of 71-22
C.If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study,the
director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the
provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter.
D.Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further
study,the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning
commission to the applicant,any interested person,and any affected homeowner
association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures)of this title.The decision of the planning commission shall become
effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of its action,
unless an appeal to the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.060 -Book of interpretations.
When ali interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval by the
director,planning commission or city council,the director shall enter the interpretation in
a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made accessible to any
interested person.When an interpretation pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,
17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final approval,the interpretation shall be
noted in the city's file on the subject property and updated on the city's official
zoning map through the procedure identified in Section 17.88.020.E.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
Section 6:That all application and appeal fees associated with an
interpretation request be waived for property owners until the updated General Plan
Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map has been officially adopted with the revised
open-space hazard areas.
Section 7: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 anyone or more sections,
subsections,subdivisions,sentences,clauses,phrases,or portions thereof be declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 8:The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3)
public places in the City within fifteen (15)days after its passage,in accordance with the
provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code.The City Clerk shall further
certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance,and shall cause this Ordinance
and its certification,together with proof of posting,to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ordinance No.
Page 6 of?
1-23
Section 9:This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at
12:01 AM on the 31 st day after its passage.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this _day of February 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,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 February _,2012.
City Clerk
Ordinance No.
Page 7 of 71-24
Planning Commission
Resolution No.2012-01
1-25
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2012-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REVISING
SECTION 17.90 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,THEREBY
CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE MOVEMENT OF AN OPEN-
SPACE HAZARD BOUNDARY LINE THROUGH THE
INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE FROM THIRTY (30)FEET TO
ONE-HUNDRED (100)FEET (CASE NO.ZON2011-00168).
WHEREAS,on April 15,1997,Ordinance No.320 was adopted by the
City Council for various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's
Municipal Code,including the creation of the Interpretation Procedure (Chapter
17.90);and,
WHEREAS,Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 allows the discretionary
adjustment of zoning or special district boundary lines depicted on the City's
Official Zoning Map without the processing of a Zone Change,as well as allows
interpretations to be made in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning
or intent of the City's Building or Development Codes;and,
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997,the
City has processed interpretations on six different properties where the Open
Space Hazard ("OH")District was located on the developed portion of a
residential property and the OH District boundary line could be moved a small
distance to accurately reflect site conditions;and,
WHEREAS,based upon the comments from the public and the Planning
Commission,it was suggested that the City consider increasing the allowable
movement of a boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure described in
Chapter 17.90;and,
WHEREAS,on October 18,2011,the City Council initiated a Code
Amendment to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 to amend the Interpretation
Procedures to allow the Community Development Director,upon initiation by a
property owner,to make administrative adjustments of a zoning or special district
boundary line from thirty feet to one-hundred feet without the processing of a
Zoning Map amendment;and,
WHEREAS,on November 17,2011,Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to
property owners with property that was identified to have some portion of the OH
zoning district on their properties;and,
WHEREAS,on November 17,2011,notice of a public hearing on the
proposed amendments to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code was published in
the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and,
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 1 of 10 1-26
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 2100 ef seq.("CEQA"),the State's
CEQA Guidelines,California Code Regulations,Title 14,Section 1500 ef 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.3 to the
Negative Declaration,which was prepared in conjunction with the adoption of
Ordinance No.510,has been prepared and is attached 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 December 13,2011,at which time Staff presented the
proposed language to implement the amended interpretation procedure.Based
on public testimony,the Planning Commission moved to continue the public
hearing to January 10,2012,with direction to Staff to:add to the
recommendation to the Council that they waive appeal fees in addition to the
application fees for an interpretation procedure;add code language which allows
the Director to make "common sense"moves to the OH boundary lines,based
upon criteria established by the City Geologist;address the issue for properties
located completely within the OH area,where the OH boundary line does not
"traverse"the property;make the Council aware of the costs of to the property
owner for third party geological review;establish a time limit for how long the
Director could conduct discretionary adjustments to OH boundary lines;and,
address the issue of successive applications;and,
WHEREAS,on January 10,2012,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 17.90 will allow property owners more flexibility to adjust the
open space hazard zoning district boundary line to more accurately reflect the
site conditions on property.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 2 of 10 1-27
Section 3:That the amendments to Chapter 17.90 are necessary to
preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area
Section 4:That Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure)of Title 17 of
the Municipal Code is hereby revised as follows (strikethrough text for language
removed,and bold and underlined text for new language):
17.90.010 -Purpose and scope.
This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the
Municipal Code:
A.In case!of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any
provision of Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code,or to further define or
enumerate the uses permitted in the various zones zoning districts.-af\G
.upon proper initiation as provided in Section 17.QO.020 of this chapter,the
follo'lt'ing procedure shall be followed if a code amendment is not initiated.
Said interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of
the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels
or circumstances thereon.
B.An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district
boundary line (except within the coastal zone)up to one hundred
(100)feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map
except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary of up to thirty
feet from the scaled location on the zoning map also may be
accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated,
aoo if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and
precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on
the official zoning map,based on site conditions and geology of such
zoning or special district boundary.
C.An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary IinesJ,
or open-space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone,
up to five (5)feet from the location depicted on the city's official
zoning map,may only be adjusted up to five feet if such adjustment is
necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the
open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map,
based on site conditions and approved geology.under the
interpretation procedure described in this chapter.Except in the case of a
zoning or special district boundary adjustment,interpretations shall be
generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not
be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
D.An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line,other
than the open-space hazard district boundary line or a coastal
specific plan setback zone boundary line,of up to thirty (30)feet
from the location depicted on the official zoning map.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.020 -Initiation.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 3 of 10 1-28
A.The preparation of An interpretation related to Section 17.90.01 O.A,
17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 may be initiated by the city council,planning
commission,vie'l{restoration commission or director,or by any person
upon the written request and payment of fee,as established pursuant to
city council resolution,by any person.
8.An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.8 may only be initiated
by the owner of the property on which said open-space hazard
zoning district is located.
1.The written interpretation request shall include the property
address,the requested distance that the zoning district boundary
line or area is to be adjusted from the location depicted on the
zoning map,and the property owner's original signature.
Furthermore,said written request shall be accompanied by a
scaled site plan,including the property lines,the existing open-
space hazard boundary line,and the proposed new boundary line
with the scaled distance of the proposed movement of the
boundary line,as well as a fee for a geological site inspection by
the city's geotechnical staff to verify that the proposed adjustment
of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not
adversely impact the public health,safety and welfare.
2.Requests for interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.8 for any
lot or parcel cannot exceed a cumulative total of 100 feet from the
original location of the open-space hazard line.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.030 -Basis of interpretation.
A.An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this
Code,considering all the relevant provisions thereof,and shall be
consistent with such intent.Consideration shall be given to the relationship
among the regulations of the various zoning classifications and the uses
and development standards therein.
B.In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration
of uses permitted in a particular zone,consideration shall be given to the
similarities and differences between the characteristics of each use
subject to interpretation and the characteristics of those uses expressly
permitted in the zone.
C.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space
hazard zoning district or !coastal specific plan setback zone boundary
line,consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports.
O.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open
space hazard zoning district boundary line,consideration shall be
based on geotechnical and/or soils reports,only if required by the
city's geotechnical staff after the initial geological site inspection.
Otherwise,the interpretation will be based upon the geological site
inspection and site conditions.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 4 of 10 1-29
17.90.040 -Preparation,notice and transmittal.
A.For interpretations related to Section 17.90.010.A.~ithin thirty days
after the initiation of an interpretation,the director shall prepare a written
interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city
council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been
prepared.Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner,
any interested parties,and any affected homeowner associations,as
required for a code amendment,pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone
Changes and Code Amendments)of this title.
S:Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice,the planning
commission,city council or any interested person may make a written
request to the director for a hearing.If no such request for a hearing is
received,the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen
calendar days after the date of the notice.
B.For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or
17.90.010.0.,within thirty days after the initiation request has been
deemed complete by Staff,the director shall prepare a written
interpretation and transmit it to the person requesting the
interpretation.owners of all abutting properties,and any interested
person.Within five calendar days after the date of the Director's
notice,the person requesting the interpretation,the abutting
property owners,and any interested person may file a written appeal
of the decision of the director to the planning commission,and any
decision of the planning commission to the city council,pursuant to
Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.
Within 15 calendar days of filing an appeal,the appellant appealing a
decision related to Section 17.90.010.8 and C must submit the basis
for the appeal supported by a letter or report from a registered
geologist or geotechnical engineer.If no timely written appeal is
submitted or if a written appeal is submitted but no follow-up
geological letter or report is submitted within the time frame
specified,the decision will be final.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.050 -Planning commission hearing and action.
A.If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.010.A is
received,or if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to
Section 17.09.010.8,17.09.010.C,or 17.09.010.0 is filed,a hearing
shall be held by the planning commission within thirty calendar days of the
date of such request or appeal.
B.A fter the hearing,the planning commission may,by resolution,adopt the
proposed interpretation,adopt a modified or different interpretation,or
refer the matter to the director for further study.Failure of the planning
commission to act within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing
shall be deemed an approval of the director's interpretation.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 5 of 10 1-30
C.If the planning commiSSion refers the matter to the director for further
study,the director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in
accordance with the provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter.
D.Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for
further study,the director shall give written notice of the decision of the
planning commission to the applicant,any interested person,and any
affected homeowner association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing
Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.The decision of the planning
commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the
date of notice of its action,unless an appeal to the city council is filed in
accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures)of this title.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
.
17.90.060 -Book of interpretations.
When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval
by the director,planning commission or city council,the director shall enter the
interpretation in a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made
accessible to any interested person.When an interpretation pursuant to
Sections 17.90.010.8.17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final approval,the
interpretation shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and
updated on the city's official zoning map through the procedure identified
in Section 17.88.020.E.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
Section 5:That all application and appeal fees associated with an
interpretation request be waived for property owners until the updated General
Plan Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map has been adopted with the revised
open-space hazard areas.
Section 6:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code as identified in Section 4 shall become effective thirty (30)days
after an ordinance is adopted by the City Council.
Section 7:For the foregoing reasons,and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report,the testimony and evidence presented at
the public hears,minutes,and other records of the proceedings,the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the
City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.90 of the City's Municipal
Code,thereby changing the allowable movement of an open-space hazard
boundary line from thirty (30)feet to one-hundred (100)feet through an
interpretation procedure.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 6 of 10 1-31
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2012,by
the following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstner,Leon,Lewis
NOES:None
ABSTENTION:Chairman Tomblin
ABSENT:Vice Chairman Tetreault
RECUSALS:None
~_/~
David L.TOmb;
Chairman
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 7 of 10 1-32
EXHIBIT "A"
(Addendum to No.3 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background:On June 1,2010,the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2010-43,thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to
Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No.
510).Prior to its adoption,the Negative Declaration was circulated for public
comment from April 1,2010,through May 1,2010.In adopting the Negative
Declaration,the City Council found that:1)the Negative Declaration was prepared in
the manner required by law and that there was no substantial evidence that,with
appropriate mitigation measures,the approval of the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No.
ZON2007-00377)would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment;
and 2)that the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code
Amendment and Zone Change were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan.On September 21,2010,the City
Council adopted Ordinance No.513U,thereby approving Addendum NO.1 to the
certified ND,to make minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to
correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII,and to change the designation of
specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles.Additionally,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.
Proposed Amendments:The City Council is currently reviewing a code
amendment to revise Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code (Interpretation
Procedure)that would revise code language,remove code language and codify
existing policy procedures and/or applications.The proposed amendments are to
designate the different types of interpretations that can be requested to the
Community Development Director,clarify who can initiate an interpretation request,
provide further direction as to the processing of interpretation requests,and how
such requests shall be recorded for future reference.
Purpose:This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being
prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an
adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred.Pursuant to
CEQA Section 15162,no subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the
project unless the lead agency determines,on the basis of substantial evidence in
light of the whole record,one or more of the following:
1.Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will required major
revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new,
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 8 of 10 1-33
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 Chapter 17.90 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 and 513U,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 project,and will not result in new significant
environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any
impacts.
2.The proposed reVISions will not result in any significant environmental
impacts,and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for
Ordinance No.510.The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor
modifications that clarify code language discrepancies and/or codify policies
and procedures that are currently in place.There are no changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will
require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3.No new information of substantial importance,which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the prior Negative Declaration was adopted,identifies a significant
environmental effect.Because the proposed revisions would not result in any
new or more severe environmental impacts than those associated with
Ordinance No.510,there is no need for new or substantially modified
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 9 of 10 1-34
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.3.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-01
Page 10 of 10 1-35
Minutes from the
January 10,2012
Planning Commission
Meeting
1-36
COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE (regarding non-agenda items):
None
CONTINUED BUSINESS
2.Code Amendment -Interpretation procedure regarding location of Open
Space Hazard boundary line (Case No.ZON2011-00168):
Assistant Planner Harwell presented the staff report,explaining the scope of the
proposed code amendment and staff's recommendations as outlined in the staff report.
She noted that the Planning Commission's recommendations will then be forwarded to
the City Council..
Commissioner Gerstner asked if the proposed request to move the line is a one-time
only request,or if the line can be moved more than once on a given property.
Assistant Planner Harwell answered that the line can be moved up to a cumulative total
of one hundred feet from the original location on the map
Commissioner Leon asked staff what would happen in the event that common sense
would show the line can clearly be moved more than 100 feet.
Director Rojas answered that the proposed language allows for the line to be moved
100 feet and anything more than that would require a zone change.He added that the
Planning Commission can modify this proposed language to allow the line to move
more than 100 feet before a zone change is required.
Commissioner Leon asked if staff is aware of areas where the line needs to move more
than 100 feet.
Director Rojas responded that staff has not done an assessment of the City to make
that determination.However staff feels that 100 feet is more than sufficient given the
situations staff has dealt with.
Commissioner Gerstner opened the public hearing.
Nancy Sanders stated her home is in the Monaco area and has an OH line running
through the property.She noted that there are properties in the city that are not in the
Eastview area that are equally as important in terms of this issue.She agreed with
Commissioner Leon in questioning why the City would want to limit the request to an
arbitrary number of 100 feet.She noted the current OH lines appear to be fairly
arbitrarily drawn and to put another seemingly arbitrary restriction on a property 100 feet
away from the original line may result in a limitation that creates more problems than it
solves.She asked if there was some way to word the Ordinance that would leave it up
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10,2012
Page 2
1-37
to the discretion of the geologist or the Director so that when an issue comes up it can
be decided on a site by site basis.
Commissioner Leon asked Ms.Sanders,given the size of her lot and the geology,is it
conceivable she would be asking to move the line on her property more than 100 feet.
Ms.Sanders answered that she was not sure if she would be requesting the line be
moved more than 100 feet.She added that she has had two geological studies done on
her property in the last ten years and both studies show the land to be stable.However,
she notified the Commission that according to her husband the line on their property
would not need to move more than 100 feet.
Commissioner Leon noted in the staff report that there is a five day appeal period,and
questioned if five days was sufficient time for an interested party to prepare an appeal..
Director Rojas acknowledged that five days is shorter than the typical time period for an
appeal,however staff was trying to make this an expedited process for the applicant.
Commissioner Leon suggested changing the language so that there would be a five day
notice of intent to appeal,which would then trigger some longer period of time to get
documentation together to submit the appeal.He suggested that the standard 15 day
appeal period would then go into affect after the notice of intent be filed.
Commissioner Lewis asked if the notice to appeal is within five working days or five
calendar days.
The Commission agreed that the notice to appeal must be submitted within five
calendar days.
Commissioner Lewis moved approve staff's recommendation as modified to add
a five calendar day period to submit a written and signed notice of intent to
appeal and fifteen calendar days thereafter to submit a complete appellant
package including materials from a geOlogist,seconded by Commissioner
Emenhiser.PC Resolution 2012-01 was adopted (4-0-1)with Chairman Tomblin
abstaining.
IC HEARINGS
chan esGeneralPlanu
Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff ,exp
series of changes to the Genera and Use Map.He exp a changes
before the Commission oposed changes to the City's NCCP preservlRf'l,!I'IiilQS.
which are lands by the City.He noted that several months ago the Planning
Commi .approved a change to the NCCP preserve areas to change the land use to
pace Preserve.He explained that since the lands are now in what will be an
3.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10.2012
Page 3
1-38
Planning Commission
Staff Report,dated
January 10,2012
1-39
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
CHAIRMAN &MEMBERS OF THE
SUBJECT:
DATE:
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVEL
JANUARY 10,2012
CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE INTERPRETATION
PROCEDURE DESCRIBED IN RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 TO ALLOW
GREATER ADMINISTRATIVE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE ADJUSTMENT
OF OPEN-SPACE HAZARD BOUNDARY LINE LOCATIONS ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY (CASE NO.ZON2011-00168)
Staff Coordinator:Abigail Harwell,Assistant Planner~
TO:
FROM:
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Commission directed changes to RPVMC Chapter 17.90 and if deemed
acceptable:
1.Adopt P.C.Resolution No.2012-_,recommending that the City Council adopt an
Ordinance amending RPVMC Chapter 17.90,to allow the administrative adjustment
of an open-space hazard (OH)zoning district boundary line from thirty (30)feet to
one-hundred (100)feet through an interpretation procedure;and,
2.Recommend to the City Council that the application fees and any subsequent
appeal fees associated with a request for an Interpretation Procedure to adjust an
open-space hazard district boundary line be waived until an update of the General
Plan,which will include updated mapping of the hazard areas Citywide,has been
adopted by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
On October 18,2011,the City Council initiated a Staff proposed Code Amendment to
amend the Interpretation Procedure (RPVMC Chapter 17.90)to allow,upon the request of
a property owner,the Community Devp,lopment Director to make adjustments to an OH
boundary line on a specific property up to one-hundred (100)feet without the processing of
a Zone Change,on a 3-0 vote (Councilman Campbell and Mayor Long were absent).The
purpose of Staff's proposal was to create a more stream-lined and less costly process for a
property owner to adjust the location of the OH boundary line on their property.
1-40
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
January 10,2012
On December 13,2011,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at
which time Staff presented the proposed language to implement the amended
interpretation procedure and public testimony on the proposed code amendment was
heard.After hearing public testimony and discussing the issue,the general consensus
amongst the Commissioners was that the proposed code amendment was a good idea that
would benefit property owners currently with an OH zoning district on part of their property,
but more options and changes were necessary in order to reduce the burden of revising
the OH boundary lines on the property owner given the lack of precision to the City's OH
zoning mapping.The Planning Commission agreed to continue the public hearing to
January 10,2012,with direction to Staff to:
1.)Recommend to the City Council that they also waive any appeal fees related to OH
boundary line interpretations made by the Director;
2.)Add code language which allows the Director to make "common sense"adjustments
to the OH boundary lines that traverse existing residences and/or level yards,based
upon criteria established by the City Geologist so as to avoid the applicant having to
prepare and submit a geology report;
3.)Establish a time limit for how long the Director has the authority to make such
"common sense"discretionary adjustments to OH boundary lines;
4.)Address the issue of how to deal with properties located completely within the OH
area,where the OH boundary line does not "traverse"the property;
5.)Make the Council aware of the costs to a property owner of having to obtain a 3
rd
party geological review;and,
6.)Address the issue of whether to limit the number of interpretation requests.
DISCUSSION
Based upon public comments and the discussion during the December 13,2011 Planning
Commission meeting,Staff took the noted suggestions and comments described above
and consulted with the City Attorney and City Geologist.Based upon this consultation,
provided below is the follow-up discussion on the issues raised by the Planning
Commission.
Interpretation Procedure Appeal Fees
Staff originally proposed that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
waive the application fees associated with interpretation requests to adjust OH line
boundaries.In the event that a property owner,abutting property owner,or an interested
party wishes to appeal the Director's interpretation decision,the Planning Commission felt
that all fees associated with an appeal also be waived in order to minimize the burden on
property owners.As such,Staff has amended the resolution to recommend that the City
Council waive all application and appeal fees associated with the interpretation procedure,
until adoption of a City Geologist reviewed and amended Land Use Map and Zoning Map
has been completed.
It should be noted that the City Geologist review fee,which is billed to the City as an
additional cost,is not proposed to be waived.
1-41
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
January 10,2012
Third Party Costs
During the December 13th meeting,the Commissioners wanted Staff to make sure that the
City Council was aware of the costs to property owners for 3rd party geological reports.
According to the City Geologist,these costs are typically in the range of $2,000 to $5,000
for reports associated with residential properties.Staff will be sure to bring this to the City
Council's attention.
Properties Located Entirely Within OH Zoning District
During the December 13th meeting,a member of the public questioned how the owner of a
property located entirely within an OH Zoning District,in which no OH boundary line
traverses the property,would be able to adjust the OH boundary on their property when the
proposed interpretation procedure only allows movement of the OH boundary line up to
100 feet.'Staff posed this question to the City Geologist and City Attorney,who felt it would
be possible in these situations,based upon a Geological site inspection,to create "islands"
in the middle of an OH Zoning District area where the developed property could be zoned
the appropriate zoning district for the property.The City Geologist stated that 100 feet
should adequately meet the needs to create a non-OH boundary area around a developed
portion of the lot and that issues such as these would likely be revised in conjunction with
the Citywide review of OH areas for the General Plan update.
"Common Sense"Director Adjustments
The Planning Commission felt that the Director should be able to make discretionary
adjustments to the OH boundary line,using criteria established by the City Geologist,
where there is clear indication that the boundary line can be adjusted.Staff raised this
option with the City Attorney and City Geologist,who both felt that at a minimum a site
inspection by the City Geologist would be necessary in order authorize the movement of
the OH boundary line,even in more obvious situations.The City Attorney expressed
concern with the liability associated with City Staff assessing the appropriateness of the
movement of an OH boundary line,even with certain criteria established by the City
Geologist.
Recognizing the Commission's desire to lessen the burden and cost on property owners,
both the City Attorney and City Geologist agreed that the interpretation procedure to adjust
the OH boundary line could be simplified through a City Geologist site inspection,in which
the City Geologist will physically visit the property to assess the proposed movement ofthe
OH boundary line and determine whether a geology report is necessary.It should be
noted that this could also be done in conjunction with a proposed application for
construction,as most construction or grading permits through the Building and Safety
Division require at least a Geological Site Inspection prior to building permit issuance.
While there is $255 fee associated with the site inspection to cover the City's geological
consultant services,Staff believes said fee is nominal.Thus,while the Director will still be
administratively deciding on any interpretation procedure requests,the decision will be
based upon City Geologist review of the proposed OH boundary line movement.
In certain cases,based upon the site inspection,the City Geologist may require a
geological and/or soils report in association with an interpretation request before approval
1-42
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
January 10,2012
is granted.In these cases,the property owner would have to obtain 3rd party geological
services to prepare such report and pay for the City Geologist review of the document.
This is important in order to ensure that the proposed movement of the OH boundary line
will not adversely impact the public health,safety and welfare for both the property owner
and abutting neighbors.Again,these geological reports may be reviewed in conjunction
with proposed construction on the property and may have been required by the City
Geologist whether the OH zoning district had been located on the subject property or not.
Language to implement this standard procedure has been added to the code (noted below
in bold and underlined).
Time Period for Interim Interpretation Process
In order to provide property owners with a simplified interim process for adjusting the OH
boundary line while review of the OH areas Citywide occurs as part of the General Plan
update,the Commission felt there should be a one-year time limit on allowing the Director
the discretion to adjust the OH boundary lines and the waiving of application fees for
Interpretation Procedure requests.Given that the City Geologist's proposed changes to
the City's OH Zoning Districts will require approval and adoption of both the update
General Plan Land Use Map and then the Official Zoning Map,Staff believes that more
time than one year may be necessary.As such,Staff has added language to the
resolution stating that the waiving of fees shall be in effect only until the OH area revised
Official Zoning Map has been adopted and gone into effect.
Multiple Interpretation Requests
At the December 13 th meeting,a question was raised of how to address multiple requests
for an Interpretation Procedure on a property and how much time must pass before
requests can be made.Staff is proposing that a property owner can make as many
requests as they would feel necessary,but the total distance an OH boundary line can be
moved cannot exceed a cumulative total distance of 100 feet from the line's original
location.Anything more than this distance should be reviewed as part of a Zone Change
application.Proposed code language has been added to below to include this distance
limit.
Proposed Code Amendment Language
17.90.010-Purpose and scope.
This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the Municipal
Code:
A.In case§.of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of
Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code,or to further define or enumerate the uses permitted
in the various zones zoning districts.and upon proper initiation as provided in
Section 17.90.020 of this chapter,the follmving procedure shall be followed if a
code amendment is not initiated.Said interpretations shall be generally
applicable to all situations of the same type and shall not be limited or
directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
1-43
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
January 10,2012
8.An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district boundary line
(except within the coastal zone)up to one hundred (100)feetfrom the location
depicted on the city's official zoning map except for a coastal specific plan
setback zone boundary of up to thirty feet from the scaled location on the zoning
~also may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not
initiated,and if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and
precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official
zoning map,based on site conditions and geology of such zoning or special
district boundary.
C.An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines,or open-
space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone,up to five (5)feet
from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map,may only be
adjusted up to five-fee.t if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more
accurate and precise location ofthe open-space hazard district boundary line
on the official zoning map,based on site conditions and approved geology.
under the interpretation procedure described in this chapter.Except in the case of a
zoning or special district boundary adjustment,interpretations shall be generally
applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not be limited or
directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
O.An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line,other than the
open-space hazard district boundary line or a coastal specific plan setback
zone boundary line,of up to thirty (30)feet from the location depicted on the
official zoning map.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.020 -Initiation.
A.The preparation of An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.A,17.90.010.C
or 17.90.010.0 may be initiated by the city council,planning commission,view
restoration commission or director,or by any person upon the written request and
payment of fee,as established pursuant to city council resolution,by any person.
8.An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.8 may only be initiated by the
owner of the property on which said open-space hazard zoning district is
located.
1.The written interpretation request shall indicate the property address,the
requested distance that the zoning district boundary line or area is to be
adjusted from the location depicted on the zoning map,and the property
owner's original signature.Furthermore,said written request shall be
accompanied by a scaled site plan,indicating the property lines,the
existing open-space hazard boundary line,and the proposed new boundary
line with the scaled distance of the proposed movement of the boundary
line,as well as a fee for a geological site inspection by the city's
geotechnical staff to verify that the proposed adjustment of an open space
hazard zoning district boundary line will not adversely impact the public
health,safety and welfare.
2.Requests for interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.8 for any lot or
1-44
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
January 10,2012
parcel cannot exceed a cumulative total of 100 feet from the original
location of the open-space hazard line.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.030 -Basis of interpretation.
A.An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code,
considering all the relevant provisions thereof,and shall be consistent with such
intent.Consideration shall be given to the relationship among the regulations of the
various zoning classifications and the uses and development standards therein.
!L In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses
permitted in a particular zone,consideration shall be given to the similarities and
differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and the
characteristics of those uses expressly permitted in the zone.
C.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard
zoning district or!coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line,consideration
shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports.
O.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard
zoning district boundary line,consideration shall be based on geotechnical
and/or soils reports,only if required by the city's geotechnical staff after the
initial geological site inspection.Otherwise,the interpretation will be based
upon the geological site inspection.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.040 -Preparation,notice and transmittal.
A.For interpretations related to Section 17.90.010.A,~ithin thirty days after the
initiation of an interpretation,the director shall prepare a written interpretation and
transmit it to the planning commission and the city council and shall give public
notice that such interpretation has been prepared.Such notice shall be published
and given to the property owner,any interested parties,and any affected
homeowner associations,as required for a code amendment,pursuant to Chapter
17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments)of this title.
fh Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice,the planning commission,
city council or any interested person may make a written request to the directorfor a
hearing.If no such request for a hearing is received,the interpretation shall become
effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice.
8.For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or
17.90.010.0.,within thirty days after the initiation request has been deemed
complete by Staff,the director shall prepare a written interpretation and
transmit it to the person requesting the interpretation,owners of all abutting
properties,and any interested person.Within five calendar days after the date
of the notice,the person requesting the interpretation,the abutting property
owners,and any interested person may appeal the decision of the director to
the planning commission,and any decision ofthe planning commission to the
city council,pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures)of this title.An appeal of a decision related to Section
1-45
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
January 10,2012
17.90.010.8 and C shall only be accepted if accompanied by a geotechnical
and/or soils report supporting the appeal claim.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.050 -Planning commission hearing and action.
A.If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.01 O.A is
received,or if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section
17.09.010.8,17.09.010.C,or 17.09.010.0 is filed,a hearing shall be held by the
planning commission within thirty calendar days of the date of such request..Qr
appeal.
B.After the hearing,the planning commission may,by resolution,adopt the proposed
interpretation,adopt a modified or different interpretation,or refer the matter to the
director for further study.Failure of the planning commission to act within sixty
calendar days after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an approval of the
director's interpretation.
C.If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study,the
director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the
provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter.
D.Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further
study,the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning
commission to the applicant,any interested person,and any affected homeowner
association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)
of this title.The decision of the planning commission shall become effective and
final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of its action,unless an appeal to
the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and
Appeal ,Procedures)of this title.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.060 -Book of interpretations.
When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval by the
director,planning commission or city council,the director shall enter the interpretation in a
book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made accessible to any interested
person.When an interpretation pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or
17.90.010.0 is given final approval,the interpretation shall be noted in the city's file
on the subject property and updated on the city's official zoning map through the
procedure identified in Section 17.88.020.E.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Previous Approved Zone Changes
In the December 13,2011 Staff Report,Staff noted that since 2005 three adjustments of
the OH boundary line more than 30 feet were approved through the Zone Change Process.
The Commission asked what the distances the OH boundaries were adjusted for the three
1-46
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
January 10,2012
City Council approved Zone Changes involving OH areas.Of these three Zone Changes,
two were City initiated (for the Upper San Ramon Canyon area and the Mirandela project
property)and the OH boundary line was adjusted over 100 feet from its original location on
the City's Official Zoning Map.The third Zone Change was for an 88-foot OH boundary
line adjustment on a residential property located at 3324 Seaclaire Drive.
OH areas in the Eastview Area
As was commented at the December 13th meeting,it has recently been discovered that
there is a discrepancy between the OH areas depicted on the Official Zoning Map and the
OH areas depicted on the exhibit for Ordinance No.184 (attached),which approved the
zoning for the newly annexed Eastview area in 1984.Staff discussed this issue with the
City Attorney,who opined that the OH areas depicted on the attachment to Ordinance No.
184 hold precedence over the depiction that was subsequently made on the Official Zoning
Map.As such,the OH areas in Eastview depicted on the Official Zoning Map will be
corrected to match the exhibit for Ordinance No.184.This correction item is scheduled to
be presented to the City Council on February 7,2012 for adoption.Notwithstanding this
correction,the Eastview OH areas will also be reviewed by the City Geologist as part of the
City-wide review of all OH areas in the City in conjunction with the General Plan update.
CONCLUSION
As the current Municipal Code reads,the existing maximum allowable movement of an
open space hazard zoning district boundary line of 30 feet through the Interpretation
Procedure defined in Chapter 17.90 may not be sufficient and is considered overly
burdensome on the property owners.To provide additional flexibility to these properties
without the initiation of a costly and lengthy zone change,Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a Code Amendment to
revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 to increase the distance to administratively adjust the
OH boundary line from 30 feet to 100 feet.
AL TERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,below are alternatives for Planning Commission to
consider:
1)Determine that the current Interpretation Procedure as described in Chapter 17.90
should be retained as codified and direct Staff to recommend,via minute order,that
the City Council not pursue a code amendment;or
2)Identify alternative or additional language amendments to Chapter 17.90,and direct
Staff to modify the proposed amendments accordingly for further discussion by the
Planning Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting.
1-47
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
January 10,2012
ATTACHMENTS:
•PC Resolution No.2012-
•Exhibit "An -Addendum No.3 to Negative Declaration
•Ordinance No.184 -Zone Change for the Eastview Annex Area
•Staff Report from the December 13,2011 Planning Commission Meeting
1-48
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REVISING
SECTION 17.90 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,THEREBY
CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE MOVEMENT OF AN OPEN-
SPACE HAZARD BOUNDARY LINE THROUGH THE
INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE FROM THIRTY (30)FEET TO
ONE-HUNDRED (100)FEET (CASE NO.ZON2011-00168).
.WHEREAS,on April 15,1997,Ordinance No.320 was adopted by the
City Council for various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's
Municipal Code,including the creation of the Interpretation Procedure (Chapter
17.90);and,
WHEREAS,Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 allows the discretionary
adjustment of zoning or special district boundary lines depicted on the City's
Official Zoning Map without the processing of a Zone Change,as well as allows
interpretations to be made in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning
or intent of the City's Building or Development Codes;and,
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997,the
City has processed interpretations on six different properties where the Open
Space Hazard ("OH n
)District was located on the developed portion of a
residential property and the OH District boundary line could be moved a small
distance to accurately reflect site conditions;and,
WHEREAS,based upon the comments from the public and the Planning
Commission,it was suggested that the City consider increasing the allowable
movement of a boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure described in
Chapter 17.90;and,
WHEREAS,on October 18,2011,the City Council initiated a Code
Amendment to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 to amend the Interpretation
Procedures to allow the Community Development Director,upon initiation by a
property owner,to make administrative adjustments of a zoning or special district
boundary line from thirty feet to one-hundred feet without the processing of a
Zoning Map amendment;and,
WHEREAS,on November 17,2011,Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to
property owners with property that was identified to have some portion of the OH
zoning district on their properties;and,
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 1 of 10 1-49
WHEREAS,on November 17,2011,notice of a public hearing on the
proposed amendments to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code was published in
the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq.("CEQA"),the State's
CEQA Guidelines,California Code Regulations,Title 14,Section 1500 et seq.,
the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)
(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City determined that there is
no substantial evidence that the code amendment would result in a significant
adverse effect on the environment.Accordingly,Addendum No.3 to the
Negative Declaration,which was prepared in conjunction with the adoption of
Ordinance No.510,has been prepared and is attached 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 December 13,2011,at which time Staff presented the
proposed language to implement the amended interpretation procedure.Based
on public testimony,the Planning Commission moved to continue the public
hearing to January 10,2012,with direction to Staff to:add to the
recommendation to the Council that they waive appeal fees in addition to the
application fees for an interpretation procedure;add code language which allows
the Director to make "common sense"moves to the OH boundary lines,based
upon criteria established by the City Geologist;address the issue for properties
located completely within the OH area,where the OH boundary line does not
"traverse"the property;make the Council aware of the costs of to the property
owner for third party geological review;establish a time limit for how long the
Director could conduct discretionary adjustments to OH boundary lines;and,
address the issue of successive applications;and,
WHEREAS,on January 10,2012,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 17.90 will allow property owners more flexibility to adjust the
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 2 of 10 1-50
open space hazard zoning district boundary line to more accurately reflect the
site conditions on property.
Section 3:That the amendments to Chapter 17.90 are necessary to
preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area
Section 4:That Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure)of Title 17 of
the Municipal Code is hereby revised as follows (strikethrough text for language
removed,and bold and underlined text for new language):
17.90.010-Purpose and scope.
This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the
Municipal Code:
A:In case§.of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any
provision of Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code,or to further define or
enumerate the uses permitted in the various zones zoning districts.-aM
upon proper initiation as provided in Seetion 17.90.020 of this ehapter,the
following proeedure shall be follO\Ned if a eode amendment is not initiated.
Said interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of
the same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels
or circumstances thereon.
B.An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or speeial district
boundary line (except within the coastal zone)up to one hundred
(100)feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map
exeept for a eoastal speeifie plan setbaek zone boundary of up to thirty
feet from the sealed loeation on the zoning map also may be
aeeomplished under this proeedure if a eode amendment is not initiated,
ana if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and
precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on
the official zoning map,based on site conditions and geology of sueh
zoning or speeial distriet boundary.
C.An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary Iines.l.
or open-space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone,
up to five (5)feet from the location depicted on the city's official
zoning map,may only be adjusted up to five feet if such adjustment is
necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the
open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map,
based on site conditions and approved geology.under the
interpretation proeedure deseribed in this ehapter.Exeept in the ease of a
zoning or speeial distriet boundary adjustment,interpretations shall be
generally applieable to all future situations of the same type and shall not
be limited or direeted to speeifie pareels or oiroumstanees thereon.
D.An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line,other
than the open-space hazard district boundary line or a coastal
specific plan setback zone boundary line,of up to thirty (30)feet
from the location depicted on the official zoning map.
p.e.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 3 of 10 1-51
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.020 -Initiation.
A.The preparation of An interpretation related to Section 17.90.01 O.A,
17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 may be initiated by the city council,planning
commission,vie'A'restoration commission or director,or by any person
upon the written request and payment of fee,as established pursuant to
city council resolution,by any person.
8.An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.8 may only be initiated
by the owner of the property on which said open-space hazard
zoning district is located.
1.The written interpretation request shall indicate the property
address,the requested distance that the zoning district boundary
line or area is to be adjusted from the location depicted on the
zoning map,and the property owner's original signature.
Furthermore,said written request shall be accompanied by a
scaled site plan,indicating the property lines,the existing open-
space hazard boundary line,and the proposed new boundary line
with the scaled distance of the proposed movement of the
boundary line,as well as a fee for a geological site inspection by
the city's geotechnical staff to verify that the proposed adjustment
of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not
adversely impact the public health,safety and welfare.
2.Requests for interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.8 for any
lot or parcel cannot exceed a cumulative total of 100 feet from the
original location of the open-space hazard line.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.030 -Basis of interpretation.
A.An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this
Code,considering all the relevant provisions thereof,and shall be
consistent with such intent.Consideration shall be given to the relationship
among the regulations of the various zoning classifications and the uses
and development standards therein.
B.In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration
of uses permitted in a particular zone,consideration shall be given to the
similarities and differences between the characteristics of each use
subject to interpretation and the characteristics of those uses expressly
permitted in the zone.
C.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space
hazard zoning district or !.coastal specific plan setback zone boundary
line,consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports.
O.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open
space hazard zoning district boundary line,consideration shall be
based on geotechnical and/or soils reports,only if required by the
city's geotechnical staff after the initial geological site inspection.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 4 of 10 1-52
Otherwise,the interpretation will be based upon the geological site
inspection.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.040 -Preparation,notice and transmittal.
A.For interpretations related to Section 17.90.010.A,within thirty days
after the initiation of an interpretation,the director shall prepare a written
interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city
council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been
prepared.Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner,
any interested parties,and any affected homeowner associations,as
required for a code amendment,pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone
Changes and Code Amendments)of this title.
g;Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice,the planning
commission,city councilor any interested person may make a written
request to the director for a hearing.If no such request for a hearing is
received,the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen
calendar days after the date of the notice.
8.For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or
17.90.010.0.,within thirty days after the initiation request has been
deemed complete by Staff,the director shall prepare a written
interpretation and transmit it to the person requesting the
interpretation,owners of all abutting properties,and any interested
person.Within five calendar days after the date of the notice,the
person requesting the interpretation,the abutting property owners,
and any interested person may appeal the decision of the director to
the planning commission,and any decision of the planning
commission to the city council,pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing
Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.An appeal of a decision
related to Section 17.90.010.8 and C shall only be accepted if
accompanied by a geotechnical and/or soils report supporting the
appeal claim.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.050 -Planning commission hearing and action.
A.If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.010.A is
received,or if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to
Section 17.09.010.8,17.09.010.C,or 17.09.010.0 is filed,a hearing
shall be held by the planning commission within thirty calendar days of the
date of such request or appeal.
B.After the hearing,the planning commission may,by resolution,adopt the
proposed interpretation,adopt a modified or different interpretation,or
refer the matter to the director for further study.Failure of the planning
commission to act within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing
shall be deemed an approval of the director's interpretation.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 5 of 10 1-53
C.If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further
study,the director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in
accordance with the provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter.
D.Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for
further study,the director shall give written notice of the decision of the
planning commission to the applicant,any interested person,and any
affected homeowner association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing
Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.The decision of the planning
commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the
date of notice of its action,unless an appeal to the city council is filed in
accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures)of this title.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.060':Book of interpretations.
When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval
by the director,planning commission or city council,the director shall enter the
interpretation in a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made
accessible to any interested person.When an interpretation pursuant to
Sections 17.90.010.8.17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final approval.the
interpretation shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and
updated on the city's official zoning map through the procedure identified
in Section 17.88.020.E.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
Section 5:That all application and appeal fees associated with an
interpretation request be waived for property owners until the updated General
Plan Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map has been adopted with the revised
open-space hazard areas.
Section 6:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code as identified in Section 4 shall become effective thirty (30)days
after an ordinance is adopted by the City Council.
Section 7:For the foregoing reasons,and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report,the testimony and evidence presented at
the public hears,minutes,and other records of the proceedings,the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the
City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.90 of the City's Municipal
Code,thereby changing the allowable movement of an open-space hazard
boundary line from thirty (30)feet to one-hundred (100)feet through an
interpretation procedure.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 6 of 10 1-54
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2012,by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTION:
ABSENT:
RECUSALS:
David L.Tomblin
Chairman
Joel Rojas,AICP
Community Development Director;and
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 7 of 10 1-55
EXHIBIT "A"
(Addendum to No.3 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background:On June 1,2010,the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2010-43,thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to
Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No.
510).Prior to its adoption,the Negative Declaration was circulated for public
comment from April 1,2010,through May 1,2010.In adopting the Negative
Declaration,the City Council found that:1)the Negative Declaration was prepared in
the manner required by law and that there was no substantial evidence that,with
appropriate mitigation measures,the approval of the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No.
ZON~007-00377)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.Additionally,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.
Proposed Amendments:The City Council is currently reviewing a code
amendment to revise Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code (Interpretation
Procedure)that would revise code language,remove code language and codify
existing policy procedures and/or applications.The proposed amendments are to
designate the different types of interpretations that can be requested to the
Community Development Director,clarify who can initiate an interpretation request,
provide further direction as to the processing of interpretation requests,and how
such requests shall be recorded for future reference.
Purpose:This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being
prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an
adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred.Pursuant to
CEQA Section 15162,no subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the
project unless the lead agency determines,on the basis of substantial evidence in
light of the whole record,one or more of the following:
1.Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will required major
revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new,
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 8 of 10 1-56
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 Chapter 17.90 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 and 513U,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 project,and will not result in new significant
environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any
impacts.
2.The proposed reVISions will not result in any significant environmental
impacts,and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for
Ordinance No.510.The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor
modifications that clarify code language discrepancies and/or codify policies
and procedures that are currently in place.There are no changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will
require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3.No new information of substantial importance,which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the prior Negative Declaration was adopted,identifies a significant
environmental effect.Because the proposed revisions would not result in any
new or more severe environmental impacts than those associated with
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 9 of 10 1-57
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.3.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 10 of 10 1-58
I
I
ORDINANCE NO.184
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO.13 AND REPEALING ORDINANCE
NO.177U FOR THE EASTVIEW AREA
WHEREAS,the City Council has held a public hearing on this matter
on August 7,1984,at which time all interested parties were given an opportu-
nity to be heard and present evidence;
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has also reviewed this matter on
March 27,May 8,May'22,and June 12,1984,and has recommended approval in
Resolution P.C.No.84-17.
"NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
DOES ORDAIN ~AS FOLLOWS:
./
~ection 1:The City Council has reviewed and considered the
contents.of Environmental Assessment No.450 Initial Study and Negative
Declaration In reaching its decision on Zone Change No.13 and finds that
this zone change will not result in a significant environmental effect.
Further,the City Council does hereby certify that all of the requirements
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes have been met.
Section 2:The City Council has reviewed the adjacent land uses,
densities and the potential impacts on the area and has found that the proposed
land uses are consistent with what is existing on neighboring lots.
Section 3:The City Council finds that the proposed zone change is
consistent with the General Plan (Amendment No.14).
Section 4:The City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
hereby approves Zone Change No.13,and amends the official zoning on the East-
view area as shown in "Exhibit A"attached.
Section 5:The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to cause
said changes to be made to the Official Zoning Map.
Section 6:The City Council hereby repeals Ordinance No.177U.
PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED October 16,1984.
ATTEST:
~--
11700Y-A26 1-59
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,JO LOFTHUS,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do I
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said
City is five;that the foregoing ordinance,was duly and regularly adopted by
the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on October 16,
1984,and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
McTAGGART,RYAN,HUGHES,HINCHLIFFE AND MAYOR BACHARACH
NONE
NONE
NONE
....
I
-2-ORDINANCE NO.184
1-60
(,-,-
_..
t-,)
ZC No.13
I
I
-3-
..-...._;
cern
/
:;.;.~
:~:_~:
........"l..-.~.,.......
EXHIBIT "A"TO ORD.NO.184
1-61
CITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CHAIRMAN &MEMBERS OF THE P
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOP
DECEMBER 13,2011
ECTOR
SUBJECT:CODE AMENDMENT TO REVISE RPVMC CHAPTER 17.90 -
INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE (CASE NO.ZON2011-00168)
Staff Coordinator:Abigail Harwell,Assistant Planner4#-
RECOMMENDATION
1.)Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C.Resolution No.2011-
_,recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance No._'a Code
Amendment revising RPVMC Chapter 17.90,thereby allowing the administrative
adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning district boundary line from thirty (30)
feet to one-hundred (100)feet through an interpretation procedure (Case No.
ZON2011-00168);and,
2.)Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
that the application fees associated with a request for an Interpretation Procedure to
adjust an open-space hazard district boundary line be waived until the update of the
General Plan,which will include updated mapping of the hazard areas Citywide,has
been adopted by the City Council.
BACKGROUND
When the City's Official Zoning Map was first adopted in 1975,one of the zoning districts
identified on the map was the open-space hazard (OH)zoning district.According to the
City's Development Code (Chapter 17.32),the OH district ''prevents unsafe development of
hazardous areas that must be preserved or regulated for public health and safety
purposes."The OH zoning district areas identified in the 1975 zoning map were based
upon general information available to the City at that time.Generally speaking,the OH
zoning district is comprised of areas where the slope exceeds 35%,areas experiencing
downslope movement,areas unstable for development,areas where grading of the land
may endanger public health and safety due to erosion,the ocean bluff areas,and areas
subject to flooding from storm water.As such,the OH zoning district boundary lines
adopted in 1975 do not follow lot lines but instead cross over lot lines and often even cross
1-62
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
December 13,2011
over developed residences.
In 1997,Ordinance No.320 adopted various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17
of the City's Municipal Code,including the creation of a new Interpretation Procedure
chapter of the Development Code (Chapter 17.90).Among other things,this chapter
allows the adjustment of zoning or special district boundary lines up to 30 feet from the
location depicted on the City's Official Zoning Map,if such adjustments are necessary to
resolve uncertainty as to the precise location of such zoning or special district boundary
lines.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an OH zoning district
boundary line,the consideration is based on geological and/or soils reports.
The Interpretation Procedure provides property owners with an opportunity to make
adjustments to the zoning district boundary lines on their property without having to
process a change to the City's official Zoning Map,which can be time consuming and
costly to a property owner.Since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997,the City
has received and processed three different requests from individual property owners of
residentially developed properties to adjust the location of the OH boundary line on their
property.In all oftheseinstances,the Director interpreted that the OH boundary line could
be moved up to 30 feet,based upon geological and/or soils reports submitted by each
applicant and approved by the City Geologist determining that doing so would not cause
harm to the subject property nor the neighboring area.Since 2005,there have also been
three cases where individual property owners have sought to move the OH boundary line
on their property more than 30 feet.In these cases,they received City Council approval of
a Zone Change to do so.It should be noted that most property owners are usually
unaware that an OH zoning designation is on their property until they propose development
or changes to their property.In such cases,the property owner will choose to work around
the OH area,adjust the OH zoning designation,or not pursue the project envisioned for the
OH area.
Earlier this year,the Planning Commission conducted a series of public hearings to update
the hazard areas depicted on the General Plan Land Use Map to match the OH areas
depicted on the City's parcel specific Zoning Map.As part of the hearing process,over 600
property owners received public notice if portions of their property contained OH areas.As
a result,many residents wrote letters and spoke at the hearing with concerns about the
presence of OH areas on their property.While Staff explained that the OH areas have
been in place since adoption of the Zoning Map in 1975 and they are not being proposed
to be changed,many residents felt that it was wrong to have these existing OH areas
located over improved portions of their property in the first place.At that time,Staff noted
that to address these concerns,Staff proposed initiating a code amendment that would
provide greater ability for property owners to adjust the OH boundary lines on their
property.The Planning Commission agreed with this proposal.
On October 18,2011,at the request of Staff,the City Council initiated a Code Amendment
to amend the Interpretation Procedure to allow the Community Development Director to
make adjustments to an OH boundary line location from thirty feet to one-hundred feet
without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment,on a 3-0 vote (Councilman Campbell
1-63
Planning Commission l\IIeeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
December 13,2011
and Mayor Long were absent).The purpose of said code amendment is to provide a
property owner a more flexible and simplified mechanism to adjust the boundary line of a
zoning designation on their property without having to go through the costly and time-
consuming zoning map amendment process.The excerpted minutes from the October
18 th meeting have been attached to this report.It should be noted that during the public
hearing and in correspondence received prior to the meeting,some members of the public
suggested that in addition to increasing the allowed adjustment distance that revisions be
made to the entire Chapter 17.90 to clarify the process as well as make clear that a
property owner can make a request for a boundary adjustment on their own property.Staff
and the City Council agreed with this suggestion.
On November 17,2011,Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to property owners with property
that was identified to have some portion of the OH zoning district on their property.As of
the writing of this Staff Report,eight items of correspondence have been received by Staff
(attached).Also,several property owners either called or visited the Community
Development Department to further understand the issue,although they did not provide
written comments.
DISCUSSION
In order to provide property owners further flexibility in adjusting the OH zoning district
boundary,and to address public concern as to the process and authority of such
interpretations,Staff is recommending the changes as noted below to Chapter 17.90
(strikethrough text for language removed,and bold and underlined text for new
language).In addition to changing the allowable maximum adjustment distance of the OH
boundary line from 30 feet to 100 feet,changes are being proposed to clarify the different
type of possible interpretations that can be requested,the submittal requirements for a
boundary line adjustment request,and how such interpretations will be memorialized.
17.90.010-Purpose and scope.
This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the Municipal Code:
A.In case!of uncertainty or ambigUity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of Title 16 or
Title 17 of this Code,or to further define or enumerate the uses permitted in the various
zones,and upon proper initiation as provided in Section 17.90.020 of this chapter,the
follOWing procedure shall be followed if a code amendment is not initiated.Said
interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of the same type and
shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
B.An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district boundary line (except
within the coastal zone)up to one hundred (100)feet from the location depicted on
the city's official zoning map except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary of
up to thirty feet from the scaled location on the zoning map also may be accomplished under
this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated,and if such adjustment is necessary to
demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space hazard district
boundary line on the official zoning map,based on site conditions and approved
geology of such zoning or special district boundary.
C.An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines,or open-space
hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone,up to five (5)feet from the
1-64
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
December 13,2011
location depicted on the city's official zoning map.may only be adjusted up to five feet.IT
such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of
the open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map.based on site
conditions and approved geology.under the interpretation procedure described in this
chapter.Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment,
interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations ofthe same type and shall
.not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
O.An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line.other than the open-space
hazard district boundary line or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary lines.of
up to thirty (30)feet from the location depicted on the zoning map.if such adjustment
is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the open-space
hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map.based on site conditions and
ap.proved geology.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.020 -Initiation.
A.The preparation of an An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.A.17.90.010.C or
17.90.101.0 may be initiated by the city council,planning commission,view restoration
commission or director,or by any person upon the written request and payment of fee,as
established pursuant to city council resolution,by any person.
8.An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.8 may only be initiated by the owner of
the property which said open-space hazard zoning boundary line traverses.Said
interpretation requests shall be accompanied with the appropriate fee.as established
pursuant to city council resolution.The written interpretation request shall indicate
the property address.the requested distance that the zoning district boundary line is
to be moved from the location depicted on the zoning map.and the property owner's
original signature.Furthermore.said written request shall be accompanied by a
scaled site plan,indicating the property lines,the existing open-space hazard
boundary line and the proposed new boundary line with the scaled distance of
movement.as well as any geological and/or geotechnical studies required by the city
to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city's geotechnical staff that the proposed
adjustment of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line will not endanger
the public health,safety and welfare.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.030 -Basis of interpretation.
A.An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code,considering all
the relevant provisions thereof,and shall be consistent with such intent.Consideration shali
be given to the relationship among the regulations of the various zoning classifications and
the uses and development standards therein.
B.In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses permitted
in a particular zone,consideration shall be given to the similarities and differences between
the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and the characteristics ofthose uses
expressly permitted in the zone.
C.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard zoning district
or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line on the city's official zoning map,
consideration shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
1-65
Planning Commission lVIeeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
December 13,2011
17.90.040 -Preparation,notice and transmittal.
A.For interpretations related to Section 17.90.01 O.A,within thirty days after the initiation of
an interpretation,the director shall prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the
planning commission and the city council and shall give public notice that such interpretation
has been prepared.Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner,any
interested parties,and any affected homeowner associations,as required for a code
amendment,pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments)of this title.
g,.Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice,the planning commission,city
council or any interested person may make a written request to the director for a hearing.If
no such request for a hearing is received,the interpretation shall become effective and final
fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice.
8.For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0"
within thirty days after the initiation the director shall prepare a written interpretation
and transmit it to the person requesting the interpretation,the property owner
affected by the interpretation and any interested person.Within fifteen calendar days
after the date of the notice,the person requesting the interpretation,the property
owner affected by the interpretation and any interested person may appeal the
decision of the director to the planning commission and any decision of the planning
commission to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures)of this title.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.050 -Planning commission hearing and action.
A.If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.010.A is received,or if an
appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to Section 17.09.010.8,17.09.010.C,or
17.09.010.0 is filed,a hearing shall be held by the planning commission within thirty
calendar days of the date of such request/appeal.
B.After the hearing,the planning commission may,by resolution,adopt the proposed
interpretation,adopt a modified or different interpretation,or refer the matter to the director
for further study.Failure of the planning commission to act within sixty calendar days after
the close of the hearing shall be deemed an approval of the director's interpretation.
C.If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study,the director shall
prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the provisions of Section
17.90.040 of this chapter.
D.Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further study,the
director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning commission to the applicant,
any interested person,and any affected homeowner association pursuant to Section
17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.The decision of the planning
commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of
its action,unless an appeal to the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.060 -Book of interpretations.
When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval by the director,
planning commission or city council,the director shall enter the interpretation in a book of
interpretations which shall be preserved and made accessible to any interested person.When an
interpretation pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final
approval,the interpretation shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and
1-66
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
December 13,2011
updated on the city's official zoning map through the procedure identified in Section
17.88.020.E.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On June 29,2010,the City Council certified a Negative Declaration (ND)in conjunction
with the adoption of 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.In addition,on September 21,2010,the City Council
adopted 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.
The proposed code amendment is to revise code language related to the Interpretation
Procedure requirements of Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code.Staff believes that
the proposed code amendment revisions are within the scope of the miscellaneous
Development Code revisions analyzed in the ND for the RDSSC Code Amendment.
Therefore,Staff has prepared Addendum NO.3 to the RDSSC Code Amendment ND to
address the compliance of the revisions to Chapter 17.90 with the provisions of CEQA.
Addendum No.3 is attached to the ordinance presented for the City Council's
consideration.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Public Correspondence
As previously noted,eight items of correspondence were received in response to the notice
that was sent on November 17,2011 to all property owners identified to have OH areas on
their property.The first e-mail was received on November 26,2011 from Barbara
Huffman.In her e-mail.Ms.Huffman writes in support of the proposed code amendment
and an opportunity to possibly increase the movement of the OH boundary line on her
property from 30 feet to 100 feet.It should be clarified,however,that a geological or
geotechnical study would be required as part of an interpretation request to adjust the OH
boundary line,a requirement that has always been necessary as part of the interpretation
proced ure and is not proposed to be eliminated in order to justify that the adjustment to the
boundary line will not endanger the public health,safety and welfare.
The second e-mail was received on November 27,2011 from James and Jane Jones,of
2747 Vista Mesa,asking what the "implication and obligation of this [code amendment is]
to us as the property owner."In response,as this was a question that was commonly
asked by other recipients of the notice who contacted Staff,the proposed code
amendment would provide an option for those currently impacted by the OH areas on their
property.The property owner can only make the request for adjustment of the boundary
1-67
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
December 13,2011
line on their own property.A successful adjustment of the OH boundary line that creates
more developable area on a property would then allow the property owner to proceed with
applications for development in said area consistent with their respective zoning district.
The third item was a letter submitted on November 30,2011 by Maurice Williams,of 2152
Van Karajan Drive.Mr.Williams writes in protest of the proposed code amendment,
believing that his property was incorrectly zoned in 1984 to be completely within an OH
area and feels that the City should correct these OH zoning district depictions,not the
property owners themselves.He is of particular concern with the depiction of the OH areas
within the Eastview area of the City,annexed in 1983.
The fourth item was an e-mail received on December 2,2011 from Jeff Koehler,of 28039
Calzada 'Drive.Mr.Koehler writes that his house was built in 1965 on a pad lot and the
depiction of the OH area on his property "seems rather arbitrary."He further comments
that it does not make sense for him to have to a geological survey done for his property to
move the OH boundary line when there are other possible options,and he would support
another "reasonable method other than [an]expensive geological survey to adjust the
boundary."The fifth item was an e-mail received on December 4,2011 from Joe
Gasperov,of 28036 Calzada Drive,who agrees with the comments made by Mr.Koehler.
The sixth and seventh letters were received on December 5,2011 from Jeanne Lacombe,
writing as both the property owner of 2052 Galerita Drive and as the President of the
Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners Association.Ms.Lacombe feels it is wrong to have OH
area identified on both her property but also on other properties within the Eastview area.
She proposes that the City Geologist and City Staff work with homeowners to re-evaluate
the OH areas in the City,believing that "it is unreasonable for each homeowner affected by
the open space hazard to endure the process of getting each property re-zoned and
suffering the financial cost to do so."Further,Ms.Lacombe suggests that this proposed
code amendment to the interpretation procedure be postponed until such an evaluation is
complete.
The eighth e-mail was received on December 6,2011 from John McCowan,of 2064
Galerita Drive.Mr.McCowan comments that he was not aware of the o.H area on his
property and finds it unfair and unreasonable to have to pay to have the OH boundary line
adjusted on his property.Concurring along the lines of Ms.Lacombe's comments
previously noted,Mr.McCowan believes that the OH areas should be re-evaluated to
eliminate the need for the proposed adjustment change of the Interpretation Procedure.
As noted in the public comments described above,some residents believe that due to the
lack of precision in depicting the OH areas on the City's original zoning map,the City
should take the lead in better delineating the OH boundary lines instead of requiring
individual property owners to go through the Interpretation Procedure to adjust the OH
boundary line on their property at their own expense.Staff agrees that the OH districts
depicted on the zoning map need to be re-evaluated Citywide and adjustments made to
make them consistent with the existing geologic and topographic conditions.As a result,
Staff has tasked the City Geologist with assessing the hazard area depictions Citywide and
1-68
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
December 13,2011
make any adjustments/corrections as part of the ongoing General Plan update.
Conversely,any adjustments made to the hazard areas depicted on the General Plan Land
Use map will be made to the same OH areas depicted on the City's zoning map.
The revised Interpretation Procedure proposed by Staff would provide a mechanism for
property owners to adjust the OH boundary line up to 100 feet as currently depicted on the
zoning map.Because it may take up to another year to update the OH lines as part of the
General Plan update,Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that the Interpretation Procedure fee be waived for OH boundary line
adjustments until the General Plan update and associated zoning map update is completed
and adopted by the City Council.
CONCLUSION
As the current Municipal Code reads,the existing maximum allowable movement of an
open space hazard zoning district boundary line of 30 feet through the Interpretation
Procedure defined in Chapter 17.90 may not be sufficient.To provide additional flexibility
to these properties without the initiation of a costly and lengthy zone change,Staff is
recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a
Code Amendment to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90.
AL TERNATIVES
In addition to Staff's recommendation,below are alternatives for Planning Commission to
consider:
1)Determine that the current Interpretation Procedure as described in Chapter 17.90
should be retained as codified and direct Staff to return with the appropriate
resolution at the next Planning Commission meeting;or
2)Propose alternative or additional amendments to Chapter 17.90,and direct Staff to
modify the proposed amendments as such for further discussion by the Planning
Commission at the next Planning Commission meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
•PC Resolution No.2011-_,recommending Council adoption of the Code
Amendment
•Exhibit "A"-Addendum No.3 to Negative Declaration
•October 18,2011 City Council Minutes
•E-mail from Barbara Huffman,dated November 26,2011
•E-mail from James &Jane Jones,dated November 27,2011
•Letter from Maurice Williams,dated November 30,2011
•E-mail from Jeff Koehler,dated December 2,2011
•E-mail from Joe Gasperov,dated December 4,2011
1-69
Planning Commission Meeting
Code Amendment:Interpretation Procedure
December 13,2011
•Two letters from Jeanne Lacombe,dated December 1,2011
•E-mail from John McCowan,dated December 6,2011
•Existing Municipal Code Chapter 17.90
1-70
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2011-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REVISING
SECTION 17.90 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,THEREBY
CHANGING THE ALLOWABLE MOVEMENT OF AN OPEN-
SPACE HAZARD BOUNDARY LINE FROM THIRTY (30)FEET
TO ONE-HUNDRED (100)FEET THROUGH THE
INTERPRETATION PROCEDURE (CASE NO.ZON2011-00168).
.WHEREAS,on April 15,1997,Ordinance No.320 was adopted by the
City Council for various amendments and changes to Title 16 and 17 of the City's
Municipal Code,including the creation of the Interpretation Procedure (Chapter
17.90);and,
WHEREAS,Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 allows discretionary
adjustment of zoning or special district boundary lines depicted on the City's
Official Zoning Map without the processing of a Zone Change,as well as allows
interpretations to be made in cases of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning
or intent of the City's Building or Development Codes;and,
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Interpretation Procedure in 1997,the
City has processed interpretations on six different properties where the Open
Space Hazard (UOH")District was located on the developed portion of a
residential property and the OH District boundary line could be moved with
minimal overall impact to the Zoning Map;and,
WHEREAS,based upon the comments from the public and the Planning
Commission,it was suggested that the City consider increasing the allowable
movement of a boundary line through the Interpretation Procedure described in
Chapter 17.90;and,
WHEREAS,on October 18,2011,the City Council initiated a Code
Amendment to revise Municipal Code Chapter 17.90 to amend the Interpretation
Procedures to allow the Community Development Director,upon initiation by the
property owner,to make administrative adjustments of a zoning or special district
boundary line from thirty feet to one-hundred feet without the processing of a
Zoning Map amendment;and,
WHEREAS,on November 17,2011,Staff mailed out 1,160 notices to
property owners with property that was identified to have some portion of the OH
zoning district on their property;and,
p.e.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 1 of 9 1-71
WHEREAS,on November 17,2011,notice of a public hearing on the
proposed amendments to Chapter 17.90 of the Municipal Code was published in
the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act,Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq.("CEQA"),the State's
CEQA Guidelines,California Code Regulations,Title 14,Section 1500 et seq.,
the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)
(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the City determined that there is
not substantial evidence that the code amendment would result in a significant
adverse effect on the environment.Accordingly,Addendum No.3 to the
Negative Declaration,which was prepared in conjunction with the adoption of
Ordinance No.510,has been prepared and is attached to this resolution;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the requirements of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on December 13,2011,at which time all interested parties
were give 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 17.90 will allow property owners more flexibility to adjust the
open space hazard zoning district boundary line to more accurately reflect the
built environment of the existing property.
Section 3:That the amendments to Chapter 17.90 are necessary to
preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area
Section 4:That Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation Procedure)of Title 17 of
the Municipal Code is hereby revised as follows (strikethrough text for language
removed,and bold and underlined text for new language):
17.90.010 -Purpose and scope.
This chapter provides a procedure for the following interpretations to the
Municipal Code:
A.In case§of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any
provision of Title 16 or Title 17 of this Code,or to further define or
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 2 of 9 1-72
enumerate the uses permitted in the various zones,and upon proper
initiation as provided in Section 17.90.020 of this chapter,the follO'.ving
procedure shall be followed if a code amendment is not initiated.Said
interpretations shall be generally applicable to all situations of the
same type and shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or
circumstances thereon.
B.An adjustment of an open-space hazard zoning or special district
boundary line (except within the coastal zone)up to one hundred
(100)feet from the location depicted on the city's official zoning map
except for a coastal specific plan setback zone boundary of up to thirty
feet from the scaled location on the zoning map also may be
accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated,
aM if such adjustment is necessary to demarcate a more accurate and
.precise location of the open-space hazard district boundary line on
the official zoning map.based on site conditions and approved
geology of such zoning or special district boundary.
C.An adjustment of a Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary IinesJ,
or open-space hazard district boundary lines within the coastal zone.
up to five (5)feet from the location depicted on the city's official
zoning map.may only be adjusted up to five feet if such adjustment is
necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the
open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map.
based on site conditions and approved geology.under the
interpretation procedure described in this chapter.Except in the case of a
zoning or special district boundary adjustment,interpretations shall be
generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and shall not
be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
O.An adjustment to a zoning or special district boundary line.other
than the open-space hazard district boundary line or coastal specific
plan setback zone boundary lines.of up to thirty (30)feet from the
location depicted on the zoning map.if such adjustment is
necessary to demarcate a more accurate and precise location of the
open-space hazard district boundary line on the official zoning map.
based on site conditions and approved geology.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.020 -Initiation.
A.The preparation of an An interpretation related to Section 17.90.01 O.A.
17.90.010.C or 17.90.101.0 may be initiated by the city council,planning
commission,view restoration commission or director,or by any person
upon the written request and payment of fee,as established pursuant to
city council resolution,by any person.
B.An interpretation related to Section 17.90.010.B may only be initiated
by the owner of the property which said open-space hazard zoning
boundary line traverses.Said interpretation requests shall be
accompanied with the appropriate fee.as established pursuant to
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 3 of 9 1-73
city council resolution.The written interpretation request shall
indicate the property address,the requested distance that the zoning
district boundary line is to be moved from the location depicted on
the zoning map,and the property owner's original signature.
Furthermore,said written request shall be accompanied by a scaled
site plan,indicating the property lines,the existing open-space
hazard boundary line and the proposed new boundary line with the
scaled distance of movement,as well as any geological and/or
geotechnical studies required by the city to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the city's geotechnical staff that the proposed
adjustment of an open space hazard zoning district boundary line
will not endanger the public health,safety and welfare.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.030 -Basis of interpretation.
A.An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this
Code,considering all the relevant provisions thereof,and shall be
consistent with such intent.Consideration shall be given to the relationship
among the regulations of the various zoning classifications and the uses
and development standards therein.
B.In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration
of uses permitted in a particular zone,consideration shall be given to the
similarities and differences between the characteristics of each use
subject to interpretation and the characteristics of those uses expressly
permitted in the zone.
C.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space
hazard zoning district or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line
on the city's official zoning map,consideration shall be based on
geotechnical and/or soils reports.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.040 -Preparation,notice and transmittal.
A.For interpretations related to Section 17.90.010.A,y!ithin thirty days
after the initiation of an interpretation,the director shall prepare a written
interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city
council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been
prepared.Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner,
any interested parties,and any affected homeowner associations,as
required for a code amendment,pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone
Changes and Code Amendments)of this title.
B-:-Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice,the planning
commission,city council or any interested person may make a written
request to the director for a hearing.If no such request for a hearing is
received,the interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen
calendar days after the date of the notice.
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 4 of 9 1-74
8.For interpretations pursuant to Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or
17.90.010.0"within thirty days after the initiation the director shall
prepare a written interpretation and transmit it to the person
requesting the interpretation,the property owner affected by the
interpretation and any interested person.Within fifteen calendar
days after the date of the notice,the person requesting the
interpretation,the property owner affected by the interpretation and
any interested person may appeal the decision of the director to the
planning commission and any decision of the planning commission
to the city council pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and
Appeal Procedures)of this title.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90'.050 -Planning commission hearing and action.
A.If a request for an interpretation hearing related to Section 17.90.010.A is
received,or if an appeal of a director interpretation pursuant to
Section 17.09.010.8,17.09.010.C,or 17.09.010.0 is filed,a hearing
shall be held by the planning commission within thirty calendar days of the
date of such requesUappeal.
B.After the hearing,the planning commission may,by resolution,adopt the
proposed interpretation,adopt a modified or different interpretation,or
refer the matter to the director for further study.Failure of the planning
commission to act within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing
shall be deemed an approval of the director's interpretation.
C.If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further
study,the director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in
accordance with the provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter.
D.Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for
further study,the director shall give written notice of the decision of the
planning commission to the applicant,any interested person,and any
affected homeowner association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing
Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.The decision of the planning
commission shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the
date of notice of its action,unless an appeal to the city council is filed in
accordance with Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures)of this title.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.060 -Book of interpretations.
When an interpretation pursuant to Section 17.90.010.A is given final approval
by the director,planning commission or city council,the director shall enter the
interpretation in a book of interpretations which shall be preserved and made
accessible to any interested person.When an interpretation pursuant to
Sections 17.90.010.8,17.90.010.C or 17.90.010.0 is given final approval,the
interpretation shall be noted in the city's file on the subject property and
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 5 of 9 1-75
updated on the city's official zoning map through the procedure identified
in Section 17.88.020.E.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
Section 5:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code as identified in Section 4 shall become effective on the effective
date of an ordinance adopted by the City Council.
Section 6:For the foregoing reasons,and based on the information and
findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes,and other records of proceedings,
the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 17.90
of the City's Municipal Code,thereby changing the allowable movement of an
open..:space hazard boundary line from thirty (30)feet to one-hundred (100)feet
through an interpretatIon procedure.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 13 th day of December 2011,by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTION:
ABSENT:
RECUSALS:
David L.Tomblin
Chairman
Joel Rojas,AICP
Community Development Director;and
Secretary to the Planning Commission
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 6 of 9 1-76
EXHIBIT "A"
(Addendum to No.3 to Negative Declaration)
Project Background:On June 1,2010,the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2010-43,thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for miscellaneous amendments to
Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code to enact the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Ordinance No.
510).Prior to its adoption,the Negative Declaration was circulated for public
comment from April 1,2010,through May 1,2010.In adopting the Negative
Declaration,the City Council found that:1)the Negative Declaration was prepared in
the manner required by law and that there was no substantial evidence that,with
appropriate mitigation measures,the approval of the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone Change (Case No.
ZON2007-00377)would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment;
and 2)that the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code
Amendment and Zone Change were consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes
General Plan and with the Coastal Specific Plan.On September 21,2010,the City
Council adopted Ordinance No.513U,thereby approving Addendum No.1 to the
certified ND,to make minor changes to Chapter 17.38 of the Development Code to
correct the omission of Specific Plan District VII,and to change the designation of
specific plan districts from numbered to descriptive titles.Additionally,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.
Proposed Amendments:The City Council is currently reviewing a code
amendment to revise Chapter 17.90 of the Development Code (Interpretation
Procedure)that would revise code language,remove code language and codify
existing policy procedures and/or applications.The proposed amendments are to
designate the different types of interpretations that can be requested to the
Community Development Director,clarify who can initiate an interpretation request,
provide further direction as to the processing of interpretation requests,and how
such requests shall be recorded for future reference.
Purpose:This Addendum to the previously-certified Negative Declaration is being
prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)Guidelines which allows for the lead agency to prepare an addendum to an
adopted Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the
preparation of a subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration have occurred.Pursuant to
CEQA Section 15162,no subsequent Negative Declaration shall be prepared for the
project unless the lead agency determines,on the basis of substantial evidence in
light of the whole record,one or more of the following:
1.Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will required major
revisions of the previous Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new,
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 7 of 9 1-77
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 Chapter 17.90 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 and 513U,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 project,and will not result in new significant
environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any
impacts.
2.The proposed revIsIons will not result in any significant environmental
impacts,and the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
have not substantially changed since the CEQA determination was made for
Ordinance No.510.The scope of the proposed revisions relate to minor
modifications that clarify code language discrepancies and/or codify policies
and procedures that are currently in place.There are no changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the revisions are undertaken that will
require major revisions of the previous Negative Declaration.
3.No new information of substantial importance,which was not known and
could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
time the prior Negative Declaration was adopted,identifies a significant
environmental effect.Because the proposed revisions would not result in any
new or more severe environmental impacts than those associated with
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 8 of 9 1-78
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.3.
P.C.Resolution No.2011-_
Page 9 of 9 1-79
e>cllllP{h,Stern,Wolowicz,and Mayor Long
Initiate a Code Amendment to Revise RPVMC Chapter 17.90 (Interpretation
Procedure)
City Clerk Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prior to the
meeting and there were three requests to speak regarding this item.
Assistant Planner Harwell provided a brief staff report regarding this item.
Mayor Long left the meeting at 10:13 P.M.
Discussion ensued between Council Members and staff.
Ken Dyda,Rancho Palos Verdes,suggested that there should be a correction that the
map should be illustrative so that there will not be different scale factors and use
previous procedures to protect the City..
Sharon Yarber,Rancho Palos Verdes,stated that the proposed cnange was to amend
the existing ordinance to state 100 feet instead of 30 feet,and instead the existing
ordinance 'should remain in place with additional language added to clarify that the
homeowner be able to make a request to move the line in a particular direction.She
stated that the intent as stated by staff should be clarified in the proposed code
amendment.
Lowell Wedemeyer,Rancho Palos Verdes,stated that he was in favor of the review of
the entire ordinance regarding the Interpretation Procedure.He suggested that the
section be subject to a complete revision in order to separate out particular categories
which should be addressed more appropriately.He noted that the ordinance should
clarify which things can be applied to a specific parcel versus those that should be a
general interpretation applicable to the entire City.
Additional discussion ensued between Council Members and staff.
Councilman Stern moved,seconded by Councilman Wolowicz,to adopt the staff
recommendation to:Initiate a Code Amendment to revise Title 17.90 of the RPVMC to
amend the Interpretation Procedures to allow the Community Development Director to
make adjustments of a zoning or special district boundary line from thirty feet to one
hundred feet without the processing of a Zoning Map amendment.
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
City Council Minutes
October 18,2011
Page 11 of 13
1-80
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Stern,Wolowicz,and Mayor Pro Tem Misetich
None
Campbell and Long
None
los Verdes Nature Preserve -Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy
ual Management Reports
City C k Morreale reported that late correspondence was distributed prio 0 the
meeting d there was one request to speak regarding this item.
Deputy Com nity Development Director Mihranian provided an 0 rview and
PowerPoint pre ntation of the item.
Andrea Vona,Exec ·'Me Director,Palos Verdes Peninsula L (j Conservancy (PVPLC)
provided a short overv w of the PVPLC,its mission,and t current operation of two
nature centers.
Danielle Lefer,Conservation irector,PVPLC,provid an overview of the monitoring
of threatened species and plan ,habitat restoratio and vegetation mapping in
compliance with the City's requir ents under the CCP plan.
stated that he hikes on the Three Sisters
er Keeping an Extra Eye on the Preserve
EPERS)of that area under the PVPLC.
staff and the PVPLC to modify the use
nd control erosion after rain storms.
Mayor Pro Tem Misetich an Stern,to approve the staff
recommendation to:Re Ive and file the Palos Verdes ninsula Land Conservancy's
2008-2009 and 2010 nual Report on managing the Cit
Preserve.
ed on the following roll call vote:
Stern,Wolowicz,and Mayor Pro Tem Misetich
None
Campbell and Long
None
LOSED SESSION REPORT:
City Council Minutes
October 18,2011
Page 12 of 13
1-81
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abigail-
FYI.
-Greg.
Greg Pfost [gregp@rpv.com]
Monday,November 28,2011 9:48 AM
'Abigail Harwell'
FW:OPEN SPACE PROP.LINE ADJUCTMENT
SincerelYt
Gregory Pfost t AICP
Deputy Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
(310)544 -5228.
-----Original Message-----
From:bjh301@cox.net [mailto:bjh301@cox.net]
Sent:SaturdaYt November 26 t 2011 10:54 AM
To:PLANNING@RPV.COM
Subject:OPEN SPACE PROP.LINE ADJUCTMENT
Dear planning commission and city council t
It as a property owner in Rancho Palos Verdes t and would like to have my comments heard
for the Notice of Planning case No.Zon2011-00168(code amendment).I am for the
opportunity to have the boundary line changed from 30ft.to 100ft.away from my house back
towards the Miraleste parks and recreation parkland property with out the need for an
expensive geology
report.I am very concerned that the arbitrary line set down randomly on
my property and the property of the Miraleste Park Distict.
Please keep me informed on the outcome of the issue.Thanks Barbara Huffman
1 1-82
Abigail Harwell
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Abigail,
jjbanjo@juno.com
Sunday,November 27,2011 6:51 AM
abigailh@rpv.com
pc@rpv.com
Case ZON2011-00168 Proposed Revision to Chap.17.90
cc:Planning Commission
The City's notice dated 11/17 regarding the proposed re-interpretation of this procedure
is the subject here.We find that an unused sliver across the bottom of our property,
2747 Vista Mesa,may fall within an Open Space Hazard zone.
Our question is:What is the implication and obligations of this to us as the homeowner?
We shall be away until December 4th so please answer either by email anytime or by phone
after that.
Thank you.
"Chord"-ially,Jim 0==#
James S.and Jane B.Jones
<jjbanjo@juno.com>
Tel/Fax:(310)831-3372
1 1-83
November 30,2011
Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission
RECEIVED
NOV 80 2011
COMMUNrrvOEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Re:Planning Case No.ZON 2011-00168 (Code Amendment)
Comments by Maurice Williams
I am extremely disappointed by the City ofRPV's proposed revision to Chapter
17.90 of the Municipal Code,to allow owners of property traversed by an Open
Space Razard Zoning District boundary line the opportunity to adjust their
boundary line up to 100 feet.(I assume you mean 100 feet.Your notice only says
100).
I was originally told by Planning Department staff over a year ago that the City
was going to possibly look at areas that were zoned OR in error.Obviously,that's
not the case.
I live at the end of Van Karajan Drive,which is shown in Exhibit A,with my west
property line located along the boundary between Eastview and the rest ofRPV.I
purchased my property in 1986.I just recently discovered that almost my entire
property is zoned OR,which,as a licensed civil engineer was a total shock.The
only reason I have been able to come up with,as to why my property and my
neighbors'properties are zoned OR,is because we live in the "lower class"
Eastview area.I know of nowhere in the entire world where the natural
topography and/or geology abruptly and drastically change along a straight-line,
political boundary,except,apparently in RPV.This change,according to your
zoning map occurs at the boundary between Eastview and the rest of RPV,not in
one,but unbelievably,in two separate locations.This is shown in the two
attachments,(Exhibit A and Exhibit B)with OR zoning shaded in green.What is
further unbelievable is that both of these areas occur on the Eastview side of the
line,and the shapes of these areas are nothing like anything seen in nature.
I could understand the canyon portion of my property being zoned OR,except that
the entire canyon to the west of my property,west of the Eastview boundary line,
is residential.The other portion of my property,where the natural slopes never
exceeded 35%,should never have been zoned OR.My entire home and pool are
built on bedrock.There is not one credible reason for this zoning.
1-84
Before I discovered that my property was zoned OH,I obtained a building permit,
and built a 356 square foot addition to the west side of my home in 2003.
Apparently,someone forgot to look at the zoning map.Priorto issuing a permit,
one of your Planning Department staff members,your geologist,and my
geotechnical engineer who prepared the soils report had visited the site.I am a
civil engineer who has lived here since 1986.No one even suggested that the site
had any problems.In addition,prior to my purchase of the property,the County of
LA issued one grading permit and five building permits.Surely,if the property is
so unsafe as to be zoned OH,at least one professional along the way would have
noticed something wrong.Now I can't even build a patio cover.Not to mention
what it does to my property value.If I had an emergency,and I had to sell my
property in a hurry,what would I get for it?
So far,none of your Planning Department staff can give me a reason,provide any
documentation,or even knows of any documentation as to why my property is
zoned OH.I've been told that it probably doesn't exist.Obviously,something is
wrong with this system.It needs a complete overhaul,not the band-aid that's
proposed.
I propose that the City take it upon itself to do the right thing and correct these
injustices inflicted upon the impacted citizens of Eastview,and others in similar
situations.All property owners should be treated equally.Give us back our
unjustly taken property.It is long overdue.
In addition,the proposed revision to Chapter 17.90 should at least allow OH
boundary lines which bound property to be moved,not just those that traverse
property.This proposal is too restrictive.But the bigger issue is that property
was randomly taken without valid reason.Your proposed minor change does
nothing to address this issue.Your entire process needs to be reviewed and
revised.Again,give us back our unjustly taken property.
Maurice P.Williams
310-832-1694
curliebug@sbcglobal.net
1-85
Existing Zoning
EXI-i 1.6 I~A
1-86
Map Output
.ArcIMS HTML Viewer Ma
page 1 011
E.xHI13i/13
http://www.giscentral.comlservlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=CityofRPVO...10/20/20101-87
Page 1 of 1
Abigail Harwell
From:Jeff Koehler Ukoehler@pacbell.net]
Sent:Friday,December 02,2011 10:20 AM
To:abigailh@rpv.com
Subject:Open Hazard Zone
Dear Ms Harwell
I live at 28039 Calzada Dr and was recently made aware of the existence of the open hazard zone
created in 1974.I note from the map depiction that the boundary of the zone cuts across my
property -in fact it cuts through the existing house as well as through the existing houses of a
number of my neighbors.Given that the house was built in 1965 and both the house and the yard
are on perfectly level terrain and neither has slipped since new,the boundary of the OH zone
seems rather arbitrary.I understand that the imapct of the zoning restriction is that if!wanted to
enclose the existing patio on the west side of the house that I would have to engender the
expense of a geologic survey to obtain approval.On the other hand if I wanted to enclose the
patio on the East side I would not have to do the survey since that patio is outside of the
boundary.This does not make sense to me.I understand that there is a proposal to amend the OH
zone to allow modifications of the line,but the current language would still require the
geological survey to make the adjustment.It seems to me that other evidence of the stability of
the property -at least of the existing house and closely surrounding area -such as photos
showing levelland,no evidence of slippage,etc.,would be sufficient to establish that the
likelihood of catastrophic land slides is small enough that the boundary could be moved without
risk.
I understand that there is to be a hearing on Dec 13 concerning modification of the zoning
restriction and I would like to encourage you to support adoption of a reasonable method other
than expensive geological survey to adjust the boundary.I plan to attend the public hearing and
will introduce the notion if given the opportunity.
VIR
Jeff Koehler
12/5/2011
1-88
Page 1 of 1
Abigail Harwell
From:Joe Gasperov [jsphgsp@aol.com]
Sent:Sunday,December 04,2011 12:46 PM
To:abigailh@rpv.com
SUbject:The Open Hazard Zone
Dear Ms Harwell
This is in regards to the e-mail you have already received from my next-door
neighbor,Jeff Koehler (28039 Calzada Drive).
I have the same problem and concerns,and would also like to encourage you
to support adoption of a reasonable method other than expensive geological
survey to adjust the boundary.
Thank you in advance for your help.
Joseph Gasperov
28036 Calzada Drive
12/5/2011
1-89
81/12/2882 15:58 131053~31 LACOMBE PAGE 02
December 1.2011
TOI Rancho Palos Verdes "'"nlnt CommlHlon
Re:Notice for Plannl....Case ZON20UoOOl68
2052 Galerltl OrNe.RPV
ReCEIVeD
DEC 06 l011
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMarr
DEPARTMENT
I J~st discovered that my backyard I,zoned .,HopeR SPice hallrd'".While there may be weeds thlit need to be
pulled or trees trimmed ._some may sHit IS a "'rd,It does not ClOl'lrteet WIth any public or open space Uke
II canyon.If my yard Is zoned open $pace hlIard then 95"of all homes In RPV should have back or front yards
with open space ha.rd lOft''''
It Is wrong that I JUlt dl$Covered thl...The prevk:ius owner probably didn't 101.,.this either.This Jnformatlon Is
not on-any tax records,or provided throulh escrow or In my property folder wfth pe~information In the
8ulldln,and S.t.ty DepartrMnt.As.horM~raf'lCI homeowner,I have done my due dIIlpn(:*to discover
this Informltlon.
I asked Ablpll Harwelllf'l thl planning dept.how were thIlst lines Ind boundatie;determined,when did this
open space hataret lonln.belln In the eastview area,Ind why wet"'"we nQtlfled In this letter that out'
property is zoned open space and the ramlfk:attons of such •resttIttkm.She explained the open spae$hazard
was on ttMt Eastview map that was Iritorponted Into tt1e CIty of ftWa .....,...plan In 1984.She Mid tMy .r.
loold",for backup documents to explain th.details of the zonll1l since they cannot explain why one nefebbot'I,
zoned open spat.and another one Is not.Th*map she showed me from thtt tfme pel'lod was very lenetal and
not «Ietal""petr parcel.
It Is unreason.blt for each homeowner _ffeeted bV the open space hazard to ench,ne the prot:ess of teffin,elth
property rHOned and ,,,*,-'1,,,the ftnendtl cost (qUOCM $$,000)to do 10.
I propose tNt th$city ,eof04llst and city p,*nnl",dept.work topt_with the homeowners to re-evaluate the
open space hazard Jones in RPV.My husband Pete b In .......,with .,hysIes dqree and worb with the
software that the ptannln,departtne,"Is us/n,and he stated It would only tItle I couple hours to chan,e the
boundaries.50 this evaluation dQesn't ImPid the cities budset.h.would ...cRy Vf)IUntHr for this project.ThIs
would caUH all unbulktable «:Inyon ...s over 35 dqree stope be zoned open spac:e h••reI (they are not now)
and allexlstln,SFR tJome"........,pools,pattos,and other struttUref that art!eJdstI",(soma on ftat IoU)hIVe
the open space MUrd IOn,",renlowd.
If .11 open space hazard .realS were re-evaluilted In a fair process with set erIterIa thlt was the same for all RPV
homeowMt'$.the"there IMY not be I need to txttftd the 30'boundary adjustment to 100'.
Thank you,
J?--~
Jeanne Lacombe,ho~own.r
2052 G.lerlta Dr.
Rlncho Palos Verdes
(310)833-0444
1-90
01/12/2002 15:50 131053:31 LACOMBE PAGE 03
December 1,2011
To:Rancho Palos Verdes Plann'n,Commission
RECEIVED
DEC 06 2011
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENt
DEPARTMENT
Re:Notice for Plannlna c.e ZON2011-QOl68
Streets:AlilfIor.,Q11l1ada,Delasonde,Galetlta,santi!Ren.,velez,Van ~.n,and 8ftC:ham
I represent 721 homes In the Eastview .rei off Western Avenue.Two weeks 810 on.of our HOA members
came to me WIth his (:omplalnt .bout his entl,.property beln.zoned "optln space hazard".Mr.WIUiams lives at
the end of V..KaraJan.Even thou,h he has lived '"his propertyfor many years .ftd has compMted permitted
'mprr,wements and additions to the property,this WII U.first he ~about this Of*'space hazard zonlnJ.
lbls affects mllny homes In our nelshborhood Indudlna mine and this Is the flr$t we Ire hQriRJ about this open
space hazard lonlnl too.
It is unreason,bft for each hoMeOWner.-ffected by the .....spICe ,**rd zonInI to suffer the finlimCial cost of
approx.$5,000 (a quoted)and endure the process of .ettIft,uch pn)p8fI:y 1'HOned.ThIs need,to btIt clone 15
a whole project to correct •wrORl that wu done ye.1'S '10.
I would anUMe atl homeowners would ...that a canyon ~an open space haunt.ltIis is ~unr'.SOMble.
What Is un,.asonable and unexpIa....ablets the current Ion""nNIP u.t shows homes and pools on flat lots
beln,zoned open space hazard.There ls no explanation why one home can have II htllslde «»nnectlns with a
canyon and not declared open space halarel yet,other homes are penalized wfth open space h'l!8rd zonlne.
I propose tlMtt the c:1ty pololtst lind dty p1ann""department work topther with thft homeowners to re-
evaluate the open splilC*hazard 10nes In RPV.There are many wDl'ldatfuI,quellfted,and talefttMi residents in
RPV t"-t would love to volunteer for this project iIInd save the city 11I0000ey.I also propose this proposal be
postponed until,"ev,,'uldon Is comp"ted.If all open space haUird areas were ,....."'.Iuat...ln a fair process
with set r;:ritlllrta that was the ..me for all RPV honteowners,then there m*Y not be a need to extend the 30'
boundary adJust....nt to 100'.
This would cause all unbulldable c8nvo".rtle.be loned open space hazard (they art not now)and all eXlstln,
SFR hornell,8li raees,pools,patios,and other $b'\att",res that are exlstlna (some on flat lots)have the open space
hazard zonln,removed.This would also hatp save property vatues IS well.Ahouse that ea"be remodeled Is
worth much more than OM that cannot.Iftwo similar hornt$are tor sa"for U.$AIM price and OM has their
unimproved yard as open space huard tonina and the other home does not,the one that can add a pool or
pzebo will sell for more moneVand thereto...pay morll in propertY taxes.
ThlnkVOUI
ff-~~
~ne Lacombe,President
RolII~Hills RlvI.r8 HomtWOWnatJ Association
P.O.Boll;6164
san Pedro,CA 90734
{UO)8U-G444
Chatellu4us4lPlItt.net
1-91
Abigail Harwell
Subject:FW:RPV Planning/RE:Notice for Planning Case#ZON2011-00168
-----Original Message-----
From:John [mailto:jmccowan@aol.comJ
Sent:Tuesday,December 06,2011 5:22 PM
To:abigailh@rpv.com
Subject:Fwd:RPV Planning/RE:Notice for Planning Case#ZON2011-00168
-----Original Message-----
From:John <jmccowan@aol.com>
To:Abagailh <Abagailh@rpv.com>
Sent:Fri,Dec 2,2011 4:30 pm
Subject:RPV Planning/RE:Notice for Planning Case#ZON2011-00168
I have very recently been made aware that on my property,my backyard is zoned as an
"open space hazard area".I would really like to know on what criteria and facts this
zoning has been based upon in comparison to the like adjacent area with the same and very
similiar landscape and terrain.That adjacent area that I am referring to is west of my
property located in Rolling Hills Estates area.My address is 2064 Galerita Dr.that is
located at the end of Galerita Dr.on the culdesac that adjacent to the canyon that is in
the back north-west portion of my lot.LOT#149 TRACT#18968 on the LA COUNTY TAX RECORD
file.
I am currently inder construction and remodeling of my home with plans of a new swimming
pool,garage with a second level above the garage of bedrooms and home office.I have
been ordered by RPV Building &Safety/Planning to have an engineered geological soils
report to be completed by a local RPV approved company to be completed before I can apply
for the building permits for the proposed areas to be developed.
When I had inquired about the procedure and details to be done for this development,ther
was absolutely no mention of this "open space hazard area".I find this not very
professional and responsible actions of RPV City B&S and Planning.I have understood from
the sources of information from Jeanne Lacombe,the presidentof RHRHA,that the
ramnifications of this "open space hazard area"if not handled fairly and properly could
have a very negative and value degradation effect of my land parcel and the ability to
develop and improve the value of the property.This is very,very upsetting to me that the
information is just now surfacing for the purpose of debating the facts of this issue.
I had purchased my home in May of 1979 and nothing had been listed in the escrow
instructions and property information of this "open space hazard area'.
Jeanne Lacombe had stated that a re-zoning of this "open space hazard area"would cost
approximately $5,000.00 per lot-I find that very,very unfair and unreasonableto the
homeowners affected by this "uneccessary fiasco"!
I am requesting the RPV City geologist &RPV Planning put their effforts together along
with the affected homeowners to re-evaluate this problem in a fair unbiest manner.If all
"open space hazard areas"were re-evaluated in a veryn fair procedure with a set criteria
that will be same for all RPV homeowners,then we should not have to extend the 30 ft.
boundary adjustment to 100 ft.
Respectfully Yours,
John A.McCowan
2064 Galerita Dr.RPV 90275
Bus.310-831-6427 Cell 310-429-8897
1 1-92
Chapter 17.90 -Interpretation Procedure
17.90.010 -Purpose and scope.
In case of uncertainty or ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of any provision of Title
16 or Title 17 of this Code,or to further define or enumerate the uses permitted in the
various zones,and upon proper initiation as provided in Section 17.90.020 of this
chapter,the following procedure shall be followed if a code amendment is not initiated.
Adjustment of a zoning or special district boundary,except for a coastal specific plan
setback zone boundary,of up to thirty feet from the scaled location on the zoning map
also may be accomplished under this procedure if a code amendment is not initiated,
and if such adjustment is necessary to resolve uncertainty as to the precise location of
such zoning or special district boundary.Coastal specific plan setback zone boundary
lines may only be adjusted up to five feet under the interpretation procedure described in
this chapter.Except in the case of a zoning or special district boundary adjustment,
interpretations shall be generally applicable to all future situations of the same type and
shall not be limited or directed to specific parcels or circumstances thereon.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.020 -Initiation.
The preparation of an interpretation may be initiated by the city council,planning
commission,view restoration commission or director,or upon the written request and
payment of fee,as established pursuant to city council resolution,by any person.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.030 -Basis of interpretation.
A.An interpretation shall be based on an examination of the intent of this Code,
considering all the relevant provisions thereof,and shall be consistent with such
intent.Consideration shall be given to the relationship among the regulations of
the various zoning classifications and the uses and development standards
therein.
B.In the case of an interpretation involving further definition or enumeration of uses
permitted in a particular zone,consideration shall be given to the similarities and
differences between the characteristics of each use subject to interpretation and
the characteristics of those uses expressly permitted in the zone.
C.In the case of an interpretation involving the location of an open space hazard
zoning district or coastal specific plan setback zone boundary line,consideration
shall be based on geotechnical and/or soils reports.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.040 -Preparation,notice and transmittal.
A.Within thirty days after the initiation of an interpretation,the director shall prepare
a written interpretation and transmit it to the planning commission and the city
council and shall give public notice that such interpretation has been prepared.
Such notice shall be published and given to the property owner,any interested
parties,and any affected homeowner associations,as required for a code
amendment,pursuant to Chapter 17.68 (Zone Changes and Code Amendments)
of this title.
B.Within fifteen calendar days after the date of the notice,the planning
commission,city councilor any interested person may make a written request to
the director for a hearing.If no such request for a hearing is received,the
1-93
interpretation shall become effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date
of the notice.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.050 -Planning commission hearing and action.
A.If a request for an interpretation hearing is received,a hearing shall be held by
the planning commission within thirty calendar days of the date of such request.
B.After the hearing,the planning commission may,by resolution,adopt the
proposed interpretation,adopt a modified or different interpretation,or refer the
matter to the director for further study.Failure of the planning commission to act
within sixty calendar days after the close of the hearing shall be deemed an
approval of the director's interpretation.
C.If the planning commission refers the matter to the director for further study,the
director shall prepare and submit another interpretation in accordance with the
provisions of Section 17.90.040 of this chapter.
0:Unless the planning commission refers the interpretation to the director for further
study,the director shall give written notice of the decision of the planning
commission to the applicant,any interested person,and any affected homeowner
association pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal
Procedures)of this title.The decision of the planning commission shall become
effective and final fifteen calendar days after the date of notice of its action,
unless an appeal to the city council is filed in accordance with Section 17.80.070
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.
(Amended during 11-97 supplement;Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
17.90.060 -Book of interpretations.
When an interpretation is given final approval by the director,planning commission or
city council,the director shall enter the interpretation in a book of interpretations which
shall be preserved and made accessible to any interested person.
(Ord.320 §7 (part),1997)
1-94