Loading...
RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_05_01_04_Proposal_To_Allow_Hedges_Above_42_InchesCITY OF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE:. SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAVOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JOEL ROJAS,COMMU~ELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAY 1,2012 Uv PROPOSAL TO CREATE A NEW REVIEW PROCESS TO ALLOW HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK (ZON201 0-00293) REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~ Project Manager:So Kim,Associate Planner "iJIV RECOMMENDATION Receive a status update and provide direction to Staff and the Planning Commission on whether to continue to pursue a code amendment that would allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback through a discretionary review process. BACKGROUND The City's Development Code limits the height of any fence,wall,or hedge located within the front yard setback area of a residential property to 42"in height.The front yard setback is generally the area of the lot within 20'of the front property line.Periodically,Staff will receive complaints about hedges within the front yard setback area in excess of the 42" height limit,which are then pursued by the City's Code Enforcement Division.Hedges are defined as "shrubbery or trees planted and maintained in such a manner as to create a physical barrier"(RPVDC §17.96.900).While in most situations,the violations are brought into compliance,sometimes hedge owners protest the requirement by pointing out similar violations in their residential neighborhood.Furthermore,they question the harm of allowing hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback area,pointing out that those hedges are part of landscaping that add to the attractiveness of a home.After speaking to the City Attorney about this issue,it was agreed that Staff would revisit the hedge height regulation and refrain from pursuing non-compliant hedge height complaints while a potential Code amendment is contemplated. 4-1 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment-Hedge Height in the FYSB May 1,2012 On October 5,2010,this matter was forwarded to the City Council for consideration.After some discussion,the City Council initiated a Code amendment to revise the City's hedge height regulations to possibly allow hedges in excess of 42"in height within the front yard setback area (5-0 vote).In working with the Public Works Department on the proposed ordinance language,Staff found that the Public Works Department had a concern that allowing hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback may limit the visibility of vehicles or pedestrians by motorists backing out of a driveway.As such,on February 1, 2011,Staff recommended that the City Council withdraw the previous code amendment initiation.However,after hearing from Staff that there could be certain situations where a hedge over 42"in height within the front yard setback could be allowed,the City Council directed Staff and the Planning Commission to formulate a new permit process to allow hedges qver 42"in height within the front yard setback,upon Public Works Department review and approval. Based on the City Council's direction,Staff presented a new review procedure for hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback area for the Planning Commission's consideration on June 14th (Staff Report is attached).The proposed review procedure would involve the Public Works Department and Planning Division conducting a site visit to determine if there is any traffic visibility or view impacts resulting from a proposed hedge. The Planning Commission questioned the visibility analysis criteria and directed Staff to return with more details. At the July 26th Planning Commission meeting,Staff presented detailed information related to the visibility analysis criteria that the City's Public Works Department would use as part of the permit process to analyze hedges withinin the front yard setback (July 26,2011 Staff Report attached).However,the Commission felt that a new permit process was unnecessary (July 26,2011 excerpted Minutes attached)and thus directed Staff (4-3 with Chairman Tomblin and Commissioners Emenhiser and Gerstner dissenting)to relay the Commission's "opinion"to the City Council that hedges within the front yard setback should not be taller than 42"in height.Notwithstanding,given the Council's direction that the Commission develop a process to allow hedges to exceed 42"in height within the front yard setback,the Commission approved (5-2,with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting)a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance that would allow hedges over 42"and up to 6'within the front yard setback without a permit,provided there are no traffic visibility impacts or view impacts to private or public property.The proposed ordinance would also change the review process for proposed structures in the intersection visibility triangle from the Planning Commission to the Director. On August 9th ,the Commission voted 3-2 to adopt the resolution recommending the conceptually approved code amendment on July 26,2011 (Commissioners Knight and Leon dissenting &Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis absent).Although Commissioner Leon originally voted in support of the code amendment at the July 26th hearing,he changed his mind after a visual analysis of the City and therefore voted against adoption of the resolution on August 9th .After the vote had been taken,Commissioner Gerstner joined the meeting.Upon learning that a vote had been taken on this item,Commissioner 4-2 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment-Hedge Height in the FYSB May 1,2012 Gerstner asked for reconsideration of the item so that his vote could be reflected on record. The Commission voted to re-consider the previous vote on the resolution adoption (6-0, with Commissioner Lewis absent).Commissioner Gerstner explained that he is against the proposed code amendment because he believes that it increases Staff's time and the review process for residents,which he believed to be unnecessary.With Commissioner Gerstner present,the Commission noted that the outcome of the vote would be 3-3. Acknowledging that Commissioner Lewis in attendance could result in a different outcome, the Commission felt it was important that all of the Commissioners be present to vote on the resolution.As a result,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a meeting at which time all seven Commissioners are expected to be present. Accordingly,on September 2ih,the Planning Commission reviewed the resolution and a motion to adopt the resolution failed on a 2-5 vote,with Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner,Knight,Leon and Lewis dissenting.Since the motion to adopt a resolution for a code amendment failed,the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Commissioners Lewis and Emenhiser dissenting)to re-notice the item for further discussion at a future agenda. Subsequently,a duly noticed public hearing was held on October 25th •However,since not all Commissioners were present to discuss the code amendment in detail,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a future meeting at which time all seven Commissioners were expected to be present. After Commissioner Knight was elected to the City Council,the Planning Commission noted that it would not have all original seven Commissioners present to re-discuss the proposed code amendment.Furthermore,the Planning Commission noted that there is a new City Council that may not share the same desire as the previous City Council to proceed with the proposed code amendment.Thus,on January 10,2012,the Planning Commission agreed to provide a status update on the proposed code amendment to the City Council and to seek direction as to whether to continue with the proposed code amendment. DISCUSSION The City's Development Code currently allows fences,walls and hedges located within the front-yard setback (generally 20')up to 42"in height (17.76.030).Based on the City Council's direction on February 1,2011,Staff presented a proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission that would allow hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback,provided that Public Works Department and Community Development Department Staff determines through a site visit that the proposed hedge would not create traffic visibility issues or significantly impair a view from a neighboring residence. Based on the discussions which have occurred at June 14,July 26,August 9,September 27 and October 25,2011 Planning Commission meetings,below is a summary ofthe pros, cons and public comments made to the Planning Commission related to the proposed code amendment. 4-3 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment-Hedge Height in the FYSB May 1,2012 Pros (allowing hedges over 42"in height within the required 20'front yard setback): •The number of properties with non-conforming hedge heights will presumably be less. •Residents will be allowed to create a more private front yard area. •Creating privacy barriers over 42"in height with foliage is more visually appealing than fences or walls. Cons (leave the code as-is,restricting hedge heights to 42"max.within the required 20' front yard setback): •Th.e number of properties with non-conforming hedge heights will remain. • A new review process involving Public Works Department and Community Development Department Staff will need to be created to review proposed hedges over 42"in height on a case by case basis which will create more bureaucracy and burden residents. •Rather than maintaining the openness from the street,taller hedges in the front yard may create a more fortified appearance. Public Comments (provided at previous Planning Commission meetings) •Given the number of properties with non-conforming hedges,there will likely be more situations where applicants obtain atter-the-fact approval for hedges as opposed to obtaining approval prior to the hedges being allowed to exceed 42"in height. •Narrow residential streets already have poor visibility due to blind curves on the street and allowing hedges above 42"would increase public safety concerns. •Allowing taller hedges in the front yard setback would make the properties along narrow residential streets appear like mini compounds and induce crime. •Taller hedges will cause view impacts. •The review process to allow taller hedges would be too subjective. Given that the Planning Commission has struggled to obtain consensus on developing an ordinance sought by the previous City Council regarding the allowance of hedges over 42" within the front yard setback,the Planning Commission agreed to seek direction from the current City Council on whether to continue proceeding with this issue (Minutes and Staff Report dated January 10,2012 are attached).As such,Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction to Staff and the Planning Commission on whether to continue creating a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback. 4-4 Case No.ZON2010-00332 Code Amendment -Hedge Height in the FYSB May 1,2012 ALTERNATIVES The following alternatives are available for consideration by the City Council: 1.Direct Staff and the Planning Commission to no longer pursue a Code Amendment that would allow hedges over 42"within the front yard setback.Pursuing this alternative would mean that the existing Code limiting hedge heights to 42"within the front yard setback would remain and that Staff will pursue code enforcement for any situations broug ht to its attention where hedges over 42"exist within a front yard setback throughout the City. 2.Dir.ect Staff and the Planning Commission to continue its work on drafting an Ordinance to create a review process to allow certain hedges over 42"within the front yard setback.Pursuing this alternative would mean that the Planning Commission would make a recommendation on an ordinance that would be presented to the City Council at a future City Council meeting. Attachments: •P.C.Minutes (dated January 10,2012) •P.C.Staff Report (dated January 10,2012) •P.C.Minutes (dated December 13,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated December 13,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated November 22,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated November 22,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated October 25,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated October 25,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated July 26,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated July 26,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated June 14,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated June 14,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated May 24,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated May 24,2011) •C.C.Minutes (dated February 1,2011) •C.C.Staff Report (dated February 1,2011) •C.C.Minutes (dated October 5,2010) •C.C.Staff Report (dated October 5,2010) 4-5 P.c.Minutes (January 10,2012) 4-6 Space Preserve land use designation,whose purpose is to protect the hab'and natural r rces,the overlay control districts are not necessary in the N preserve areas any longe .ditionally,the City Council approval of the N dictated that the General Plan be update emove the overlay control dis'rom the NCCP areas. Chairman Tomblin opened the public he~oa-~ public hearing. Commissioner Lew·oved to approve the proposed Ian changes to the General Pia d Use Map as recommended by staff,seconded loner Gerstner.Approved,(6-0). CONTINUED BUSINESS 1.Code Amendment -hedges in front yard setback (Case No.ZON2010- 00293): Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report,giving a brief summary of the proposed code amendment and past Planning Commission directions to staff.She explained that since the last public hearing on this item staff has added an alternative to the recommendations that the Planning Commission may want to consider seeking direction from the new City Council on this issue. Julie Scrivens stated that one of the reasons she moved into her neighborhood was the openness of the neighborhood and the views.She felt that taller hedges would close in the neighborhood and block many of the views.She agreed with staffs recommendation to seek further direction from the new City Council,adding that in the meantime she would like to see the current code of 42 inches enforced. Maria Price spoke about the safety issues that could take place because of higher hedges,noting the increase in home invasion crimes in the neighborhood.She also noted that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood and higher hedges would again be a safety concern. Karl Price reiterated the concerns stated by Ms.Scrivens and Ms.Price He stated that he would prefer the hedge height remain at 42 inches,and if a decision cannot be reached by the Planning Commission,that the issue be sent back to the City Council for further direction. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Leon asked staff to address the issue of crime associated with hedges in the front yard. Associate Planner Kim stated that staff looked at the crime reports from January 2010 to October 2010,however noted that the reports are not specific in terms of robberies Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2012 Page 44-7 and how they may be related to hedges in the front yard setback.Therefore,staff was not able to find any evidence that taller hedges welcomed more crime than areas without hedges. Director Rojas added that while the crime statistics do not have that detail,in speaking with Sheriff Department staff they conveyed that they did not think hedges created a crime issue. Commissioner Gerstner felt that the individual Commissioners have their opinions about hedges and that the only new variable is the new City Council.He felt the issue for discussion is whether or not to vote on the issue now or send it back to the new City Council for some direction. Commissjoner Emenhiser agreed,adding that staff has given the Commission a good recommendation and that the issue should be presented to the new City Council for their review and direction. Vice Chairman Tetreault also agreed that this issue should go back to the new City Council for their input.He added that he too was concerned about the safety issue in terms of traffic and children in the neighborhood.He felt that the height of hedges in regards to an increase in crime was a personal preference of a property owner and there are other things a property owner can do,such as dead bolts and alarm systems that will make a resident less likely to be the victim of a crime.He did not think the City should have an Ordinance to protect people from themselves and their own hedges, and this should be deferred to residents to make their own decisions. Commissioner Lewis moved that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council retain the current limitation on hedge heights in the front yard setback to 42 inches and that the code amendment proceed no further,seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault. Chairman Tomblin felt that the proposed code amendment should go back to the City Council for their review,input,and possible direction,as the new City Council may have a different philosophy than the old Council on this subject.He also noted that the new Council appears to have concerns about safety issues in the City Commissioner Leon stated his preference was to send the issue back to City Council for their review.He noted that there are extensive notes from the Planning Commission meetings for the Council to review and educate themselves on the concerns and issues raised by both the residents and the Planning Commissioners.He pointed out that if the City Council has no interest in pursuing this proposed code amendment then the hedge height will remain at 42 inches. Commissioner Lewis understood Commissioner Leon's comments,however he felt that it was important that the City Council see the majority of the Planning Commission feels that the 42 inch limit currently in place is appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2012 Page 54-8 The motion to recommend the City Council retain the current limitation on hedge heights failed,(2-5)with Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstner,Leon,and Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved staff's recommendation to forward the item back to the City Council for their consideration as to whether or not they want the Planning Commission to proceed with their discussions on the proposed code amendment,seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser.Approved,(5-1)with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 4.Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 24,2012 The Commission discussed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 10,2012 Page 6 4-9 P.c.Staff Report (January 10,2012) 4-10 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS 0 .THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEV 0 NT DIRECTOR JANUARY 10,2012 CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO.ZON2010-00293)TO CREATE A NEW PROCESS FOR HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO SIMPLIFY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS. So Kim,Associate Planner ~ Discuss and provide direction to Staff on a proposed code amendment to revise Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code,to 1)amend the review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications,and 2)establish a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties. DISCUSSION At the July 26th Planning Commission meeting,Staff presented detailed information related to the visibility analysis criteria that the City's Public Works Department would use to analyze hedges in the front yard setback,along with code language to allow hedges over 42"without a formal permit process (July 26,2011 Staff Report attached).While Staff suggested adding a permit process to address Staff time,documentation,maintenance and enforcement,the Commission felt that a new permit process was unnecessary (July 26,2011 excerpted Minutes attached). Prior to voting on the proposed code amendment,the Commission directed Staff (4-3 with Chairman Tomblin and Commissioners Emenhiser and Gerstner dissenting)to relay the Commission's opinion to the City Council that hedges in the front yard setback should not be taller than 42"in height. Subsequently,with the understanding that the Council requested the Commission to develop a process to allow hedges to exceed 42"in the front yard setback,despite the Commission's opinion on the matter,the Commission approved (5-2,with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting) a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance that allows hedges over 42"and up to 6'in the front yard setback without a permit,provided there are no traffic visibility impacts or view impacts to private or public property.In addition,the ordinance changes the review of proposed structures in the intersection visibility triangle from the Planning Commission to the Director.Based on this discussion,the Commission continued the hearing to the August 9th meeting and directed Staff to return with a revised resolution. On August 9th ,the Commission voted 3-2 to adopt the resolution recommending the code amendment conceptually approved on July 26,2011 (Commissioners Knight and Leon dissenting & 4-11 Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis absent).Although Commissioner Leon originally voted in support of the code amendment at the July 26th hearing,he changed his mind after a visual analysis of the City and therefore voted against adoption of the resolution on August 9th •After the vote had been taken,Commissioner Gerstner joined the meeting.Upon learning that a vote had been taken on this item,Commissioner Gerstner asked for reconsideration of the item so that his vote could be reflected on record.The Commission voted to re-consider the previous vote on the resolution adoption (6-0,with Commissioner Lewis absent).Commissioner Gerstner explained that he is against the proposed code amendment because he believes that it increases Staff's time and the review process for residents,which he believed to be unnecessary.With Commissioner Gerstner present, the Commission noted that the outcome of the vote would be 3-3.Acknowledging that Commissioner Lewis in attendance could result in a different outcome,the Commission felt it was important that all of the Commissioners be present to vote on the resolution.As a result,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a meeting at which time all seven Commissioners are expected to be present. Accordingly,on September 2th,the Planning Commission reviewed the resolution and a motion to adopt the resolution failed on a 2-5 vote,with Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstner,Knight,Leon and Lewis dissenting.Since the motion to adopt a resolution for a code amendment failed,the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Commissioners Lewis and Emenhiser dissenting)to re-notice the item for further discussion at a future agenda. Subsequently,a duly noticed public hearing was held on October 25th •However,since not all Commissioners were present to discuss the code amendment in detail,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a future meeting at which time all seven Commissioners are expected to be present.As part of the continuance,the Commission directed Staff to provide any crime statistic information related to hedges in the front yard based on concerns raised by public speakers at the October 25th hearing related to hedges making it easier for criminals to hide. Per the Commission's direction,Staff reviewed the local crime report from January 201 0 to October 2011 and did not find any crimes related to hedges within the front yard.The crime reports are limited to the type of crime,date,time,method of entry,type of loss and suspect arrest information. The crime analysis does not specifically address landscape design.As such,Staff contacted the Sheriff's Department for more information and found that there is no evidence suggesting that the type or height of front yard landscaping encourages or discourages crime. ALTERNATIVE As noted in the Background section of this Staff Report,on July 26,2011,a majority of the Planning Commission agreed to direct Staff to relay the Commissioners'opinion to the City Council that hedges in the front yard setback should not be taller than 42"in height.Given that the Commission has since struggled to obtain consensus on a code amendment recommendation to the City Council,as an alternative to Staff's recommendation,the Planning Commission may want to consider seeking direction on the proposed code amendment from the new City Council. ATTACHMENT •P.C.Minutes (dated October 25,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated October 25,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated July 26,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated July 26,2011) 4-12 P.c.Minutes (December 13,2011) 4-13 taff,how will the topic of whether or not these districts are needed be reopened and a ressed. irector Pfost explained that would be a separate task assigned by t City e noted that staff can suggest to the Council that this be done. Vice Chairma moved to approve staff's recommendation regard'g the proposed land use chang to the General Plan Land Use Map,seconde y Commissioner Emenhiser. d that many of these areas are si Ificantly obsolete,much more so than some of the er zoning issues the Comm'sion has seen.He did not think he could support the rna 'on unless the Overlay D'tricts were removed or redone accu rately. Chairman Tomblin agreed,and aske the Vice airman if he would amend his motion to add a recommendation that after sta 're mmendation is approved that a recommendation be taken to the City Cou it to ask staff to look at these Overlay Control Districts and make any necessa m ifications and/or corrections. Vice Chairman Tetreault stated he as not in fav of modifying his motion as he was not convinced it was necessary d it appeared it w Id take quite a bit of staff's time. He did not think the current 0 rlay Districts were imp ing anyone's use,enjoyment, or development of their pro rty.He added that currentl e did not have enough information and understa Ciing of what the impacts would b 0 make that recommendation and uld keep his motion as stated. The motion to a rove the proposed land use changes to the neral Plan Land Use Map as re ommended by staff was approved (3-1)with Com 'ssioner Leon dissenting. Chairm Tomblin requested that this item be brought back at the next agen addr s some of the concerns that have been raised. ommissioners Lewis and Gerstner returned to the dais. CONTINUED BUSINESS 1.Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2010-00293) Vice Chairman Tetreault felt that the Commission should do its best to resolve this issue while the current Commission is seated and before any new Commissioners are appointed.The Commission agreed. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 4-14 Director Rojas noted that one of staff's suggested alternatives is for the Commission to forward this proposed code amendment back to the new City Council for direction,since this proposed code amendment was a result of direction from the previous Council. The Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to January 10, 2012. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.Minutes of November 22,2011 Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the minutes as presented,seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser.Approved,(4-0-2)with Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis abstainin~since they were absent from the meeting. ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDAS 8.Pre-Agenda for the meeting on January 10,2012 The Commission reviewed and approved the pre-agenda. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes December 13,2011 4-15 P.c.Staff Report (December 13,2011) 4-16 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF T E PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVE P T DIRECTOR DECEMBER 13,2011 CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO.ZON2010-00293)TO CREATE A NEW PROCESS FOR HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO SIMPLIFY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS. So Kim,Associate Planner~ Discuss and provide direction to Staff on a proposed code amendmentto revise Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code,to 1)amend the review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications,and 2)establish a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties. DISCUSSION At the July 26th Planning Commission meeting,Staff presented detailed information related to the visibility analysis criteria that the City's Public Works Department would use to analyze hedges in the front yard setback,along with code language to allow hedges over 42"without a formal permit process (July 26,2011 Staff Report attached).While Staff suggested adding a permit process to address Staff time,documentation,maintenance and enforcement,the Commission felt that a new permit process was unnecessary (July 26,2011 excerpted Minutes attached). Prior to voting on the proposed code amendment,the Commission directed Staff (4-3 with Chairman Tomblin and Commissioners Emenhiser and Gerstner dissenting)to relay the Commission's opinion to the City Council that hedges in the front yard setback should not be taller than 42"in height. SUbsequently,with the understanding that the Council requested the Commission to develop a process to allow hedges to exceed 42"in the front yard setback,despite the Commission's opinion on the matter,the Commission approved (5-2,with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting) a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance that allows hedges over 42"and up to 6'in the front yard setback without a permit,provided there are no traffic visibility impacts or view impacts to private or public property.In addition,the ordinance changes the review of proposed structures in the intersection visibility triangle from the Planning Commission to the Director.Based on this discussion,the Commission continued the hearing to the August 9th meeting and directed Staff to return with a revised resolution. On August 9th ,the Commission voted 3-2 to adopt the resolution recommending the code amendment conceptually approved on July 26,2011 (Commissioners Knight and Leon dissenting & 4-17 Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis absent).Although Commissioner Leon originally voted in support of the code amendment at the July 26th hearing,he changed his mind after a visual analysis of the City and therefore voted against adoption of the resolution on August 9th •After the vote had been taken,Commissioner Gerstner joined the meeting.Upon learning that a vote had been taken on this item,Commissioner Gerstner asked for reconsideration of the item so that his vote could be reflected on record.The Commission voted to re-consider the previous vote on the resolution adoption (6-0,with Commissioner Lewis absent).Commissioner Gerstner explained that he is against the proposed code amendment because he believes that it increases Staff's time and the review process for residents,which he believed to be unnecessary.With Commissioner Gerstner present,the Commission noted that the outcome of the vote would be 3-3.Acknowledging that Commissioner Lewis in attendance could result in a different outcome,the Commission felt it was important that all of the Commissioners be present to vote on the resolution.As a result,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a meeting at which time all seven Commissioners are expected to be present. Accordingly,on September 2yth,the Planning Commission reviewed the resolution and a motion to adopt the resolution failed on a 2-5 vote,with Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstner,Knight,Leon and Lewis dissenting.Since the motion to adopt a resolution for a code amendment failed,the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Commissioners Lewis and Emen,hiser dissenting)to re-notice the item for further discussion at a future agenda.Subsequently,a duly noticed public hearing was held on October 25th •However,since not all Commissioners were present to discuss the code amendment in detail,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a future meeting at which time all seven Commissioners are expected to be present.As part of the continuance,the Commission directed Staff to provide any crime statistic information related to hedges in the front yard based on concerns raised by public speakers at the October 25th hearing related to hedges making it easier for criminals to hide. Per the Commission's direction,Staff reviewed the local crime report from January 2010 to October 2011 and did not find any crimes related to hedges within the front yard.The crime reports are limited to the type of crime,date,time,method of entry,type of loss and suspect arrest information. The crime analysis does not specifically address landscape design.As such,Staff contacted the Sheriff's Department for more information and found that there is no evidence suggesting that the type or height of front yard landscaping encourages or discourages crime. As noted in the Background section of this Staff Report,notwithstanding Staff's previous recommendation to the City Council that hedges in the front yard setback not be taller than 42"in height,the Council requested the Commission to develop a process to allow hedges to exceed 42" in the front yard setback.Given that the Commission has since struggled to obtain consensus on a recommendation to the City Council,as an alternative to Staff's recommendation,the Planning Commission may want to consider seeking direction on the proposed code amendment from the new City Council. ATTACHMENT •P.C.Minutes (dated October 25,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated October 25,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated July 26,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated July 26,2011) 4-18 P.C.Minutes (November 22,2011) 4-19 None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1.Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2010-00293): Director Rojas noted that the Commission has had a policy that this item be heard when all seven of the Commissioners are present,and given that two Commissioners are absent,he recommended the Commission continue this public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Knight moved to continue the public hearing to the December 13th meeting,seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser.Approved without objection. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit Revision (Case No.ZON2011-00262):6507 Ocean Crest Drive Commiss'ner Emenhiser recused himself from items 2 and 3 and left the da' Associate Plan r Kim presented the staff report,explaining the scope the project and pointing out 'ch antennas will be replaced and where the ne ntennas will be added.She stated tli t because the antennas are integrated so II and are painted to match the exterior color the building,staff was able to make I required findings and recommend approval of the roject. Chairman Tomblin asked if this p 'ect required any t e of mock-up. Associate Planner Kim explained that s ff did require a mock-up since the antennas could not be seen or their appeae will be extremely subtle. Chairman Tomblin asked if there will b new caB'ets installed at street level. Associate Planner Kim answere at there is currentl n equipment cabinet at street level that was approved by th ity.AT&T is proposing a ther cabinet next to the existing cabinet,noting tha e cabinet will be screened by iage. Commissioner Knigh eferred to condition No.19.He noted the p mit is good for a 10 year period,at wh'time the applicant can apply for a renewal of the ermit.He felt that the conditi was vague in regards to the review and approval proc s for the requested r ewal. Direct Rojas explained that the code requires the extension request go before t bo that approved the original permit.However,the Commission may want to put ore specific review criteria for this extension into the condition of approval. Planning Commission Minutes November 22,2011 4-20 P.c.Staff Report (November 22,2011) 4-21 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS 0 THE PLANN G COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DE L P NT DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 22,2011 CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO.ZON2010-00293)TO CREATE A NEW PROCESS FOR HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO SIMPLIFY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS. So Kim,Associate Planner if Discuss and provide direction to Staff on a proposed code amendment to revise Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code,to 1)amend the review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications,and 2)establish a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties. DISCUSSION At the July 26 th Planning Commission meeting,Staff presented detailed information related to the visibility analysis criteria that the City's Public Works Department would use to analyze hedges in the front yard setback,along with code language to allow hedges over 42"without a formal permit process (July 26,2011 Staff Report attached).While Staff suggested adding a permit process to address Staff time,documentation,maintenance and enforcement,the Commission felt that ~new permit process was unnecessary (July 26,2011 excerpted Minutes attached). Prior to voting on the proposed code amendment,the Commission directed Staff (4-3 with Chairman Tomblin and Commissioners Emenhiser and Gerstner dissenting)to relay the Commission's opinion to the City Council that hedges in the front yard setback should not be taller than 42"in height. Subsequently,with the understanding that the Council requested the Commission to develop a process to allow hedges to exceed 42"in the front yard setback,despite the Commission's opinion on the matter,the Commission approved (5-2,with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting) a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance that allows hedges over 42"and up to 6'in the front yard setback without a permit,provided there are no traffic visibility impacts or view impacts to private or public property.In addition,the ordinance changes the review of proposed structures in the intersection visibility triangle from the Planning Commission to the Director.Based on this discussion,the Commission continued the hearing to the August 9th meeting and directed Staff to return with a revised resolution. On August 9th ,the Commission voted 3-2 to adopt the resolution recommending the code amendment conceptually approved on July 26,2011 (Commissioners Knight and Leon dissenting & 4-22 Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis absent).Although Commissioner Leon originally voted in support of the code amendment at the July 26th hearing,he changed his mind after a visual analysis of the City and therefore voted against adoption of the resolution on August 9th •After the vote had been taken,Commissioner Gerstner joined the meeting.Upon learning that a vote had been taken on this item,Commissioner Gerstner asked for reconsideration of the item so that his vote could be reflected on record.The Commission voted to re-consider the previous vote on the resolution adoption (6-0,with Commissioner Lewis absent).Commissioner Gerstner explained that he is against the proposed code amendment because he believes that it increases Staff's time and the review process for residents,which he believed to be unnecessary.With Commissioner Gerstner present,the Commission noted that the outcome of the vote would be 3-3.Acknowledging that Commissioner Lewis in attendance could result in a different outcome,the Commission felt it was important that all of the Commissioners be present to vote on the resolution.As a result,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a meeting at which time all seven Commissioners are expected to be present. AccordingJy,on September 2th,the Planning Commission reviewed the resolution and a motion to adopt the resolution failed on a 2-5 vote,with Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstner,Knight,Leon and Lewis dissenting.Since the motion to adopt a resolution for a code amendment failed,the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Commissioners Lewis and Emenhiser dissenting)to re-notice the item for further discussion at a future agenda.Subsequently,a duly noticed public hearing was held on October 25th •However,since not all Commissioners were present to discuss the code amendment in detail,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a future meeting at which time all seven Commissioners are expected to be present.As part of the continuance,the Commission directed Staff to provide any crime statistic information related to hedges in the front yard based on concerns raised by public speakers at the October 25th hearing related to hedges making it easier for criminals to hide. Per the Commission's direction,Staff reviewed the local crime report from January 201 0 to October 2011 and did not find any crimes related to hedges within the front yard.The crime reports are limited to the type of crime,date,time,method of entry,type of loss and suspect arrest information. The crime analysis does not specifically address landscape design.As such,Staff contacted the Sheriff's Department for more information and found that there is no evidence suggesting that the type or height of front yard landscaping encourages or discourages crime. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment and provide detailed direction to Staff in preparation of a resolution for adoption at a future meeting.All of the previous Staff Reports containing Staff's discussion of the proposed code amendment issues are attached for reference. ATTACHMENT •P.C.Draft Minutes (dated October 25,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated October 25,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated July 26,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated JUly 26,2011) 4-23 P.c.Minutes (October 25,2011) 4-24 nas was aware CONTINUED BUSINESS 1.Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2010-00293) Commissioner Lewis suggested that,because two commissioners are not in attendance,and because of the discussions on this item at past meetings,that the Planning Commission Minutes October 25,2011 4-25 Commission hear a brief staff report,hear any public testimony,and consider continuing the item until there is a full Commission present to discuss the item. Associate Planner Kim presented a brief staff report,noting at the last hearing the Planning Commission had requested the item be renoticed and agendized for discussion at this meeting. Karl Price expressed his concerns with the idea of raising the height of hedges above 42 inches in the front yard setback.He felt it could create a potential safety hazard in terms of people hiding in these hedges.He also questioned if other cities in the area allow hedges over 42 inches in the front yard setbacks.He thought it would be a good idea to look at what other cities are doing,look at the recommendations or ideas that law enforcement and other safety personnel might have on this issue before proceeding., Maria Price also expressed her concerns with allowing the hedges over 42 inches in the front yard areas of homes. Commissioner Knight asked staff if they had any information in terms of crime statistics with respect to higher hedges in the front yard. Director Rojas stated that staff was not aware of any crime statistics related to hedge heights,but could check with the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Lewis moved to continue the public hearing to the November 22 nd meeting,seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault.Unanimously approved. Planning Commission Minutes October 25,2011 4-26 P.c.Staff Report (October 25,2011) 4-27 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PL NING COMMISSION ENT DIRECTOR CH~RMANANDMEMBER JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY OCTOBER 25,2011 CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO.ZON2010-00293)TO CREATE A NEW PROCESS FOR HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO SIMPLIFY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator:So Kim,Associate Planner tfiY'-' RECOMMENDATION Discuss and provide direction to Staff on a proposed code amendment to revise Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code,to 1)amend the review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications,and 2)establish a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties. DISCUSSION At the July 26th Planning Commission meeting,Staff presented detaited information related to the visibility analysis criteria that the City's Public Works Department would use to analyze hedges in the front yard setback,along with code languag.e to allow hedges over 42"without a formal permit process (July 26,2011 Staff Report attached).While Staff suggested adding a permit process to address Staff time,documentation,maintenance and enforcement,the Commission felt that a new permit process was unnecessary (July 26,2011 excerpted Minutes attached). Prior to voting on the proposed code amendment,the Commission directed Staff (4-3 with Chairman Tomblin and Commissioners Emenhiser and Gerstner dissenting)to relay the Commission's opinion to the City Council that hedges in the front yard setback should not be taller than 42"in height. Subsequently,with the understanding that the Council requested the Commission to develop a process to allow hedges to exceed 42"in the front yard setback,despite the Commission's opinion on the matter,the Commission approved (5-2,with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting) a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance that allows hedges over 42"and up to 6'in the front yard setback without a permit,provided there are no traffic visibility impacts or view impacts to private or public property.In addition,the ordinance changes the review of proposed structures in the intersection visibility triangle from the Planning Commission to the Director.Based on this discussion,the Commission continued the hearing to the August 9th meeting and directed Staff to return with a revised resolution. On August 9th ,the Commission voted 3-2 to adopt the resolution recommending the code amendment conceptually approved on July 26,2011 (Commissioners Knight and Leon dissenting & 4-28 Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis absent). Although Commissioner Leon originally voted in support of the code amendment at the July 26th hearing,he changed his mind after a visual analysis of the City and therefore voted against adoption of the resolution on August 9th •After the vote had been taken,Commissioner Gerstner joined the meeting.Upon learning that a vote had been taken on this item,Commissioner Gerstner asked for reconsideration of the item so that his vote could be reflected on record.The Commission voted to re-consider the previous vote on the resolution adoption (6-0,with Commissioner Lewis absent).Commissioner Gerstner explained that he is against the proposed code amendment because he believes that it increases Staffs time and the review process for residents,which he believed to be unnecessary.With Commissioner Gerstner present,the Commission noted that the outcome of the vote would be 3-3.Acknowledging that Commissioner Lewis in attendance could result in a different outcome,the Commission felt it was important that all of the Commissioners be present to vote on the resolution.As a result,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a meeting at which time all 7 Commissioners are expected to be present. Accordingly,on September 2th,the Planning Commission reviewed the resolution and a motion to adopt the resolution failed on a 2-5 vote,with Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstner,Knight,Leon and Lewis dissenting.Since the motion to adopt a resolution for a code amendment failed,the Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Commissioners Lewis and Emenhiser dissenting)to re-notice the item for further discussion at a future agenda.Subsequently,a public notice of the code amendment was published in the Peninsula News on October 6,2011 and this item has been agendized for discussion at tonight's'meeting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed code amendment and provide detailed direction to Staff in preparation of a resolution for adoption at a future meeting.All of the previous Staff Reports containing Staff's discussion of the proposed code amendment issues are attached for reference. ATTACHMENT •P.C.Draft Minutes (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated September 27,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Minutes (dated July 26,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated July 26,2011) 4-29 • P.C.Minutes (September 27,2011) 4-30 hairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Nicola aure (applicant)stated he has read the staff report and agrees with conditions approval,and was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Le asked if there is any antenna that would pro . e the same function but would be a smalle iameter and less visually imposing. Mr.Faure answered that this uest is for the new te nology ATT&T is using and at this time there are not smaller an nas that could e used that would work at the site. approve th roject as recommended by staff, thereby adopting PC Resoluf 2011-31,second by Commissioner Lewis. Approved,(6-0)with Com ssioner Emenhiser recus menhiser returned to the dais. Com ssioner Knight requested that item No.1 be removed from the Consent ~Cliscussion,and the Commission agreed. 2 Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2010-00293): The adoption of the Resolution failed,(2-5)with Commissioners Emenhiser, Gerstner,Knight,Leon and Lewis dissenting. Commissioner Knight explained his no vote was because there is nothing in the current resolution that allows for a clarification documentation as to the initial analysis of view impact or view visibility triangle,which is why he favored a permit process. Director Rojas explained that if the Commission would like to have more discussion on the hedge issue,there would have to be a motion to renotice the matter for further Planning Commission discussion,or staff can report to the City Council that the Planning Commission failed to adopt the Resolution. Commissioner Gerstner questioned whether or not further discussion was necessary, explaining the difficulty with this proposed code amendment is that the Commissioners have slightly different opinions about each of the individual pieces of this and therefore many of the Commissioners will lean towards voting no because of their strong belief in the one item that is particularly important to them.He felt further discussion would most likely end in the same place. Commissioner Emenhiser agreed with Commissioner Gerstner's comments. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 4-31 Vice Chairman Tetreault recalled that at the past meeting the Commission had split this item into two discussion,one being whether the Commission favored allowing hedges in excess of 42 inches in the front yard setback.The Commission voted 4-3 against it. With that,and knowing the City Council felt differently than the Commission and wanted direction,the Commission came up with this alternative plan which passed by a vote of 5-2.He stated it now sounds like the Commission has changed its decision and gone back to the 4-3 vote in favor of basically rejecting the entire proposal. Commissioner Gerstner explained that he is in favor of allowing hedges above 42 inches in the front yard setback,however he is against the methodology of control the City would impose in order to allow that to happen.He noted others on the Commission are against allowing hedges above 42 inches in the front yard setback,but if they are going to ~e allowed they are in favor of the methodology of control. Commissioner Knight explained his concern that there may be a hedge that is blocking a neighbors view and there is no documentation of the view when the hedge was shorter or recordation of what was established in the past,and each time the hedge grows too tall the process will have to start over.He didn't think it would be an efficient use of city resources. Director Rojas noted that the next several Planning Commission agendas are fairly light, and with that Commissioner Knight stated that because the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to report back to them,he might then be in favor of renoticing the item and having a new discussion on it. Commissioner Knight moved to re-notice and re-agendize this item to be discussed at a future meeting,seconded by Commissioner Gerstner.Approved, (5-2)with Commissioners Lewis and Emenhiser dissenting. Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON2011-Q0239):6923 Vallon Drive Commission night explained that he asked this item be removed fr e Consent Calendar because wanted staff to clarify the State and Feder egulations that preempt the Commissio solar panels. other regulations to solar panels, other than those of health and safety im Therefore,the code is very simplified and there is a streamlined process·e Plannt Department for solar panels. However,for solar panels th tend above the ridge·of a home,additional criteria have been added for r . w by the City in regards to safety·ues.He noted solar panels are still re ·red to get a building permit from Building an fety. Com .sioner Lewis moved to approve the item as recommended by s conded by Commissioner Leon.Approved without objection. Planning Commission Minutes September 27,2011 4-32 P.c.Staff Report (September 27,2011) 4-33 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN AND MBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS,COM I DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 27,20 CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO.ZON2010-00293)TO CREATE A NEW PROCESS FOR HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO SIMPLIFY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS. So Kim,Assistant Planner#, Adopt P.C.Resolution No.2011-_,thereby recommending to the City Council the adoption of an Ordinance to revise Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code,to 1}amend the review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications,and 2)establish a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties. DISCUSSION At the July 26th PC meeting,Staff presented detailed information related to the visibility analysis criteria that the City's Public Works Department would use to analyze hedges in the front yard setback,along with code language to allow hedges over 42"without a formal permit process.While Staff suggested adding a permit process to address Staff time,documentation,maintenance and enforcement,the Commission felt that a new permit process was unnecessary. Prior to voting on the proposed code amendment,the Commission directed (4-3 with Chairman Tomblin and Commissioners Emenhiser and Gerstner dissenting)Staff to relay the Commission's opinion to the City Council that hedges in the front yard setback should not be taller than 42"in height.Subsequently,with the understanding that the Council requested the Commission to develop a process to allow hedges to exceed 42"in the front yard setback,despite the Commission's opinion on the matter,the Commission approved (5-2,with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting)a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance that allows hedges over 42"and up to 6'in the front yard setback without a permit,provided there is no traffic visibility impacts or view impacts to private or public property.In addition,the ordinance changes the review of proposed structures in the intersection visibility triangle from the Planning Commission to the Director.Based on this discussion,the Commission continued the hearing to the August 9th meeting and directed Staff to return with a revised resolution. On August 9th ,the Commission voted 3-2 to adopt the resolution recommending said code amendment (Commissioners Knight and Leon dissenting &Commissioners Gerstner and Lewis absent).Although Commissioner Leon originally voted in support of the code amendment at the 4-34 July 26th hearing,he changed his mind after a visual analysis of the City and therefore voted against adoption of the resolution on August 9th •After the vote had been taken,Commissioner Gerstner joined the meeting.Upon learning that a vote had been taken on this item,Commissioner Gerstner asked for reconsideration of the item so that his vote could be reflected on record.The Commission voted to re-consider the previous vote on the resolution adoption (6-0,with Commissioner Lewis absent).Commissioner Gerstner explained that he is against the proposed code amendment because he believes that it increases Staff's time and the review process for residents,which he believed to be unnecessary.With Commissioner Gerstner present,the Commission noted that the outcome of the vote would be 3-3.Acknowledging that Commissioner Lewis in attendance could result in a different outcome,the Commission felt it was important that all of the Commissioners be present to vote on the resolution.As a result,the Planning Commission agreed to continue the matter to a meeting at which time all 7 Commissioners are expected to be present.Since all Commissioners are expected to be present on September 27,2011,this item has been placed on the consent calendar. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's adopted Rules and Procedures,when voting on a resolution that represents a decision made at a prior meeting,each Commissioner should ensure that his or her vote is accurately represented by stating so at the meeting.For example,if a Commissioner voted "no"on the proposed code amendment at the prior meeting,they should vote "no"on a motion to approve the resolution.However,as illustrated by Commissioner Leon,a Commissioner can change their mind and register a different vote on the resolution than how they voted at the July 26 th meeting.It should also be noted that because the public hearing was closed on JUly 26th ,if additional discussion or public input is desired,a majority of the Commissioners will need to agree to re-notice the item so the public hearing can be re-opened. ATTACHMENT •P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ •P.C.Minutes (dated August 9,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated August 9,2011) 4-35 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,AMENDING TITLE 17 (DEVELOPMENT CODE)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,TO AMEND THE INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS AND ESTABLISH PROCEDURES ALLOWING HEDGES ABOVE 42"WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (ZON2010-00293). WHEREAS,on October 5,2010,the City Council authorized the initiation of a code amendment to revise the City's hedge height regulations within the front yard setback (Chapter 17.76.030 -Fences,Walls and Hedges),acknowledging that there are non-conforming properties within the City that currently have hedges that exceed the allowable;and WHEREAS,on February 1,2011,Staff recommended that the City Council withdraw the code amendment based on the finding that allowing hedges over 42"in height may be detrimental to public safety.However,the City Council felt that there may be situations where a hedge oVer 42"in height within the front yard setback could be allowed and directed Staff to create a new permit process;and, WHEREAS,during the analysis,Staff found that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)had similarities that necessitates amendments to both Chapters;and, WHEREAS,a notice was published on May 5,2011,pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 ef.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the code amendment qualifies as a ministerial project and therefore exempt from the application of CEQA (Section 21080);and,. WHEREAS,on May 24,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 14,2011,thereby allowing Staff additional time for analysis;and, WHEREAS,on June 14,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 26,2011 and directed Staff to provide additional information related to the criteria used for traffic visibility analysis and consider a modified process to allow hedges in excess of 42";and, WHEREAS,on July 26,2011,the Planning Commission approved the code amendment with a modification and directed Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption at the August 9,2011 public hearing;and, WHEREAS,on August 9,2011,the Planning Commission directed Staff to bring back the resolution for adoption on the next consent calendar agenda when all seven Commissioners are expected to be present;and, P.C.Resolution No.2011- 4-36 WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 27,2011,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:The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code. Section 2:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853,zoning amendment procedures. Section 3:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment,and enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods. Section 4:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area. Section 5:The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges}of Title 17 be revised to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language;the text in strikethrough is to be deleted): 17.48.070 -Intersection Visibility A.In districts where the required front or street-side setbacks allow a bUilding to be constructed within the intersection visibility triangle,fences,walls, structures or shrubbery may be allowed to exceed the prescribed height limit,if they are setback from the property line a distance equal to the setback of the allowed building. B.Trees located within the intersection visibility triangle which are trimmed to the trunk up to a minimum branch height of 6'above the adjacent street curb elevation are exempt from these regulations. C.The intersection visibility triangle shall be shown on all landscaping plans, grading plans and tentative tract maps for related intersections when required by the director.In cases where an intersection is located on a vertical curve,a profile of the sight line may also be required by the director. Any landscape plan submitted shall show the common name,locations and mature dimensions plotted to scale of all proposed trees,shrubs and plants within the intersection visibility triangle. P.C.Resolution No.2011- 4-37 D.Proposed improvements or structures which exceed the 30"height limit may be permitted in the intersection visibility triangle by the planning commission director through a site plan review application,upon determination by the director of public works that the location and/or height of the existing or proposed structure within the intersection visibility triangle allows for the safe view of oncoming traffic by a driver approaching an intersection,and thus no intersection visibility impacts would result.Upon approval by the planning commission of any such structure or improvement, the director shall provide written notice of the planning commission's decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the planning commission's director's decision to the city council planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 17.76.030'-Fences,walls and hedges A.Purpose.These standards provide for the construction of fences,walls and hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment of views. B.Fences,Wall and Hedge Permit. 1.Permit Required.A fence,wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence,wall or hedge placed within the rear yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge placed within the side yard setback adjacent tot an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director),except as specified below: a.Fences,walls or hedges located where the grade differential between the bUilding pads of adjacent lots,measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence,wall or hedge,is two feet or less in elevation;or b.Fences,walls or hedges where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence,wall or hedge;or c.Fences,walls or hedges when the top of the fence,wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2.Findings.A fence,wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a.That the fence,wall or hedge would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts),of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan ,as a city-designated viewing area.Views P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ 4-38 shall be taken from a standing position,unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position; b.That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,whichever is lower,and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts)or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,as ca city-designated viewing area,shall be removed prior to permit approval.This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by the which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property; c.That placement or construction of the fence,wall or hedge shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d.Notwithstanding finding (2)(a)(subsection (B)(2)(a)of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b)and (2)(c)(subsections (B)(2)(b)and (B)(2)(c)of this section)listed above can be made and either: i.Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property;or ii.Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements contained in subsection E of this section and there is no reasonable method to comply with subsection E of this section that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. 3.Notice of Decision.The notice of decision of a fence,wall and hedge permit shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of the subject property.Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 4.This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ 4-39 5.The director,the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health,safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section. 6.In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of the development code or the building code,the most restrictive provisions apply. C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: 1.Residential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and bUilding height)of this title; ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and bUilding height)of this title;and iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall be permitted. b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a)of this section shall meet the following standards: i.Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection visibility)of this title; ii.Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a),except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts); iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as P.C.Resolution No.2011- 4-40 measured from grade on the lower side,and may not exceed six feet,as measured from grade on the higher side; iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower side;provided,the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C)(environmental protection)of this title. 2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard and street- side setback areas shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. b.Fences,walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or P.C.Resolution No.2011- 4-41 street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental protection) of this title. D.Fences,Walls and Hedges -Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit. 1.The following fences,walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits): a.Fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),higher than forty- two inches and up to six feet in height located in the front and street- side setback areas;provided,the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped,per a plan approved by the director of planning; b.A fence,wall or hedge,or any combination thereof,located outside of a front or street-side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured form grade on the higher side; c.Fences higher than six feet and up to ten feet in height and not within the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational facilities.The fence above the six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh,or similar material,capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. 2.In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits),the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the following criteria in assessing such an application: a.The height of the fence,wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare; b.The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (Single-Family Residential Districts)of this title; c.On corner lots,intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title is not obstructed;and d.The height of the retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. P.C.Resolution No.2011- 4-42 E.Hedges permitted within the front yard setback.Hedges (not fences,walls or combination thereof)that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-yard setback and/or intersection visibility triangle provided that: 1.No portion of the hedge will exceed 6 feet in height; 2.The location and/or height of the exiting or proposed hedge allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause another visual impairment that would adversely affect the public health,as determined by the director of public works;and 3.The height of the hedge does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another residential parcel,and/or a view from public property (parks,major thoroughfares,bike ways,walkways or equestrian trails)which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,as city- designated viewing areas,as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration)of this title. E.General Regulations. 3.Fences,walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet of each other,as measured from their closest points,unless at least one of the fences,walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership.Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit. 4.Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section;provided, a grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. 5.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas and§tanding bodies of water eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located not less than four feet above the ground.Such fences, walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building official. 6.The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay District)of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,posted in a visible location,warning that an electrified fence is in use. P.C.Resolution No.2011- 4-43 7.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior fagade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front property line,in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior fagade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line,and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a.Crenshaw Boulevard; b.Crest Road; c.Hawthorne Boulevard; d.Highridge Road; e.Miraleste Drive; f.Palos Verdes Drive East; g.Palos Verdes Drive North; h.Palos Verdes Drive South; i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and j.Silver Spur Road. Section 6:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified,revoked,expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they existing prior to the effective date of said ordinance. Section 7:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. Section 8: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 to amend Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code to revise the review process for structures within the intersection visibility triangle area and to create a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height up to 6'maximum within the front yard setback of residential properties (ZON2010-00293). P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ 4-44 PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2yth day of September 2011,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: David L.Tomblin Chairman Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ 4-45 P.C.Minutes (August 9,2011) 4-46 CONSENT CALENDAR 1.Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2010-00293): Director Rojas explained that this item is a Resolution reflecting the Planning Commission decision from a previous meeting.He stated that pursuant to the Planning Commission rules,the City Attorney has noted that the Planning Commission can change their decision before adopting the Resolution.He also explained that if a Commissioner wants their vote reflected as a "no"vote,then he should vote "no"on the Consent Calendar. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to approve the Consent Calendar,seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Leon stated that he has re-thought his position on this particular item, explaining he believes 42 inches is too restrictive as an absolute limit and will change his vote to "no". The Consent Calendar was approved,(3-2)with Commissioners Leon and Knight dissenting. Commissioner Gerstner arrived shortly after the vote,expressing his apology for being late.He noted that he had wanted to take part in the vote for this item and asked staff if that was possible. Director Rojas explained that a vote was taken,however if a Commissioner who voted in the affirmative wants to reopen the item for reconsideration,he may do so. Vice Chairman Tetreault moved to reopen the item for reconsideration,seconded by Chairman Tomblin.The motion was approved,(6-0). Commissioner Gerstner explained that he had made statements at the previous meeting that he felt the hedges could be higher,but felt the City was proposing to significantly increase staff's requirements and did not think that expansion of City involvement was necessary.He therefore intended to vote "no"on the Consent Calendar item. Commissioner Emenhiser moved to continue the Consent Calendar to a meeting where all seven Commissioners are in attendance,seconded by Commissioner Knight. Commissioner Knight explained that he made the second on the motion since the vote with Commissioner Lewis in attendance could result in a different result than if the vote were made at this meeting.He felt it was important that all of the Commissioner's vote be reflected. 4-47 The motion to continue the Consent Calendar to a meeting where all seven Commissioners are in attendance was approved,(7-0). ONTINUED BUSINESS 2.Site Plan Review (Case No.ZON2011-00083):30800 Palos Verdes Dr"e ast Director R . s presented the staff report,explaining the item is a request ~roof equipment at arymount College.He noted that at a previous hearing e Commission raised several estions,and staff has received a request from the ap icant requesting more time to ade ately address those issues.Therefore,staff is r ommending the public he?ring be c tinued to the September 13,2011 meeting. Chairman Tomblin aske the Director if there is now clear dir tion from the City Council as to whether or n t the roof equipment is allowed der the Conditional Use Permit. Director Rojas responded that th City Council has d ermined that Marymount is operating under the Conditional Us Permit that th City Council approved last year, and the City Council further clarified hich condi'ns of approval apply now versus later.Therefore,there is no issue that is pro sal is inconsistent with the Conditional Use Permit or that it needs a CUP revisio . Commissioner Knight moved to conti ue e public hearing to September 13, 2011 as recommended by staff,sec nded b Commissioner Emenhiser. Approved,(6-0). NEW BUSINESS 3.General Plan Consi Lane Case No.ZO 2010-00210:Cherry Hill Associate Planner Fa presented the staff report,explaining the 'ty Council had recently agreed to rchase a tax defaulted property on Cherry Hill ane for public purposes,specifi ally landslide abatement and storm water manage nt.As noted in the staff report he Government Code requires the planning agency of e City to make a determinaf n of consistency with the General Plan when a City acquire roperty.He stated that taff believes that acquisition of the property is consistent with th goals and policies the General Plan and therefore staff has prepared a Resolution of a option. Chao man Tomblin noted that the Commission's discussion should not be whether r not it as a wise decision for the City to purchase the property,but rather if the purchas ould confirm with the General Plan. 4-48 P.C.Staff Report (August 9,2011) 4-49 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECQMMENDATJON COMMUMlTY DEVelOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAN AND M SERS Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJASt COMM EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AUGUST 9,2011 CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO.ZON2010..o0293)TO CREATE A NEW PROCESS FOR HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO SIMPLIfY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS. So Kim,Assistant Planner ~ Adopt P.C.Resolution No.2011 •thereby recommending to the City Council the adoption of an Ordinance to revise Chapters'010 (Jntersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.16.030 (Fences. Walls and Hedges)ofTitle 17 (Zoning)of the City's MuniCipal Code,to·'}}amemHhe review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications.and 2)establish a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties. PISCUSSJON At the July 26 th PC meeti Staff presented detailed information related to the visibility analysis criteria that the Cit~l Works Department would use to analyze hedges in the front yard setback,along with code language tnallow hedges over 42"without a formal permit process ..While Staff suggested adding a permltprocess to address Staff time,documentation,maintenance and enforcement the Commission felt that a new permit process was unnecessary. Prior tovoliAg on the prqposed·.code amendment.the .CQmmissiol1 directed .(4~3 with Chairman Tombfin and Commis$ioners Emenhiser and Gersmer dissenting)Staff to relay the Commission's opinion to the City Councilthathecfges in the front Yard setback shOUld not be taller than 42"in heigbt.Subsequently.with the .understanding that the Council requested the Commission to develop a process to anow hedges to exceed 42"in the front yard setback,despite the Comm.ission's opinion ontnematter,the Commission approved (5-2,with commissioners Gerstner and Kr'light dissenting)a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance that allows hedges over 42"and up to 6'in the front yard setback without a permit.provided there Is no traffic Visibility impacts or view impacts to priVate or public property.In addition.the ordinance changes the review of proposed structures in the intersectton visibility triangle from the Planning Commission to the Director.As directed,Staff prepared the attached resolution to memorialize the Commission's recommendation to the City Council for the Commission's consideration and adoption at tonight's meeting. ATTACHMENT •P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ 4-50 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,AMENDING TITLE 17 (DEVELOPMENT CODE)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,TO AMEND THE INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS AND ESTABLISH PROCEDURES ALLOWING HEDGES ABOVE 42"WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF RESDIENTIAL PROPERTIES (ZON2010-00293). WHEREAS,on October 5,2010,the City Council authorized the initiation of a code amendment to revise the City's hedge height regulations within the front yard setback (Chapter 17.76.030 -Fences,Walls and Hedges),acknowledging that there are non-conforming properties within the City that currently have hedges that exceed the allowable;and WHEREAS,on February 1,2011,Staff recommended that the City Council withdraw the code amendment based on the finding that allowing hedges over 42"in height may be detrimental to public safety.However,the City Council felt that there may be situations where a hedge over 42"in height within the front yard setback could be allowed and directed Staff to create a new permit process;and, WHEREAS,during the analysis,Staff found that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)had similarities that necessitates amendments to both Chapters;and, WHEREAS,a notice was published on May 5,2011,pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the code amendment qualifies as a ministerial project and therefore exempt from the application of CEQA (Section 21080);and. WHEREAS,on May 24,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 14,2011,thereby allowing Staff additional time for analysis;and, WHEREAS,on June 14,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 26,2011 and directed Staff to provide additional information related to the criteria used for traffic visibility analysis and consider a modified process to allow hedges in excess of 42";and, WHEREAS,on July 26,2011,the Planning Commission approved the code amendment with a modification and directed Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption at the August 9,2011 public hearing;and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on August 9, 2011.at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. 4-51 NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code. Section 2:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853,zoning amendment procedures. Section 3:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment,and enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods. Section 4:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area. Section 5:The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 be revised to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language;the text in strikethrough is to be deleted): 17.48.070 -Intersection Visibility A.In districts where the required front or street-side setbacks allow a building to be constructed within the intersection visibility triangle,fences,walls, structures or shrubbery may be allowed to exceed the prescribed height limit,if they are setback from the property line a distance equal to the setback of the allowed building. B.Trees located within the intersection visibility triangle which are trimmed to the trunk up to a minimum branch height of 6'above the adjacent street curb elevation are exempt from these regulations. C.The intersection visibility triangle shall be shown on all landscaping plans, grading plans and tentative tract maps for related intersections when required by the director.In cases where an intersection is located on a vertical curve,a profile of the sight line may also be required by the director. Any landscape plan submitted shall show the common name,locations and mature dimensions plotted to scale of all proposed trees,shrubs and plants within the intersection visibility triangle. D.Proposed improvements or structures which exceed the 30"height limit may be permitted in the intersection visibility triangle by the planning Gommission director through a site plan review application,upon determination by the director of public works that the location and/or height 4-52 of the existing or proposed structure within the intersection visibility triangle allows for the safe view of oncoming traffic by a driver approaching an intersection,and thus no intersection visibility impacts would result.Upon approval by the planning commission of any such structure or improvement, the director shall provide written notice of the planning commission's decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the planning commission's director's decision to the city council planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 17.76.030 - Fences,walls and hedges A.Purpose.These standards provide for the construction of fences,walls and hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment of views. B.Fences,Wall and Hedge Permit. 1.Permit Required.A fence,wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence,wall or hedge placed within the rear yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge placed within the side yard setback adjacent tot an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director),except as specified below: a.Fences,walls or hedges located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent lots,measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence,wall or hedge,is two feet or less in elevation;or b.Fences,walls or hedges where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence,wall or hedge;or c.Fences,walls or hedges when the top of the fence,wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2.Findings.A fence,wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a.That the fence,wall or hedge would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts),of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,as a city-designated viewing area.Views shall be taken from a standing position,unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position; b.That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,whichever is lower,and 4-53 impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts)or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,as ca city-designated viewing area,shall be removed prior to permit approval. This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by the which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property; c.That placement or construction of the fence,wall or hedge shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d.Notwithstanding finding (2)(a)(subsection (B)(2)(a)of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b)and (2)(c)(subsections (B)(2)(b)and (B)(2)(c)of this section)listed above can be made and either: i.Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property;or ii.Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements contained in subsection E of this section and there is no reasonable method to comply with subsection E of this section that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. 3.Notice of Decision.The notice of decision of a fence,wall and hedge permit shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of the subject property.Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 4.This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 5.The director,the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health,safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section. 4-54 6.In the case of conflict between the provIsions of this section and other provisions of the development code or the building code,the most restrictive provisions apply. C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: 1.Residential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard-setback area shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and building height)of this title; ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and building height)of this title;and iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall be permitted. b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a)of this section shall meet the following standards: i.Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection visibility)of this title; ii.Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a),except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts); iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as measured from grade on the lower side,and may not exceed six feet,as measured from grade on the higher side; iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, 4-55 as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower side;provided,the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C)(environmental protection)of this title. 2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard and street- side setback areas shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title.. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. b.Fences,walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental protection) of this title. 4-56 D.Fences,Walls and Hedges -Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit. 1.The following fences,walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits): a.Fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),higher than forty- two inches and up to six feet in height located in the front and street- side setback areas;provided,the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped,per a plan approved by the director of planning; b.A fence,wall or hedge,or any combination thereof,located outside of a front or street-side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured form grade on the higher side; c.Fences higher than six feet and up to ten feet in height and not within the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational facilities.The fence above the six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh,or similar material,capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. 2.In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits),the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the following criteria in assessing such an application: a.The height of the fence,wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare; b.The line of sight over or throug.h the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (Single-Family Residential Districts)of this title; c.On corner lots,intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title is not obstructed;and d.The height of the retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. E.Hedges permitted within the front yard setback.Hedges (not fences,walls or combination thereof)that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-yard setback and/or intersection visibility triangle provided that: 1.No portion of the hedge will exceed 6 feet in height; 4-57 2.The location and/or height of the exiting or proposed hedge allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver exiting his or her driveway and does not cause another visual impairment that would adversely affect the public health,as determined by the director of public works;and 3.The height of the hedge does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another residential parcel,and/or a view from public property (parks.major thoroughfares,bike ways,walkways or equestrian trails)which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,as city- designated viewing areas,as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration)of this title. F.General Regulations. 3.Fences,walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet of each other,as measured from their closest points,unless at least one of the fences,walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership.Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit. 4.Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section;provided, a grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. 5.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas and standing bodies of water eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located not less than four feet above the ground.Such fences, walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building official. 6.The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay District)of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,posted in a visible location,warning that an electrified fence is in use. 7.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior fagade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front property line,in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior fagade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side 4-58 property line,and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a.Crenshaw Boulevard; b.Crest Road; c.Hawthorne Boulevard; d.Highridge Road; e.Miraleste Drive; f.Palos Verdes Drive East; g.Palos Verdes Drive North; h.Palos Verdes Drive South; i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and j.Silver Spur Road. Section 6:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified,revoked,expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they existing prior to the effective date of said ordinance. Section 7:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. Section 8: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 to amend Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code to revise the review process for structures within the intersection visibility triangle area and to create a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height up to 6'maximum within the front yard setback of residential properties (ZON201 0-00293). 4-59 PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of August 2011,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: David L.Tomblin Chairman Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 10 of 10 4-60 P.C.Minutes (July 26,2011) 4-61 General Plan Update -Review Chairman Tomblin opened the Deputy 'rector Pfost presented the staff report,noting staffs recommendation t the proposed t t regarding passive versus non-passive land use designations b aeferred to a future me 'ng so that staff has the opportunity to speak to members the public who have expres d concerns.He noted that the remainder of the pro sed General Plan text that is befo the Commission was publically noticed,no changes have been made,and could b iscussed by the Commission this ev ng .. Ken Dyda stated that he came to spe on the iss of parks,but was gratified to hear the Commission is considering reviewing e en ' e General Plan issue.In regards to the park issue,he felt there was a deliberate sition taken to differentiate between active arid passive.He stated that neith staff the City Council at the time was really responsible for the General Pia ,and its gene .was basically from over 250 residents who struggled for a year:come up with it an ut the terms in the document. He felt that any change,in ter of the General Plan,sho go back to review the goals report to see why the aid what they did and why the di rentiations are there. He commended the Co ission for wanting to look at more than e park portion and felt that was appropr:'e, Commission Lewis moved to continue the public hearing until suc ime as staff has (J an opportunity to meet with members of the public,and p vide at least 3 ays notice to the public that this will be before the Planning Co ission.The notice should conspicuously describe that the issue of ac'e a passive use designations will be discussed at the meeting,seconded by ommissioner Gerstner.Approved,(7-0). 1.Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2010-00293) Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report,gave a brief background of this proposed code amendment,noting that at the previous meeting the Planning Commission had questions related to how Public Works would conduct a visibility analysis and directed staff to return with more information,She explained,as discussed in the staff report,the criterion used by the Public Works Department is written by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.She noted that because every residential property has different topography,layout,location on the street,and different traffic flow,Public Works conducts a traffic visibility analysis that is customized on a case by case basis,Therefore it is difficult to have standard language that could be codified on how the analysis is actually done.She also noted there was mention at the last meeting to consider modifying the 20 foot setback to 10 feet.She explained that the shortest distance the Public Works Department conducts a view analysis from is 14.4 feet,and because of other variables to be considered,staff is recommending leaving the setback at 20 feet.Additionally,she explained that the Planning Commission had asked staff to craft code language that would be somewhat Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 4-62 similar to view restoration in that having a hedge over 42 inches would not automatically become a code enforcement issue if the hedge had no visibility or view impacts.She noted that staff had several concerns with this type of language with regards to documentation,maintenance,enforcement and staff's time.After speaking to the City Attorney on this matter,staff added a subsection that requires a hedge owner to apply for a permit.She noted that two resolutions have been included in the staff report:one reflecting the original Planning Commission direction and one with the added subsection requiring a permit. Commissioner Knight noted that there is an analysis for visibility,but the proposed amendment also deals with view impact.He asked staff what standards would be used in evaluating view impact. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the same criteria used by the Planning Department now in terms of primary viewing area in looking at height variation applications,as well as view restoration and view preservation applications. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked why staff and the City Attorney felt that a permit process was necessary. Assistant Planner Kim explained that staff was concerned that there would be no way to document the height at which a certain hedge over 42 inches would cause a view impairment.Without some type of documentation every time a concern is raised regarding the hedge height it would cause planning staff and public works staff to do a view analysis and traffic visibility analysis.A permit process would give documentation that the hedge does not cause view impairment at a specified height and if the hedge exceeds that height,it would trigger a code enforcement case. Vice Chairman Tetreault noted that in some cases a tree may be allowed to grow up to 40 feet in height,depending on topography and location,without any type of permit. However,this proposal would force residents to get a permit for a hedge over 42 inches in height even though it may not cause any adverse impacts to traffic or views.He was concerned about requiring permits for things that don't have any adverse impacts. Deputy Director Pfost understood the Vice Chairman's concerns,and explained that staff had concerns about being able to document what an approved height for a particUlar hedge might be,specifically because the hedge is in the front yard and there could be traffic impacts.Staff wanted to be able to acknowledge and document the height of the hedge so there is an enforcement mechanism to ensure the hedge stays at the approved height. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if,by the fact that code enforcement staff is called out to a particular site for an over-height hedge and writes a letter stating the hedge must be reduced to a specific height,that there is then documentation as to how high the hedge can grow. Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 4-63 Deputy Director Pfost explained that code enforcement staff would go to a site and require a hedge be reduced in height,however this height is not acknowledged anywhere except for a closed code enforcement file.By requiring a permit,the permit will be on file in the address file and will acknowledge the height of the hedge. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked if there has ever been an instance where a hedge less than 42 inches in height has caused a public safety issue. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the code allows a hedge up to 42 inches in height, and therefore was not aware of any situation where a hedge under 42 inches would cause a public safety issue.He noted that with properties in the intersection visibility triangle,hedges are restricted to only 30 inches in height. Commissioner Gerstner asked if staff currently gets phone calls about hedges blocking driveways and causing safety issues. Deputy Director Pfost answered that code enforcement staff gets calls regarding hedges,but thought it was more of an aesthetic issue rather than a traffic safety issue. Commissioner Gordon felt that an unanticipated consequence of allowing hedges over 42 inches in height is that there is the possibility that several houses in a row will then have a six foot hedge along their front property line.He asked staff if views from the public right-of-way have been considered,specifically if there has been any discussion regarding significant view impacts from the public right-of-way. Assistant Planner Kim answered there has not been such a discussion. Deputy Director Pfost added that the height variation findings include a finding that talks about views from public property,and similar language could be added to this. Commissioner Knight could see the benefit to staffs recommendation regarding a permit,noting that city staff would only have to make an analysis of the hedge once and not have to go back to the property every time a complaint is made.He noted this recommendation only addresses hedges in the front yard setback,and asked staff what would happen with a corner lot. Assistant Planner Kim explained that this recommendation is structured to include hedges in the front yard setback and hedges in the intersection visibility triangle.The intersection visibility triangle would take in hedges on a corner lot in both the front and side yards. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Julie Scrivens stated she was against staffs recommendations for several reasons. She questioned if staff had discussed this with the Fire Department or the Sheriffs Department in regards to safety issues.She noted at the last meeting it was stated that Planning Commission Minutes JUly 26,2011 4-64 the Public Works Department would prefer hedges in the front yard setback at 30 inches,and that staff has pointed out that only 10 to 20 percent of the residents that are in violation.She explained that when she moved into her home she had a view, however today there is no view because of neighbor's hedges.She was also concerned about the safety of children in the neighborhood. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt staff's recommendation with the exception of subdivision 4 concerning the permit process,seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Lewis explained that he felt staff was well intentioned in suggesting a permit process but he felt it brings undo burden on the residents in terms of the application.He felt that it creates more bureaucracy and didn't think it solved any problems. Commissioner Gerstner felt a clear understanding and definition of an intersection was needed.He questioned if the intersection is two streets or if it is being defined as the intersection of the street and a driveway.He didn't think something should be created that will cause the City a lot of extra work in analyzing traffic views out of driveways. Deputy Director Pfost noted the intersection visibility triangle is clearly defined in the Development Code,and read the definition to the Commission. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if the recommendation,as written,would include an analysis of visibility coming out of a driveway. Deputy Director Pfost answered that the way it is currently worded Public Works would go out to a property and view the driveway. With that,Commissioner Gerstner stated that he would be against the motion. Commissioner Emenhiser stated he agreed with Commissioner Lewis and his concern with item 4.He also understood Commissioner Gerstner's comments regarding the burden on staff.However,he stated that he was in favor of the motion. Commissioner Leon moved to include a reference in paragraph 3 to include views from public property as well as viewing areas in the motion. Commissioner Lewis accepted the amendment and Commissioner Emenhiser seconded. Commissioner Knight noted that this code amendment was generated from the City Council and staff was directed to bring an amendment to the Planning Commission.He asked staff what motivated the City Council to ask that this code be changed. Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 4-65 Assistant Planner Kim explained that there were quite a few complaints about hedges that were brought to the attention of code enforcement.In looking at hedges,it was noted that there are quite a few hedges in the City that are in violation of the current code.Staff suggested a code amendment to the City Council,who agreed to the code amendment initiation.After researching the subject,staff felt that leaving the code at 42 inches was prudent,and went to the City Council in an attempt to withdraw the code amendment initiation request.However,the City Council felt there might be situations where hedges can be taller than 42 inches and not be a safety hazard,and asked to find a way to allow that on certain properties. Commissioner Knight stated he was in favor of including views from public rights-of- way.In terms of taking out number 4,he had mixed feelings.He understood not wanting to require additional permits to residents and the added regulations.However, he under-stood the intent was to try to save the City money as well as the property owner's aggravation since it will cause the City to come out every time to reanalyze the hedge. Vice Chairman Tetreault felt that if the Commission were looking to decrease the work load of staff in regards to these hedges,he was not sure how this helps and could not see how this addresses the problem.He noted that the City does not currently allow six-foot tall fences and walls in front yard setbacks,and a hedge is just a growing wall. He felt that by allowing this,the City is permitting a change in the aesthetics of neighborhoods.He wouldn't want to see neighborhoods become more and more walled off from the street and look more like private estates.He understood that the City Council may want some type of amendment,however he also felt they should hear from the Planning Commission and possibly hear a contrary view.For that reason he was opposed to changing the current code of 42 inches. Commissioner Gerstner moved to amend the motion to also eliminate staff's paragraph No.2,but keep Commissioner Leon's amendment to paragraph 3. Commissioner Gerstner explained that by eliminating item NO.2 it would effectively allow hedges to exceed 6 feet in height as long as they don't impair views from viewing areas or the public right-of-way.He stated this would still give staff the ability to review hedges in terms of the intersection visibility triangle. Chairman Tomblin seconded the motion. Commissioner Leon asked staff if they felt the City Council wants to allow six-foot high hedges in the front yard setback as long as they meet a set of criteria,or are they relatively silent on the six-foot versus forty-two inch issue. Assistant Planner Kim clarified that the City Council wanted some type of process to allow hedges over forty-two inches in height and did not specify whether or not they wanted a maximum height of six feet. Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 4-66 Commissioner Knight pointed out that if the Commission agrees to move ahead to eliminate the language in 2 and 4 then the language should be adjusted in E to remove the portion discussing the visibility triangle,which is discussed in a separate section of the Code. Commissioner Gerstner agreed and moved to amend his motion to also correct the language in E to say "permitted in the front yard setback with exception to the intersection visibility triangle".Seconded by Chairman Tomblin. Vice Chairman Tetreault expressed a concern in that this proposal is now removing a public safety element where clearly there could be a public safety issue.He stated that if he were to weigh staff time versus public safety,public safety would win. Commissioner Knight asked staff if the other section of the code dealing with the visibility triangle would also address the public safety issues that are a concern of the Vice Chairman. Deputy Director Pfost explained that there is a section of the Code that discusses the visibility triangle,and public safety issues would be addressed in that section,however that section of the code does not discuss where a driveway may exit elsewhere on the property and the public safety issues with that situation. Commissioner Lewis stated that he does not support Commissioner Gerstner's proposed amendment and would like to retain paragraph 2.If the City Council chooses to allow hedges that exceed 42 inches,then paragraph 2 is important. In regards to the motion to eliminate staff's paragraph 2,the motion failed by a vote of (3-4)with Commissioners Emenhiser,Knight,Lewis,and Vice Chairman Tetreault dissenting. Deputy Director Pfost summarized the original motion,which is to adopt staffs recommendation with the exception of No.4,and add to NO.3 the issue of views from public property. Commissioner Leon felt that the majority of the City has very suburban types of neighborhoods with front yards that are roughly connected together and having a 42 inch hedge height limit,by right,is consistent with the City's current urban design.He felt that going to a 6 foot hedge height is inconsistent with the City's current urban design.Voting for this code amendment will allow people to have,by right,six foot hedges around their entire properties,which he felt would negatively impact the community. To that extent,Commissioner Lewis agreed.However,he felt the mandate from the City Council was to find a way to allow hedges over 42 inches in height in the front yard setback.He stated that he would be willing to amend his motion to add a conspicuous Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 4-67 and explicit statement that the Planning Commission feels that as a better policy the City should not allow hedges over 42 inches in the front yard setback. Vice Chairman Tetreault agreed,however felt it might be better to have such language as a separate motion. Chairman Tomblin agreed that the City Council has given the Planning Commission a mandate and the Commission is working to meet the request of the Council.However, the Commission has some reservations,and he thought splitting the vote was a good idea to give an opinion and to express their concerns. Commissioner Leon preferred to have the Planning Commission's opinion as part of the original motion.He stated he could support the motion if it included a recommendation that the first choice is to leave the hedge height at 42 inches and the second choice is to raise the height if necessary. Commissioner Lewis agreed to amend his motion to say that the Planning Commission recommends leaving the hedge height at 42 inches;however,if the City Council desires to make any changes then adopt staff's recommendation with the exception to subsection 4 and include a reference to paragraph 3 to include views from public property,seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Deputy Director Pfost felt it would be beneficial if the Planning Commission would express to the City Council their concerns in allowing hedges up to six feet in height in the front yard setback. Commissioner Lewis withdrew his motion and proposed two new motions.The first motion is for staff to convey to the City Council that the City continue to restrict hedges in the front yard setback to 42 inches in height.The second motion was to adopt staff's recommendation with the exception to subsection 4 and include a reference to paragraph 3 to assess views from public property, seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Commissioner Lewis explained that his intent was that no matter how the vote comes out for the first motion,the Planning Commission will still vote on the second motion to give the City Council their recommendation should they choose to allow hedges over 42 inches. The first motion for staff to convey to the City Council that the Planning Commission feels 42 inch high hedges in the front yard setback is a sufficient height was approved,(4-3)with Commissioners Emenhiser,Gerstner,and Chairman Tomblin dissenting. The second motion to adopt staff's recommendation excluding paragraph 4,and include a reference of not blocking views from property was approved,(5-2)with Commissioners Gerstner and Knight dissenting. Planning Commission Minutes July 26,2011 4-68 P.c.Staff Report (July 26,2011) 4-69 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAIN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOri).~~ JULY 26,2011 '& CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO.ZON2010-00293)TO CREATE A NEW REVIEW PROCESS FOR HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO SIMPLIFY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS. So Kim,Assistant Planner I'fW Adopt P.C.Resolution No.2011-_,thereby recommending to the City Council the adoption of an Ordinance to revise Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code,to 1)amend the review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications,and 2)establish a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties. BACKGROUND The City's Development Code limits the height of any fence,wall,or hedge located within the front yard setback area of a residential property to 42"in height.The front setback is generally the area of the lot within 20'of the front property line.Periodically,staff will receive complaints about hedges within the front yard setback area in excess of the 42"height limit,which are then pursued by the City's Code Enforcement Division.Hedges are defined as "shrubbery or trees planted and maintained in such a manner as to create a physical barrier"(RPVDC §17 .96.900).While in most situations,the violations are brought into compliance,sometimes hedge owners protest the requirement by pointing out similar violations in their residential neighborhood.Furthermore,they question the harm of alloWing hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback area,pointing out that those hedges are part of landscaping that add to the attractiveness of a home.After speaking to the City Attorney about this issue,it was agreed that staff would revisit the hedge height regUlation and refrain from pursuing non-compliant hedge height complaints while a potential Code amendment is contemplated. On October 5,2010,this matter was forwarded to the City Council as a request to consider initiating a code amendment to revise the City's hedge height regulations to possibly allow hedge heights in excess of 42"within the front yard setback area.At the meeting,the City Council considered the Director's proposal and authorized Staff to move forward with the matter.However,upon further discussion with the Public Works Department,Staff found that the Public Works Staff expressed a concern that alloWing hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback may limit the visibility of motorists backing out of a driveway,which could result in a collision,potentially with a pedestrian on 4-70 the side walk.As such,on February 1,2011 ,Staff recommended that the City Council withdraw the previous code amendment initiation.However,during the public hearing,the City Council inquired whether Staff could pursue a process where in certain situations a hedge over 42"in height within the front yard setback could be allowed.Staff informed the City Council that a new permit process could be created to potentially allow hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback,upon Public Works Department review and approval.City Council favored this alternative and directed Staff to pursue a code amendment that would create a review process to allow this. Based on City Council's direction,Staff presented a new review procedure for hedges over 42':in height within the front yard setback area for Planning Commission review on June 14th (Staff Report is attached).The new review procedure would require the Public Works Department and Planning Division to conduct site visits to determine if there are any traffic visibility or view impacts resulting from the proposed hedge.The Planning Commission questioned the visibility analysis criteria and directed Staff to return with more details.Since there are numerous properties in the City with hedge height violations within the front yard setback,the Planning Commission also directed Staff to look into considering these situations as violations only if they result in visibility or view impacts. DISCUSSION Atthe last public hearing on June 14th ,the Planning Commission directed Staff to retum with details on how the visibility analysis is done by the Public Works Department (PW).The PW uses the criteria taken from the 1990 edition of "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", written by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).Based on AASHTO criteria,the PW analyzes the visibility obstruction from the driveway,measuring 20' back from the edge of pavement at 4.25'in height.The 4.25'height is considered the eye level of an individual sitting inside a vehicle.The 20'distance from the edge of pavement is typically used for homes that face a major road,such as Palos Verdes Drive East.A shorter distanc~of 14.4'is used for homes that face a private road where the speed of traffic is slower.As such,depending on where the residence is located and the speed of traffic on the street of access,the point of analysis changes accordingly. The Planning Commission also asked Staff to entertain a modified setback for hedges within the front yard setback.In other words,while the current code limits all structures and/or hedges within the 20'front yard setback to 42"in height,the Planning Commission raised the possibility of allowing hedges in excess of 42"beyond a 10'setback.After discussing this with PW,since 14.4'is the shortest distance in which visibility analysis is conducted and there are other variables to consider, such as speed of traffic,access points,lot configuration,which vary from lot to lot,Staff recommends leaving the 20'setback as it is. Since the current Code limits all obstructions within the front yard setback to 42"in height,properties with hedges in excess of that height are considered non-compliant and can be reported as code violations.Given that properties with these violations are not uncommon throughout the City,the Planning Commission directed Staff to consider these situations as violations only if they do result in traffic visibility or view impacts as a result of the new process.Staff discussed this possibility with PW,Code Enforcement Division and the City Attomey and determined that this can be done.Staff laid out a hypothetical scenario below to explain this process in detail. Currently,code violations for hedges in the front yard setback are only enforced as a reactionary process where a resident needs to inform the Code Enforcement Division of an alleged violation. Once the call is received,a Code Enforcement officer takes the initiative to conduct a site visit to verify the allegation.With Staffs proposed change,the process up to this point would remain the 4-71 same.The proposed new process would then involve the Code Enforcement Division contacting a planner and a PW Staff for a site visit to conduct a traffic visibility and view analysis.Once this is completed,a determination would be made on whether or not the property in question has a code violation.If the existing hedge in excess of 42"does not cause traffic visibility or view impacts,it will not be considered a code violation and the property will be clear of the allegation.Specifically,if the existing hedge in excess of 42"causes traffic visibility and/or view impacts,it will be considered a code violation and the Code Enforcement Division will proceed with their existing protocol;letting the property owner know how much of the hedge will need to be trimmed based upon the City's traffic visibility and view impact analysis. The revised procedure,which is contained in the attached Resolution and summarized below as new subsection 17.76.030.E in strikethrough and underlined text,establishes new language to allow hedge over 42"in height.. 17.76.030 -Fences,walls and hedges E.Hedges permitted within the front yard setback.Hedges (not fences.walls or combination thereof)that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-yard setback and/or intersection visibility triangle provided that: 1.No portion of the hedge will exceed 6 feet in height: 2.The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver exiting his or her driveway or causes another visual impairment that would adversely affect the public health and safety,as determined by the director of public works: and 3.The height of the hedge does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 Niew Preservation and Restoration)of this title. At the June 14th Commission meeting,Staff proposed some modification to the Intersection Visibility Triangle (IVT)section of the code.No further changes are being proposed at this time.As a reminder,Staff is proposing to change the existing IVT process so that the decision making body is changed from the Planning Commission to the Director.All other aspects of the IVT process are proposed to remain the same.The proposed changes to existing section 17.48.070 are contained in the attached Resolution and summarized below in strikethrough and underlined text. 17.48.070 -Intersection Visibility On comer lots located at the intersection of 2 or more highways,streets or common driveways or combinations thereof,in all districts.no fence,wall,hedge,sign,structure, shrubbery,mound of earth or other visual obstruction over 30"in height,as measured from the adjacent street curb elevation,shall be erected,placed planted or allowed to grow within the.triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle."The intersection visibility triangle shall be the area formed by the intersection of extended curblines and a line joining points on the curb 60'(measured along the curblines)from the point of intersection of the curbline extensions. 4-72 A.In districts where the required front or street-side setbacks allow a building to be constructed within the intersection visibility triangle,fences,walls,structures or shrubbery may be allowed to exceed the prescribed height limit,if they are setback from the property line a distance equal to the setback of the allowed building. B.Trees located within the intersection visibility triangle which are trimmed to the trunk up to a minimum branch height of 6'above the adjacent street curb elevation are exempt from these regulations. C.The intersection visibility triangle shall be shown on all landscaping plans, grading plans and tentative tract maps for related intersections when required by the director.In cases where an intersection is located on a vertical curve,a profile of the sight line may also be required by the director.Any landscape plan submitted shall show the common name,locations and mature dimensions plotted to scale of all proposed trees,shrubs and plants within the intersection visibility triangle. D.Proposed improvements or structures which exceed the 30"height limit may be permitted in the intersection visibility triangle by the planning commission director through a site plan review application,.upon determination by the director of public works that the location and/or height of the existing or proposed structure within the intersection visibility triangle allows for the safe view of oncoming traffic by a driver approaching an intersection,and thus no intersection visibility impacts would result.Upon approval by the planning commission of any such structure or improvement,the director shall provide written notice of the planning Gommission's decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the planning oommission's director's decision to the oity council planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Staff understands that the Commission may prefer a process that allows hedges to exceed 42" without a permit and thus that is how the sections above were structured.However,Staff is concerned regarding how any analysis conducted by Staff would be documented,how a hedge that is greater than 42"will be maintained at a height that will ensure no traffic visibility or view impacts without necessitating Staff to continuously visiting a property to ensure compliance,and how the costs for Staff's time to conduct its investigation will be accounted for.To address these concerns, Staff recommends that the Commission consider adding the following additional sub-section to the proposed 17.76.030(E): 4.The property owner submits a complete application and fee (as adopted by City Council)for a Site Plan·Review permit and obtains approval of said permit.The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval that specifies the hedge's permitted height above 42"and that the hedge shall be maintained at said height. 4-73 CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposed Code Amendment,as reviewed by the Public Works Department and City Attorney,is consistent with the City Council's direction to establish a process to allow hedges above 42"within the front yard setback of private residential properties.As such.based on the discussion above,Staff recommends that the Commission recornmend that the City Council approve the proposed code amendment. ALTERNATIVES The following alternative is available for the Planning Commission's consideration in addition to Staff's recommendation: 1.Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendments,and direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments for consideration by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: •P.C.Resolution No.2011- •P.C.Resolution No.2011·-(w/additional sub-section no.4) •P.C.Staff Report (dated June 14,2011) •P.C.Staff Report (dated May 24,2011) 4-74 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,AMENDING TITLE 17 (DEVELOPMENT CODE)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,TO AMEND THE INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS AND ESTABLISH PROCEDURES ALLOWING HEDGES ABOVE 42"WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF RESDIENTIAL PROPERTIES (ZON2010-00293). WHEREAS,on October 5,2010,the City Council authorized the initiation of a code amendment to revise the City's hedge height regulations within the front yard setback (Chapter 17.76.030 -Fences,Walls and Hedges),acknowledging that there are non-conforming properties within the City that currently have hedges that exceed the allowable;and WHEREAS,on February 1,2011,Staff recommended that the City Council withdraw the code amendment based on the finding that allowing hedges over 42"in height may be detrimental to public safety.However,the City Council felt that there may be situations where a hedge over 42"in height within the front yard setback could be allowed and directed Staff to create a new permit process;and, WHEREAS,during the analysis,Staff found that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)had similarities that necessitates amendments to both Chapters;and, WHEREAS,a notice was published on May 5,2011,pursuant to the requirements ofthe Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and, WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the code amendment qualifies as a ministerial project and therefore exempt from the application of CEQA (Section 21080);and, WHEREAS,on May 24,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 14,2011,thereby allowing Staff additional time for analysis;and, .WHEREAS,on June 14,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 26,2011 and directed Staff to provide additional information related to the criteria used for traffic visibility analysis and consider a modified process to allow hedges in excess of 42";and, WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 26, 2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 1 of 10 4-75 Section 1:The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code. Section 2:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853,zoning amendment procedures. Section 3:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment,and enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods. 'Section 4:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area. Section 5:The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 be revised to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language;the text in strikethrOl:Jgh is to be deleted): 17.48.070 -Intersection Visibility A.In districts where the required front or street-side setbacks allow a building to be constructed within the intersection visibility triangle,fences,walls, structures or shrubbery may be allowed to exceed the prescribed height limit,if they are setback from the property line a distance equal to the setback of the allowed building. B.Trees located within the intersection visibility triangle which are trimmed to the trunk up to a minimum branch height of 6'above the adjacent street curb elevation are exempt from these regulations. C.The intersection visibility triangle shall be shown on all landscaping plans, grading plans and tentative tract maps for related intersections when required by the director.In cases where an intersection is located on a vertical curve,a profile of the sight line may also be required by the director. Any landscape plan submitted shall show the common name,locations and mature dimensions plotted to scale of all proposed trees,shrubs and plants within the intersection visibility triangle. D.Proposed improvements or structures which exceed the 30"height limit may be permitted in the intersection visibility triangle by the planning commission director through a site plan review application,upon determination by the director of public works that the location and/or height of the existing or proposed structure within the intersection visibility triangle allows for the safe view of oncoming traffic by a driver approaching an intersection,and thus no intersection visibility impacts would result.Upon P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 2 of 10 4-76 approval by the planning semmissien of any such structure or improvement, the director shall provide written notice of the planning sommission's decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the planning sommission's director's decision to the sity sounsil planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 17.76.030 -Fences,walls and hedges A.Purpose.These standards provide for the construction of fences,walls and hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment of views. 'B.Fences,Wall and Hedge Permit. 1.Permit Required.A fence,wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence,wall or hedge placed within the rear yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge placed within the side yard setback adjacent tot an interior side property line of any contiguo!Js or abutting parcel (as determined by the director),except as specified below: a.Fences,walls or hedges located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent lots,measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence,wall or hedge,is two feet or less in elevation;or b.Fences,walls or hedges where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence,wall or hedge;or c.Fences,walls or hedges when the top of the fence,wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2.Findings.A fence,wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a.That the fence,wall or hedge would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts),of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan ,as a city-designated viewing area.Views shall be taken from a standing position,unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position; b.That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,whichever is lower,and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel.as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts)or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 3 of 10 4-77 coastal specific plan,as ca city-designated viewing area,shall be removed prior to permit approval.This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by the which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property; c.That placement or construction of the fence,wall or hedge shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d.Notwithstanding finding (2)(a)(subsection (B)(2)(a)of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b)and (2)(c)(subsections (B)(2)(b)and (B)(2)(c)of this section)listed above can be made and either: i.Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the applicant's property'and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property;or ii.Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements contained in subsection E of this section and there is no reasonable method to comply with subsection E of this section that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. 3.Notice of Decision.The notice of decision of a fence,wall and hedge permit shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of the subject property.Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 4.This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 5.The director,the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health,safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section. 6.In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of the development code or the building code,the most restrictive provisions apply. P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 4 of 10 4-78 C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: 1.Residential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and building height)of this title; ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and building height)of this title;and iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall be permitted. b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a)of this section shall meet the following standards: i.Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection visibility)of this title; ii.Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a),except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts); iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as measured from grade on the lower side,and may not exceed six feet,as measured from grade on the higher side; iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower side;provided,the height of each individual fence, P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 5 of 10 4-79 freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C)(environmental protection)of this title. 2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard and street- side setback areas shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. b.Fences,walls and hedges·located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental protection) of this title. D.Fences,Walls and Hedges -Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit. 1.The following fences,walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits): P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 6 of 10 4-80 a.Fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),higher than forty- two inches and up to six feet in height located in the front and street- side setback areas;provided,the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped,per a plan approved by the director of planning; b.A fence,wall or hedge,or any combination thereof,located outside of a front or street-side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured form grade on the higher side; c.Fences higher than six feet and up to ten feet in height and not within the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational facilities.The fence above the six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh,or similar material,capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. 2.In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits),the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the following criteria in assessing such an application: a.The height of the fence,wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare; b.The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (Single-Family Residential Districts)of this title; c.On corner lots,intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title is not obstructed;and d.The height of the retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. E.Hedges permitted within the front yard setback.Hedges (not fences,walls or combination thereof)that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-yard setback and/or intersection visibility triangle provided that: 1.No portion of the hedge will exceed 6 feet in height: 2.The location and/or height of the exiting or proposed hedge allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver existing his or her driveway.or causes another visual impairment that would adversely affect the P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 7 of 10 4-81 public health,as determined by the director of public works; and 3.The height of the hedge does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration)of this title. F.General Regulations. 3.Fences,walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet of each other,as measured from their closest points,unless at least one of the fences,walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership.Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit. 4.Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section;provided, a grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. 5.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas and standing bodies of water eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the.outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching deviceJocated not less than four feet above the ground.Such fences, walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building official. 6.The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay District)of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,posted in a visible location,warning that an electrified fence is in use. 7.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior fayade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front property line,in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior fayade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line,and within a rear yard setback which abuts the follOWing arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a.Crenshaw Boulevard; b.Crest Road; P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 8 of 10 4-82 c.Hawthorne Boulevard; d.Highridge Road; e.Miraleste Drive; f.Palos Verdes Drive East; g.Palos Verdes Drive North; h.Palos Verdes Drive South; i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and j.Silver Spur Road. Section 6:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified,revoked,expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they existing prior to the effective date of said ordinance. Section 7:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date ofthe adoption of said ordinance. Section 8: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 to amend Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code to revise the review process for structures within the intersection visibility triangle area and to create a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height up to 6'maximum within the front yard setback of residential properties (ZON201 0-00293). P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 9 of 10 4-83 PASSEp,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July 2011,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: David L.Tomblin Chairman Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission '\ P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 10 of 10 4-84 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,AMENDING TITLE 17 (DEVELOPMENT CODE)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,TO AMEND THE INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS AND ESTABLISH PROCEDURES ALLOWING HEDGES ABOVE 42"WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF RESDIENTIAL PROPERTIES (ZON2010-00293). WHEREAS,on October 5,2010,the City Council authorized the initiation of a code amendment to revise the City's hedge height regulations within the front yard setback (Chapter 17.76.030 -Fences,Walls and Hedges),acknowledging that there are non-conforming properties within the City that currently have hedges that exceed the allowable;and WHEREAS,on February 1,2011,Staff recommended that the City Council withdraw the code amendment based on the finding that allowing hedges over 42"in height may be detrimental to pUblic safety.However,the City Council felt that there may be situations where a hedge over 42"in height within the front yard setback could be allowed and directed Staff to create a new permit process;and, WHEREAS,during the analysis,Staff found that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)had similarities that necessitates amendments to both Chapters;and, WHEREAS,a notice was published on May 5,2011,pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and, '\ WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Wast~and Substances Statement),the code amendment qualifies as a ministerial project and therefore exempt from the application of CEQA (Section 21080);and, WHEREAS,on May 24,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to June 14,2011,thereby allowing Staff additional time for analysis;and, WHEREAS,on June 14,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to July 26,2011 and directed Staff to provide additional information related to the criteria used for traffic visibility analysis and consider a modified process to allow hedges in excess of 42";and, WHEREAS,,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 26, 2011,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 1 of 10 4-85 Section 1:The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code. Section 2:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853,zoning amendment procedures. Section 3:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment,and enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods. 'Section 4:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area. Section 5:The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 be revised to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language;the text in strikethrough is to be deleted): 17.48.070 -Intersection Visibility A.In districts where the required front or street-side setbacks allow a building to be constructed within the intersection visibility triangle,fences,walls, structures ,or shrubbery may be allowed to exceed the prescribed height limit,if they are setback from the property line a distance equal to the setback of the allowed building. B.Trees located within the intersection visibility triangle which are trimmed to the trunk up to a minimum branch height of 6'above the adjacent street curb elevation are exempt from these regUlations.. C.The intersection visibility triangle shall be shown on all·landscaping plans, grading plans and tentative tract maps for related intersections when required by the director.In cases where an intersection is located on a vertical curve,a profile of the sight line may also be required by the director. Any landscape plan submitted shall show the common name,locations and mature dimensions plotted to scale of all proposed trees,shrubs and plants within the intersection visibility triangle. D.Proposed improvements or structures which exceed the 30"height limit may be permitted in the intersection visibility triangle by the planning Gommission director through a site plan review application,upon determination by the director of public works that the location and/or height of the existing or proposed structure within the intersection visibility triangle allows for the safe view of oncoming traffic by a driver approaching an intersection,and thus no intersection visibility impacts would result.Upon P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 20f 10 4-86 approval by the planning commission of any such structure or improvement, the director shall provide written notice of the planning oommission's decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the planning oommission's director's decision to the oity oounoil planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 17.76.030 -Fences,walls and hedges A.Purpose.These standards provide for the construction of fences,walls and hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment of views. B.Fences,Wall and Hedge Permit. 1.Permit ReqUired.A fence,wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence,wall or hedge placed within the rear yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge placed within the side yard setback adjacent tot an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director),except as specified below: a.Fences,walls or hedges located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent lots,measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence,wall or hedge,is two feet or less in elevation;or ,b.Fences,walls or hedges where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence,wall or hedge;or c.Fences,walls or hedges when the top of the fence,wall or hedge is at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2.Findings.A fence,wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a.That the fence,wall or hedge would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts),of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan ,as a city-designated viewing area.Views shall be taken from a standing position,unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position; b.That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,whichever is lower,and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts)or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 3 of 10 4-87 coastal specific plan,as ca city-designated viewing area,shall be removed prior to permit approval.This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by the which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property; c.That placement or construction of the ferice,wall or hedge shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d.Notwithstanding finding (2)(a)(subsection (B)(2)(a)of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b)and (2)(c)(subsections (B)(2)(b)and (B)(2)(c)of this section)listed above can be made and either: i.Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property;or " ii.Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming pool fencing requirements contained in subsection E of this section and there is no reasonable method to comply with subsection E of this section that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. 3.Notice of Decision.The notice of decision of a fence,wall and hedge permit shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of the subject property.Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 4.This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 5.The director,the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the public health,safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section. 6.In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of the development code or the building code,the most restrictive provisions apply. P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 4 of 10 4-88 C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: 1.Residential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and building height)of this title; ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed fOrty-two inches,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and building height)of this title;and iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall be permitted. b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a)of this section shall meet the following standards: i."Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a) except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection visibility)of this title; ii.Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not sUbject to subsection (C)(1 )(a),except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts); iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as measured from grade on the lower side,and may not exceed six feet,as measured from grade on the higher side; iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower side;provided,the height of each individual fence, P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 5 of 10 4-89 freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C)(environmental protection)of this title. 2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard and street- side setback areas shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining Wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. b.Fences,walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental protection) of this title. D.Fences,Walls and Hedges -Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit. 1.The following fences,walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits): P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 6 of 10 4-90 a.Fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),higher than forty- two inches and up to six feet in height located in the front and street- side setback areas;provided,the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped,per a plan approved by the director of planning; b.A fence,wall or hedge,or any combination thereof,located outside of a front or street-side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured form grade on the higher side; c.Fences higher than six feet and up to ten feet in height and not within the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational facilities.The fence above the six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh,or similar material,capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. 2.In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits),the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the following criteria in assessing such an application: a.The height of the fence,wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare; , b.The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (Single-Family Residential Districts)of this title; c.On corner lots,intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title is not obstructed;and d.The height of the retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits settorth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. E.Hedges permitted within the front yard setback.Hedges (not fences,walls or combination thereof)that exceed 42 inches in height are allowed within the front-yard setback and/or intersection visibility triangle provided that: 1.No portion of the hedge will exceed 6 feet in height: 2.The location and/or height of the exiting or proposed hedge allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver existing his or her driveway.or causes another visual impairment that would adversely affect the P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 7 of 10 4-91 public health,as determined by the director of public works: and 3.The height of the hedge does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View Preservation and Restoration)of this title. 4.The property owner submits a complete application and fee (as adopted by City Council)for a Site Plan Review permit and obtains approval of said permit.The approval of said permit shall include a condition of approval that specifies the hedge's permitted height above 42"and that the hedge shall be maintained at said height. 'F.General Regulations. 3.Fences,walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet of each other,as measured from their closest points,unless at least one of the fences,walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership.Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit. 4.Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section;provided, a grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. "5.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas and standing bodies of water eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five .feet in height measured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located not less than four feet above the ground.Such fences, walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building official. 6.The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay District)of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,posted in a visible location,warning that an electrified fence is in use. 7.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior fayade of the existing single-family residence closest to the front property line,in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior fayade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 8 of 10 4-92 property line,and within a rear yard setback which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: a.Crenshaw Boulevard; b.Crest Road; c.Hawthorne Boulevard; d.Highridge Road; e.Miraleste Drive; f.Palos Verdes Drive East; g.Palos Verdes Drive North; h.Palos Verdes Drive South; i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and j.Silver Spur Road. Section 6:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified,revoked,expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they eXisting prior to the effective date of ~aid ordinance. Section 7:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. Section 8: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 to amend Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code to revise the review process for structures within the intersection visibility triangle area and to create a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height up to 6'maximum within the front yard setback of residential properties (ZON2010-00293). P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 9 of 10 4-93 PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July 2011,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: David L.Tomblin Chairman Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission , P.C.Resolution No.2011-_ Page 10 of 10 4-94 , P.C.Minutes (June 14,2011) 4-95 gOMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE {regarding non-agenda items}:. None CONTINUED BUSINESS 1.Site Plan Review {Case No.ZON2011-0008~1;30800 Palos Verdes Drive West Director Rojas presented the staff report,recapping the Planning Commission's discussion of the item at their last meeting and explaining that since the last meeting staff has received an extension request from the College and given that,staff is recommending the public hearing be continued to the August 9 th meeting.He noted that th~re are no speaker slips submitted and that the Commission received late correspondence for the item. Commissioner Gerstner stated that since there isn't any new information to hear or discuss,that the public hearing should be continued as recommended by staff. George Zugsmith expressed concern,noting that at the previous meeting Mr.Reeves stated he did not have the authority to grant an extension.however days after the meeting Mr.Reeves sent an email to staff requesting the extension.He questioned if Mr.Reeves has the authority to request the extension and if staff can accept the request from Mr.Reeves. Director Rojas explained that Mr.Reeves is a representative of the college and therefore has standin~to request an extension.He stated that staffs interpretation at the last meeting was that Mr.Reeves most likely wanted to check with Dr.Brophy before requesting the extension. Commissioner Gerstner moved to continue the public hearing to August 9,2011 as recommended by staff,seconded by Vice Chairman Tetreault.Approved without objection. 2.Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2010-(0293) Assistant Planner Kim presented the staff report,explaining how the code currently addresses fences,walls and hedges in the front yard setback of a property and how the City Council authorized staff to go ahead with a staff initiated code amendment to potentially revise the current hedge height regulations in the code.She explained that during the analysis the Public Works Department found that any fence or hedge over 30 inches in height within the front yard setback may cause a safety hazard by limiting the visibility of the motorist existing the driveway,of the view of the pedestrians using the sidewalk,or the vehicles on the street.Based on this information,staff recommended that the City Council authorize staff to withdraw this application.However,the City Council felt there are instances where hedges above 42 inches could be allowed on Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 2 4-96 some properties and directed staff to explore other alternatives.Therefore,staff has suggested a new permit process to allow hedges over 42 inches in the front yard setback as outlined in the staff report.She stated that staff believes the proposed code amendment is consistent with the City Council's direction and is recommending approval. Commissioner Gerstner asked staff if they know the exact basis on which Public Works will use to analyze whether or not there will be a safety risk in allowing a hedge over 42 inches in the front yard setback. Assistant Planner Kim replied that staff does not know the exact details of the Public Works analysis,however there currently is a method in place which is used by Pu bUc Works to look at traffic visibility within the intersection visibility triangle area,and Public Works·staff has indicated they will use the same method to analyze hedges in the front yard setback. Commissioner Gerstner stated he would want to know what that method is and he would prefer that the method be written in the code so that a resident applying for this would have a basis to understand what the criteria are under which they can have hedges in their front yard.He felt there could be problems if the criteria are applied in a subjective manner. Commissioner Emenhiser asked staff if they had any idea how many properties in the city have hedges over 42 inches in their front yard setback,and questioned if this is a solution in search of a problem. Director Rojas did not know the answer but estimated it is likely more than ten percent of the properties in the city. Vice Chairman Tetreault asked how this ordinance would be used.He asked if it was envisioned that a resident that wants a tall hedge might come to the city to try to obtain approval for that hedge or would it be something that would happen in code enforcement where someone would be cited and then given the option to apply to have the taller hedge remain. Assistant Planner Kim answered that the idea is that the ordinance would apply to both situations.Staff acknowledges that there are many properties in the city with hedges over 42 inches and height and would like to have this application available so that these residents can come to the City to apply to keep their hedge.In regards to code enforcement issues,once a complaint is received and verified code enforcement staff would sent the resident a letter giving them the option of trimming the hedge to 42 inches or submitting an application to allow the hedge at a height higher than 42 inches. Director Rojas explained that if the recommendation goes forward to the City Council and the Ordinance is enacted,permits will be needed for new hedges or to legalize existing hedges over 42 inches.He added that staff feels most applications will be Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 3 4-97 after-the-fact applications for hedges already in place.He stated that hedges already in place will be subject to after-the-fact application fees.Therefore,he felt there is a policy issue for the City Council to decide as to whether or not they want to grandfather in any hedges or perhaps not charge an after-the-fact fee for the application a certain time period. Commissioner Gerstner asked why staff didn't pursue an ordinance that does not limit the height of the hedge in the front yard setback to the extent they don't impair visibility or views. Director Rojas explained that the code is more restrictive in regards to fences,walls, and hedges in the front setback in order to attempt to maintain the openness from the street and discourage the fortified look that taller fences,walls and hedges in the front yard setback may create. Chairman Tomblin asked staff issues prompted staff to recommend this change to the code. Director Rojas explained that staff receives complaints about hedges and the hedge owners have pointed out that these types of hedges exist all over the City.Staff felt that if there is a situation which is prevalent throughout the City,and there are very few complaints,that the section of the Code should be looked at and reconsidered. Commissioner Gerstner asked if one could have a bush or a tree over 42 inches in the front yard setback. Director Rojas answered that a bush or tree over 42 inches is allowed in the front yard setback. Chairman Tomblin opened the public hearing. Mark Scrivens stated he lives on Jaybrook Drive,which is a very narrow street with poor visibility and agreed with the concerns regarding safety.He felt that allowing the hedges to grow over 42 inches would be detrimental to the area,noting there are blind curves on the street.He was also concerned with the aesthetics of allowing 6 foot hedges in the front yard setback,noting on smaller streets such as his that the properties would begin to look like mini compounds.He was further concerned about view issues and whether or not the 6 foot hedges would cause view impairments to neighboring properties.He noted his concerns with the subjectivity of proposed changes to the code. Chairman Tomblin closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Tetreault appreciated the issues that prompted the City Council to task staff to look into this issue.He felt that the current 42 inch height limit is arbitrary,but any height chosen must be looked at in terms of aesthetics and public safety.To Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 4 4-98 develop any type of formula to determine hedge height which would take all of the issues of public safety and aesthetics into account would be extremely difficult.He suggested looking at the issue in a different way,such as allowing a hedge up to 42 inches by right,allowing no hedge over six feet in height,and anything in between those two heights would be subject to a view analysis,similar to those done in view restoration or preservation cases. Commissioner Emenhiser felt that the proposed code amendment creates an undue burden on both the enforcement and the residents of the city.He was also concerned about the fees for this proposed permit.He stated he may be able to support the change if it applied to a 10 foot setback rather than a 20 foot setback. Commissioner Gerstner felt it would be very helpful if staff could define the visibility triangle being discussed when one is backing out of the driveway.He also indicated that he would be supportive of hedges up to 42 inches in height in the front yard setback by right and might be in support of higher hedges in the front yard for privacy issues. He would also like to see a process developed that would decrease the bureaucracy as much as possible.. Vice Chairman Tetreault suggested that,instead of using a mathematical calculation that the average person would not understand,determine a particular position in a person's driveway to see a person of a particular height at a particular distance down the sidewalk and use those parameters when looking at safety issues. Director Rojas stated that staff will coordinate with the Public Works Department and discuss these issues with the City Attorney and suggested staff bring the item back to the Planning Commission at their July 26tfi meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.Height Variation,Minor Exception Permit &Site Plan Review {Case No. ZON2011·0001 ~30439 Calle de Suenos Associate Planner Fox presented the staff report,explaining the scope of the project and the need for the height variation,minor exception permit,and site plan review applications.He stated that with respect to the height variation,the staff report discusses the nine required findings.Staff believes several of the findings can be made for the project.however there are several findings that cannot be made.He noted that two property owners had submitted comments regarding view impairment from their property and discussed the view impairment causi3d by the proposed addition,as well as the cumulative view impact.In discussing neighborhood compatibility,he noted that the proposed structure appears boxy and there are areas of unbroken two story fa9ade. Staff beHeves the project design could be modified to present a less boxy appearance. He stated that staff is recommending denial of the project without prejudice,as staff Planning Commission Minutes June 14,2011 Page 5 4-99 Staff Report (June 14,2011) 4-100 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Staff Coordinator: RECOMMENDATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAIRMAIN AND MEMBE S OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY EV PMENT DIRECTOR JUNE 14,2011 CODE AMENDMENT (CASE NO.ZON2010-00293)TO CREATE A NEW REVIEW PROCESS FOR HEDGES ABOVE 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND TO SIMPLIFY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS. So Kim,Assistant Planner IfV Adopt P.C.Resolution No.2011-_,thereby recommending to the City Council the adoption of an Ordinance to revise Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences, Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code,to 1)amend the review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications,and 2)establish a process to allow hedges above 42" in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties. BACKGROUND , The City's Development Code limits the height of any fence,wall,or hedge located within the front yard setback area of a residential property to 42"in height.The front setback is generally the area of the lot within 20'of the front property line.Periodically,staff will receive complaints about hedges within the front yard setback area in excess of the 42"height limit,which are then pursued by the City's Code Enforcement Division.Hedges are defined as "shrubbery or trees planted and maintained in such a manner as to create a physical barrier"(RPVDC §17.96.900).While in most situations,the violations are brought into compliance,sometimes hedge owners protest the requirement by pointing out similar violations in their residential neighborhood.Furthermore,they question the harm of allowing hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback area,pointing out that those hedges are part of landscaping that add to the attractiveness of a home.After speaking to the City Attorney about this issue,it was agreed that staff would revisit the hedge height regulation and refrain from pursuing non-compliant hedge height complaints while a potential Code amendment is contemplated. On October 5,2010,this matter was forwarded to the City Council as a requestto consider initiating a code amendment to revise the City's hedge height regulations to possibly allow hedge heights in excess of 42"within the front yard setback area.At the meeting,the City Council considered the Director's proposal and authorized Staff to move forward with the matter.However,upon further discussion with the Public Works Department,Staff found that the Public Works Staff expressed a concern that allowing hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback may limit the visibility of motorists backing out of a driveway,which could result in a collision,potentially with a pedestrian on 4-101 the side walk.As such,on February 1,2011,Staff recommended that the City Council withdraw the previous code amendment initiation.However,during the public hearing,the City Council inquired whether Staff could pursue a process where in certain situations a hedge over 42"in height within the front yard setback could be allowed.Staff informed the City Council that a new permit process could be created to potentially allow hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback,upon Public Works Department review and approval.City Council favored this alternative and directed Staff to pursue a code amendment that would create a review process to allow this. DISCUSSION New Review Procedure for hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback area The proposed Code Amendment is a result of the City Council's direction to Staff to create a review process that could allow certain hedges within the front yard setback of residential properties to exceed 42"in height.As such,Staff is proposing a new proces~that would allow hedges to grow in excess'of 42"in height up to 6'maximum within the front yard setback of residential properties,upon determination by the Public Works Department that the location and/or height of the proposed hedge allows for the safe view of on-coming traffic and/or pedestrian by a driver exiting his driveway, and thus no visibility impacts would result.Additionally,Staff is proposing that said hedges over 42" be reviewed to ensure no significant view impact to neighboring properties.The proposed procedure,which is contained in the attached Resolution and summarized below as new subsection 17.76.030.E in strikethrough and underlined text,establishes a set of findings,notice of decision procedures and an appeal process. 17.76.030 -Fences,walls and hedges E.Hedges permitted within the front yard setback with Site Plan Review.Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence.wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section.hedges (not fences.walls or combinatfbn thereof)that exceed 42 inches in height may be permitted by the director within the front-yard setback and/or intersection visibilitv triangle through a Site Plan Review application upon finding that: 1.No portion of the hedge will exceed 6 feet in height: 2.The location and/or height of the existing or proposed hedge allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver existing his or her driveway.as determined by the director of public works;and 3.The height of the hedge does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (Single-Family Residential Districts)of this title. 4.Upon approval of the hedge.the director shall provide written notice of said decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to 4-102 Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. Modification to Intersection Visibility Triangle Review Procedure The proposed procedure to allow certain hedges within the front yard setback is very similar to the existing procedure for allowing improvements over 30"in height within the intersection visibility triangle (IVT)area.The intersection visibility triangle area (triangular area formed by the intersection of extended curblines and a line joining points on the curb 60'from the point of intersection of curbline extensions) requires a Site Plan Review application,SUbject to Planning Commission review.Staff mirrored the new hedge review procedure with the existing Intersection Visibility review process (RPVDC §17 .48.070)because the approval for said application is based on an assessment of traffic visibility by the Public Works Department. Given the similarity between the IVT review process and the new hedge review procedure,in order to simplify the review process for applicants,Staff is proposing that the decision making body for both applications be the Director.As such,Staff is proposing to change the existing IVT process so that the decision making body is changed from the Planning Commission to the Director.All other aspects of the IVT process are proposed to remain the same.Since the Planning Commission has made decisions on these applications primarily based on Public Works Department's visibility impact determinations,Staff felt that it would be less time consuming for both the app"cants and the City if the decisions for both applications are made by the Director instead.The only difference is that the hedge permit witt have an additional finding to ensure that no significant view impacts to neighboring properties will result by granting the application.The proposed changes to existing section 17.48.070 are contained in the attached Resolution and summarized below in strikethrough and underlined text. 17.48.070 -Intersection Visibility On corner'lots located at the intersection·of 2 or more highways,streets or common driveways or combinations thereof,in all districts,no fence,wall,hedge, sign,structure,shrubbery,mound of earth or other visual obstruction over 30"in height,as measured from the adjacent street curb elevation,shall be erected,placed planted or allowed to grow within the triangular space referred to as the "intersection visibility triangle."The intersection visibility triangle shall be the area formed b-ythe intersection of extended curblines and a line joining points on the curb 60' (measured along the curblines)from the point of intersection of the curbline extensions. A.In districts where the required front or street-side setbacks allow a building to be constructed within the intersection visibility triangle,fences,walls,structures or shrubbery may be allowed to exceed the·prescribed height limit,if they are setback from the property line a distance equal to the setback of the allowed building. B.Trees located within the intersection visibility triangle which are trimmed to the trunk up to a minimum branch height of 6'above the adjacent street curb elevation are exempt from these regUlations. C.The intersection visibility triangle shall be shown on all landscaping plans, grading plans and tentative tract maps for related intersections when required 4-103 by the director.In cases where an intersection is located on a vertical curve,a profile of the sight line may also be required by the director.Any landscape plan submitted shall show the common name,locations and mature dimensions plotted to scale of all proposed trees,shrubs and plants within the intersection visibility triangle. D.Proposed improvements or structures which exceed the 30"height limit may be permitted in the intersection visibility triangle by the planning oommission director through a site plan review application,upon determination by the director of public works that the location and/or height of the eXisting or proposed structure within the intersection visibility triangle allows for the safe view of oncoming traffic by a driver approaching an intersection,and thus no intersection visibility impacts would result.Upon approval By the planning oommission of any such structure or improvement,the director shall provide written notice of the planning oommission's decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the planning oommission's director's decision to the oity oauno'l Qlanning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Staff has reviewed the proposed application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Upon completion of this review,it has been determined that the proposed Code Amendment is exempt from CEQA,pursuant to Guideline Section Nos.15300.1 (Relation to Ministerial Projects).More specifically,Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code exempts from the application of CEQA those projects over which public agencies exercise only ministerial authority.It is Staff's opinion that the proposed code amendments qualify as a ministerial project and therefore exempt frbm CEQA. CONCLUSION Staff believes that the proposed Code Amendment,as reviewed and proposed by the Public Works Department and City Attorney,is consistent with the City Council's direction to establish a process to allow hedges above 42"within the front yard setback of private residential properties.As such, based on the discussion above,Staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed code amendment. ALTERNATIVES The following altemative is available for the Planning Commission's consideration in addition to Staff's recommendation: 1.Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendments,and direct Staff to modify the proposed amendments for consideration by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: •P.C.Resolution No.2011--,recommending Council adoption of a Code Amendment 4-104 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,AMENDING TITLE 17 (DEVELOPMENT CODE)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE,TO AMEND THE INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS AND ESTABLISH PROCEDURES ALLOWING HEDGES ABOVE 42"WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF RESDIENTIAL PROPERTIES (ZON2010-00293).. WHEREAS,on October 5,2010,the City Council authorized the initiation of a code amendment to revise the City'S hedge height regulations within the front yard setback (Chapter 17.76.030 -Fences,Walls and Hedges),acknowledging that there are countless non- confon:ning properties within the City;and WHEREAS,on February 1,2011,Staff recommended that the City Council withdraw the code amendment based on the finding that allowing hedges over 42"in height may be detrimental to pUblic safety.However,the City Council felt that there may be situations where a hedge over 42"in height within the front yard setback could be allowed and directed Staff to create a new permit process;and, WHEREAS,during the analysis,Staff found that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)had similarities that necessitates amendments to both Chapters to shorten the processing time for applicants;and, WHEREAS,a notice was published on May 5,2011,pursuant to the requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and, "WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et.seq.(JlCEQAJI ),the State's CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the City's Local CEQA GUidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement),the code amendment qualifies as a ministerial project and therefore exempt from the application of CEQA (Section 21080);and, WHEREAS,on May 24,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing.to June 14,2011,thereby allOWing Staff additional time for analysis; WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 14, 2011,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:The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code. Section 2:The Planning Commission finds ~hat the amendments to Chapters P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 1 of 10 4-105 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853,zoning amendment procedures. Section 3:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment,and enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods. Section 4:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)are necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area. Section 5:The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 be revised to read as follows (the underlined text represents new language;the text in strikethrough is to be deleted): 17.48.070 -Intersection Visibility A.In districts where the required front or street-side setbacks allow a bUilding to be constructed within the intersection visibility triangle,fences,walls, structures or shrubbery may be allowed to exceed the prescribed height limit,if they are setback from the property line a distance equal to the setback of the allowed building. B.Trees located within the intersection visibility triangle which are trimmed to the trunk VP to a minimum branch height of 6'above the adjacent street curb elevation are exempt from these regUlations. C.The intersection visibility triangle shall be shown on all landscaping plans, grading plans and tentative tract maps for related intersections when required by the director.In cases where an intersection is located on a vertical curve,a profile of the sight line may also be required by the director. Any landscape plan submitted shall show the common name,locations and mature dimensions plotted to scale of all proposed trees,shrubs and plants within the intersection visibility triangle. D.Proposed improvements or structures which exceed the 30"height limit may be permitted in the intersection visibility triangle by the planning commission director through.a site plan review application,upon determination by the director of pUblic works that the location and/or height of the eXisting or proposed structure within the intersection visibility triangle allows for the safe view of oncoming traffic by a driver approaching an intersection,and thus no intersection visibility impacts would result.Upon approval by tRe planning commission of any such structure or improvement, the director shall provide written notice of the planning commission's decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant. Any interested person may appeal the planning commission's director's P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 2 of 10 4-106 decision to the oity council planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 17.76.030 -Fences,walls and hedges A.Purpose.These standards provide for the construction of fences,walls and hedges as required for privacy and for protection against hazardous conditions, dangerous visual obstruction at street intersection and unnecessary impairment of views. B.Fences,Wall and Hedge Permit. 1.Permit Required.A fence,wall and hedge permit shall be required for any fence,wall or hedge placed within the rear yard setback adjacent to a rear property line or for any wall or hedge placed within the side yard setback adjacent tot an interior side property line of any contiguous or abutting parcel (as determined by the director),except as specified below: a.Fences,walls or hedges located where the grade differential between the building pads of adjacent lots,measured perpendicular to the boundary between the two properties contiguous to or abutting the fence,wall or hedge,is two feet or less in elevation;or b.Fences, walls or hedges where the subject lot is located upslope of any property contiguous to or abutting the location of the fence,wall or hedge;or c.Fencos,walls or hedges when the top of the fence,wall or hedge is '\at a lower elevation than that of the pad of the upslope lot. 2.Findings.A fence,wall and hedge permit may be approved only if the director finds as follows: a.That the fence,wall or hedge would not significantly impair a view from the viewing area,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts),of another property or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan ,as a city-designated viewing area.Views shall be taken from a standing position,unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a seated position; b.That all foliage on the applicant's lot which exceeds sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure,whichever is lower,and impairs a view from the viewing area of another parcel,as defined in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts)or a view from public property which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,as ca city-designated viewing area,shall be removed prior to permit approval.This requirement shall not apply where removal of the foliage would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the property on which the foliage exists and there is no method by the which the property P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 3 of 10 4-107 owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that does not impair a view from viewing area of another property; c.That placement or construction of the fence,wall or hedge shall comply with all applicable standards and requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code and general plan; d.Notwithstanding finding (2)(a)(subsection (8)(2)(a)of this section), the applicant's request shall be approved if the director determines that findings (2)(b)and (2)(c)(subsections (B)(2)(b)and (8)(2)(c)of this section)listed above can be made and either: i.Denial would constitute an unreasonable invasion of the privacy of the occupants of the applicant's property and there is no method by which the property owner can create such privacy through some other means permitted by this title that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property;or ii.Denial would prevent compliance with the swimming,pool fencing requirements contained in subsection E of this section and there is no reasonable method to comply with subsection E of this section that would not significantly impair a view from a viewing area of another property. 3.Notice of Decision.The notice of decision of a fence,wall and hedge permit shall be given to the applicant and to all owners of property adjacent of the subj~ct property.Notice of denial shall be given only to the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Section 17.80.050 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 4.This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. 5.The director,the planning commission and city council may impose such conditions on the approval of a permit as are necessary to protect the pUblic health,safety and welfare and to carry out the purpose and intent of this section. 6.In the case of conflict between the provisions of this section and other provisions of the development code or the building code,the most restrictive provisions apply. C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection 8 of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following requirements shall be allowed without a permit: 1.Residential Zoning Districts. P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 4 of10 4-108 a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard setback area shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and building height)of this title; ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space areas and building height)of this title;and ii. iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall be permitted. b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a)of this section shall meet the following standards: i.Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a) except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection visibility)of this title; Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a),except as restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02 (Single-Family Residential Districts); , iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as measured from grade on the lower side,and may not exceed six feet,as measured from grade on the higher side; iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet, as measured from grade on the higher side and may not exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower side;prOVided,the height of each individual fence, freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the height limitations prescribed by this title. c.Temporary construction fences, as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 5 of 10 4-109 fencing prOVISions of Section 17.56.020(C)(environmental protection)of this title. 2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts. a.Fences,walls and hedges located within the front yard and street- side setback areas shall meet the following standards: i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. '\ ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots, setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. b.Fences,walls and hedges located behind front and street-side setbacks shall meet the following standards: i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and building height)of this title. ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade on the higher side. c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental protection) of this title. D.Fences,Walls and Hedges -Permitted With a Minor Exception Permit. 1.The follOWing fences,walls and hedges shall be permitted subject to the approval of a minor exception permit pursuant to Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits): a.Fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96 (Definitions),higher than forty- two inches and up to six feet in height located in the front and street- side setback areas;provided,the area between the street and any such fence is landscaped,per a plan approved by the director of planning; P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 6 of 10 4-110 b.A fence,wall or hedge,or any combination thereof,located outsidE;! of a front or street-side setback area which does not exceed eleven and one-half feet in height as measured from grade on the lower side and six feet in height as measured form grade on the higher side; c.Fences higher than six feet and up to ten feet in height and not within the required setback areas or a combination of a three and one-half foot retaining wall and recreational fencing of ten feet in height for downslope and side yard fencing for tennis courts or similar recreational facilities.The fence above the six-foot height shall be constructed of wire mesh,or similar material,capable of admitting at least eighty percent light as measured on a reputable light meter. 2.In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 17.66 (Minor Exception Permits),the director of planning shall use but not be limited to the following criteria in assessing such an application: a.The height of the fence,wall or hedge will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare; b.The line of sight over or through the fence is adequate for safety and does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (Single-Family Residential Districts)of this title; ,c.On comer lots,intersection visibility as identified in Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height) of this title is not obstructed;and d.The height of the retaining wall portion does not exceed the grading limits set forth in Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. E.Hedges permitted within the front yard setback with Site Plan Review.Unless restricted by conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to subsection B of this section,hedges (not fences,walls or combination thereof)that exceed 42 inches in height may be permitted by the director within the front-yard setback and/or intersection visibility triangle through a Site Plan Review application upon finding that: 1.No portion of the hedge will exceed 6 feet in height: 2.The location and/or height of the eXisting or proposed hedge allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver existing his or her driveway,as determined by the director of public works;and 3.The height of the hedge does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of an adjacent residential parcel as P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 7 of 10 4-111 defined in Section 17.02.040 (Single-Family Residential Districts)of this title. 4.Upon approval of the hedge,the director shall provide written notice of said decision pursuant to Section 17.80.040 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.Notice of denial shall be given to the applicant.Any interested person may appeal the director's decision to the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title. F.General Regulations, 1.Fences,walls and hedges shall be measured as a single unit if built or planted within three feet of each other,as measured from their closest points,unless at least one of the fences,walls or hedges is located on an adjoining lot held under separate ownership.Perpendicular returns connecting two or more parallel walls or fences shall not be considered portions of the wall or fence for purposes of determining whether or not the fences or walls are a single unit. 2.Retaining walls may exceed the height limits of this section;provided, a grading permit is approved pursuant to Section 17.76.040 (Grading permit)of this title. 3.Fences or Walls -ReqUired.All pools,spas and standing bodies of water eighteen inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height mea$ured from the outside ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device and a self-latching device located not less than four feet above the ground.Such fences, walls and gates shall meet city specifications and shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the city's building official. 4.The use of barbed wire is prohibited unless required by any law or regulation of the state or federal government or any agency thereof. Electrified fencing may only be allowed for the keeping of animals pursuant to Chapter 17.46 (Equestrian Overlay District)of this title. All electrified fences shall contain a warning sign,posted in a visible location,warning that an electrified fence is in use. 5.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards between the front property line and the exterior fagade of the eXisting single-family residence closest to the front property line,in side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior fagade of the existing single-family residence closest to the street side property line,and within a rear yard setback which abuts the follOWing arterial streets identified in the city's general plan: P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 8 of 10 4-112 a.Crenshaw Boulevard; b.Crest Road; c.Hawthorne Boulevard; d.Highridge Road; e.Miraleste Drive; f.Palos Verdes Drive East; g.Palos Verdes Drive North; h.Palos Verdes Drive South; i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and j.Silver Spur Road. Section 6:The rights given by any approval granted under the terms of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance shall not be affected by the amendments to Title 17 by this ordinance and shall continue in effect until and unless they are modified,revoked,expired or are otherwise terminated according to the terms of the approval or the terms of Title 17 as they existing prior to the effective date of said ordinance. Section 7:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shC\,lI apply to all development applications submitted after the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance. Section 8: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 to amend Chapters 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code to revise the review process for structures within the intersection visibility triangle area and to create a new process to allow hedges above 42"in height up to 6'maximum within the front yard setback of residential properties (ZON2010-00293). P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 90f 10 4-113 PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June 2011,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: RECUSALS: ABSENT: David L.Tomblin Chairman Joel Rojas,AICP Community Development Director and Secretary of the Planning Commission , P.C.Resolution No.2011- Page 10 of 10 4-114 '\ P.C.Minutes (May 24,2011) 4-115 Commissioner Leon questioned why,rather than deny the request without prejudice.the Commission doesn't continue the pUblic hearing to the June 14th Planning Commission meeting,at which time Marymount may then give their approval for a one time 90 day extension. Commissioner Gerstner stated that would also be his preference,as it might allow Marymount the time to address the design issues raised this evening.In June the problem mayor may not be solved,at which time a continuance may be granted. Commissioner Knight agreed.He explained that he was a little uncomfortable with the current motion to deny the project,as he felt it would be a denial based on the City's inability to make an administrative decision. Comlllissioner Lewis withdrew his motion. Commissioner Leon moved to continue the public hearing to the June 14th meeting to allow the applicant time to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission,seconded by Commissioner Emenhiser. Chairman Tomblin stated that he agrees with the motion,however he also very strongly agrees with the comments made by Commissioner Lewis in terms of the lack of authority of the presenters for Marymount College.He felt that there were a number of things that could have forced the Commission to make a decision to outright deny the project.He requested that at the next meeting Marymount have people available who are authorized to make decisions and that there be much better answers going forward. Commissioner Lewis 'Stated that he very much agrees with Commissioner Gerstner's comments regarding the design of the project,as did Chairman Tomblin. Director Rojas clarified that there is no question as to which CUP applies at this time, the question is the timing of some of the conditions of approval and what to do if Marymount does not move forward and submit their plans into plan check with Building and Safety.He noted that staff does not want to revert back to the old CUP but would rather keep the operational conditions of the current CUP. The motion to continue the public hearing to June 14,201.1 was approved,(6-1) with Commissioner Lewis dissenting. 3.Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2010-00293) Chairman Tomblin excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. Commissioner Lewis stated he was abstaining from agenda item NO.3 and recusing himself from agenda item No.4,and left the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 14 4-116 Vice Chairman Tetreault noted staff's recommendation for the code amendment was to continue the public hearing to June 14,2011.The Planning Commission unanimously agreed to continue the public hearing to June 14th • 4.General Plan update -review proQosed changes to the existing land Use Mae Deputy Director Pfost presented the staff report,explaining the proposed changes to the Land Use Map that are belore the Commission.He noted a new land use district being placed on the map,the Open Space Preserve land use district.He explained that the Open Space Preserve is being placed on all City owned properties,and no private properties will be affected.He displayed the different maps and explained the changes. He discussed the hazard designations and explaining that staff's intention is to make the ha;z:ard areas on the General Plan Land Use Map consistent with the Open Space Hazard lines on the adopted Zoning Map to clear up any ambiguities.He explained that by not including any parcel lines on the General Plan Land Use Map,staff will have to rely on the Zoning Map for the location of the hazard boundary lines,which is staff's current procedure.He added that the General Plan Land Use Map would not be used in determining land use on a piece of property.He emphasized that there is no proposed changes to the Zoning Map. Commissioner Knight asked if there is language in the General Plan that clarifies that the Zoning Map is the controlling map in terms of determining land use on a property_ Deputy Director Pfost answered that at the moment there is not such language,but the language will be added to the updated General Plan.In addition the Zoning Code includes a process to'move the boundary line on a property up to 30 feet,and staff is looking at moving that requirement to 100 feet. Deputy Director Pfost noted that the Director had handed out a Table with the late correspondence,explaining there was a comment from Sunshine asking about the most recent updates to the General Plan.He explained the Table is the most up to date list of all of the General Plan updates that have occurred since the General Plan was adopted. Commissioner Knight asked if all of the maps will include the updates. Deputy Director Pfost stated that staff has ensured that all of the General Plan updates are implemented into the General Plan. Commissioner Knight noted some of the maps include areas along the coastal area and asked staff about the relationship between what is currently being done with the General Plan and the Coastal Specific Plan. Deputy Director Pfost stated that staff will be presented the coastal areas to the Commission at the next meeting.He explained that the Coastal Specific Plan is the Planning Commission Minutes May 24,2011 Page 15 4-117 P.c.Staff Report (May 24,2011) 4-118 MEMO'RANDUM TO""·..:~ FROM,: DATE,: 'SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT1l{WARTMENT CHAlRMAfN AND MEM~,RS,',~F,THE ~LAN:NrNG,CO'MM1S$ION JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNI,'",OPMENT DIRECTO~ MAY 24,2011 ,, CODt:AMENDME-NT (CASE NO.ZON201'O..oa'U$)TO ReV£$E THE INTE:RSaIT.oN VlSJBILlTY TRIANGLE REVIew P,ROCESS,AND 'Twa cm's HEDm:,H&J'BHTREGULATlONS WfrfffN THE FRONT VARD seTBACK A_A. SlaffCOQI'dinater:,So Kim,Assistal'ltPlanner ~ _.MSI\lM'1'lON Continua'the pUbJic.hearin9 on the-jJlt'9posad podeamendl'neht to the June 14,2011meertlng. SAGK$W!OUNn On ~$r '6,20l0,the City Counoil apprbwd a Staff li1iflated code'art<ler-tdm,ent request tojllotentislly revise the CItY's !'ledge height rflgt:ilatioo$to allow hedgeshighar than 4;2"wlthin the,frOnt yardsstba,ck, area,Ptllbllc Works ~rtment re 'the tssueand ratse~c0ncef'J'1~wlth::hedQ6S,exce:ealns42"in height 'fie It'maY Urnitthe visibility ;QtQrI$.ts~,Q~ng owt of a driYe~y.A~~hivn Febl'Qary 1, ~t1.,~mm6lll$d that thltl,Qlty ~U ,'SMithdraw tb19 ptelll(jt$~e ,Iltrtl$odmenf 1r:\fti~ip1l. H~_,dUtlt:1$:th$pt,1'blfchearlr'l9,th~Gf4l0,~U~,~fttt::iatth~m$yti~'f$itoatlOnt;wnere $,tte~e:~v&r 42"ln hSlghtWltlitth 'the front ya:td 8~kcoUl~be'allowEiJd th'rOUl1h a QlSGretlonSi)i1;$'11.p~s.1n response,atafl,,'tAformed the CIty,Council th,8t8 new permit:pr,oo,ess'~be"tCi'mitefttQ:PG1;eNia~y allow hedges over 4!"fFlheight within the:frGMt '~rd,setbaok,uponPubllc Works Oepttt:'tmenf.nwiew and apprnval.ClW,Qa\:lnoil 'favoFedthis ~._r.natlve anq directed $~toorenate 6uGb a new pen:nlt proaess. Apul»Jc nCltIQfJoftlre,p~.ndI11geQd.E;l iinn=mdmi,",'llJnt,Wl!JIii,put!fI,Shed Int,he,'Pa,'.!~V~;S ~ln$i1la,New$on May 5,2011 a1'Ull thlliJ item,was ag8MI_for tbe May 24'l'i p.tlbltchearJh~. glp.rem While n~public.,comments were l'ioelv.edotl th:e public notice,staff wpuld like $()meadditillltl(itl time to wgrk With'thEl Cfl;y .attorney's office on t~CQd~iai'tg~for the new permit p'l'GO~tl'lat WI1U1d allOW c,ertaln pWj!ler.tl:es to install or maintalA hedges over 42"in the front yam setbaek.AS SUCh,Staff is. recommending that the PlannlngCammlssioncontinue the pUblic hearing to June 14,2011. ~CH'MSNl1~.C:Mlnut:$StFeb.1,2011) •C.C.·StaffRepQrt (Feb.1,2011) •C.C Mrnutes:(Oct 5,201'0) •C.C~,Staff.Repor't(Oct 5,2010 4-119 C.C.Minutes (February 1,2011 ) 4-120 Withdraw211 ofa GGd~Amendment Initiation Request to Revise the Municipal Code's Hed-Ie Height Regutations Wfthijn the Front Yard Setback Area (Case No. %01'42010..0(293) City Cferk Mor:rEJale reported that "this item was removed from tne Con~nt Calendar for separate consideration by Councilman:Stern. COuliCilman Stern inquired as to the initial reason that staff placed the initiation of a request for sCode Amendment to revise the Municipal Oode's hedge hefght regulations within thefrpnt yard setback area and the ·possibUfty ta expIQresomathing to allow a litUe flexibility for exoeptions oraxpf~slQns thlilt might be a .posslbiqty:. COinl'nutitty Oeve.lopment Director~ja&reported that when staff inifiaUybrought the issueoftmighi$of'hedges in thefl"Ont yard $'etbaak to th~Council it W~·froms perspective Qf regulating hedge he,igh~'for aesthetics and uniff1)rmily,ffe .ted that after dtsCll$S/flgttle iSSue With the ,PubUO Works Department s1alff,he ~me aware, that th.e Public \t\'4arks Oeparttnenf'C0.uldtldt'.support any hedges over 41 inche.s in the front s.aPk:av~~cause of trmtlcandp$f@t1'ia:n vlsibilit?{I~.Me «intinuedtllat basE3don Cwnoflrnan Stem's $ugg~'SfiQ:r,t~Di:rf1ilqtpr RojiilS df$G~_with the,PUblic, Works Qepartmetr.t&taff the posslbftit¥<if$$p.ecfffo permit pro·C6$$to a.dd(e$spossible e)(CE4>.tibris·tQ thetUtebased en thtJ p~j~lar circumstances of tbe t1treS!and VisibiJity. Public Works Dep~rtment staff li'O.tad that stJ'Ch a prooess W£lS a pnssibi'ltty.. Co14nolirT1~n $t.~m mQveC:l,s.ecQnd~Qy CP\!InIZHma.n Wolo'lJicz,w>~I~Qfs~ff to develop a permit pr~¢$$$to sJ,gecffioatlya_ceRl!Utl hedge heights in &XC6$S of 42 Ji'rehes in the front yard <setback if vtstbltity Is'Sues sao l'$,addressed to the satlsfs·Gtkm aftlW Publi.c WOr4(sDeparbnent" The motion f)aa~d on the fatlowi,ng fQ.II(;nit1l vete: AVU: NO·9.: ABSENT: ObtnpbeJl,M1setich.stetfl,.Wdl~icz,a.nd Mayor Lanw NQ~ Nan., CUY COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS: Eac:h of h10 CQuncii Members repi:lrt.i.1O ·on his attendanCB at v~rjOllS organiqafion clnd dssociatl()n meetings since tht;:!J'l:f.l {'lty CQunci!Oral Report:'!.Wi~fe proVided on "lcmwH'y 1B,:201 I CL05EO Si=$SJON r~EPORT: elly /\tt{l1ncy Lynch r,~~pnrted t.h::1f viitn fff$pect t'O the VH F'rupr lty Corp.and VHPS LLC~ I'.Cd'("\i:~~;l!l,;;:ho Palu;,;Verdt-:;';!;t ,rl ,the Gouncil !.ti${;U~~:·',J ,i.;.-'.'~ilt0 ~f1d unl;minl011~' ·,!irf:;"':Ol..ii";Wc!~(Jivli~nh~l 1h(,1 Citv At~!}rrk~V to respond to Ih",!~·l!t.:!;f !<:·llt:r wntten by ~"lr. City Cooncn Minutes F.ebruary 1,2011 Page 13 of 14 4-121 " C.C.Staff Report (February 1,2011) 4-122 MEMORANDUM ~ •RANcHo PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: .DATE: SUBJECT: lDC\.nC\~D··~Y'."VJ:;il''If Staff CoordInator:; HONORABLE MAYOR &CfTY0.0UWfl.Ml:M8SRS'~~::~MUNfrYr blRECTQR WJrHDMWAlOF A CODE AMIiNtJ.MENTINITfATfON REQt.f£S:r.. 'FORfSVlSE THE MUfifC~L CODE~S HEDGE ttitGHr ~LATtONSW1THfN THE :FRONT 'fMD SETBACK AREA (QA.li NO.mN261a-002U:). $i4~VNtJ5HR,CITYM4NA.lalt,.....()...",',',,.'.."'~ :li{icOMMENOA!JQN Accept Staff's Wfth~rtiiw.st .~lf$pttlV40US oocle amendment .1.ttUiatiotl fc(!iqllest to lncreas.ethe Munioipal.COde's heti$e helf#tl Feg'utabts Within the fFPl'lt ¥atd setbaok areas Ofre$lderttial ~arties. fACKGBPUN&., The Cio/s Oevelop~~e,n~ibrtbe lleightof afJYfeTl6l;lL:w...~~rh~elocated within ~fI:orti yard setback areaofa fllffl'lll~lpre'pertyto42u Il'l hmS.t1t lnetQote'thack.-sa Is:g$n~Y1he­ •.relit of the Jot wItfii!Q'_~0'~e,:f1~t property lina ~~,_~e4 ~.Jl-$JJN.fJ/lJJry qr~e$ .p/t:mted and main1a(ne,.d'fnslIJl"a mQt1l1erss to tm18te a()hYJil_"_~~'(R,PVDC §11.9.'a,.9.QD). ~Jiipt:UcallV,~ffwlIJ~~,'..,"C1~h~·1iMAAfQ·U1mwl;(t~rQ"_.adklilf:.:ftl~ ~'he 4.2"heigbt lImit;Whf••·,lllJll'purs\;led bytl'le·~tl 00':fqt~entOMsien.WhI~i"" most slttJatfan$.th$vtt\1~.b~ughtJ!ltOOQmptJal.1~.,.'.....~.s h~owftQllS'prQtt$!t!:m ['Qq,'Uirement bypoJr.rtJtW~t s_rV.'bla\fon$/n their r_ld_'...btr~rl1r.Jod.Fu,r:th,'!!mtQ,..~th$¥ qtlSi$tion the hatrnofat~l!S,'OVer42"In hei$hhVI~_'fr.bfllt Ylirdsetback~~ting put that hedges.arEl,part that add to th$attra~~fte$$Dfe~.M0$l reten~J.a property owner wJtha ff(itJ...c:hSdge In the frOnt~·~'Clt~who'beoam$theSijbJ.eel ,i)f$:CQde f!nfQre~nt.¢il$,$j$.QQlJ·.'treelly'e Code E"fotoement,$taff'QfI:i1~uitable pl'Gll~,dUe tEl his claim of SiJT(tlarvkb1ettir;;tJ$ij~urring throu.ghout his Aei0hbQrhotld.After speaking totl1e CitY' Mant;tger and the cnr Attome.y abaut this Issue.It was agReed that $taft would 'revjsU the bedge height regulatfonana refJ!fiil'l from pursuing non-oornpllaht hedge height complaints while staff attempts (0 'find a -remedy thtQ.ugh a potenUat Codeamemilment On October 5,20tO.thlsmatterwas forwamed to the CiW CDooeltasa:requestto oonsld~rlnlti$ting a code amendinenUo revise the OOyts hedge hei9ht reIl!aJationsWithin lhefront yard setbaok area.. At the meeting,the City Oouncll oansidered the OJrectorsproposal and authorized staff to mGve 4-123 Jorwar(Jwffhthe matter.However.based on more recent infM'nationobtained from the City's Pubfrc Works Department.Staff no )onqef recommends pursuing the code amendment and is therefore irH'ormlFlg 1he Council of Us intent to wfthdraw the previous code 'amendment initiation Tl'lquest ,DIaQUS$!ON Ai.the OekJper5,201 ()CityCounOlt m~g.Staff presented thrEJeseplarateprtalimlnary options mr deaf;lns with the hedgl!l /:leight ifilSlJ.G.WhfJe:the aItsChedOCtooet .s,2010 staff report provides a tliatEflfeti $(plElnationpf!he:th~e ~.thsy are $ummarited :'liiifo.UQ1Jv.S: •Optton A ...Maintain the code,requiJ'!sment'ssi$,Whish IlrmlSl/':le heJgbtlilf tleclQe$In the front, yarlfsetbac;;k to 4,Z'.. •.option B -AllOW ,the ,hel'f1hf.et tf~gi!lsJn the k<mt yard setl!.a~k toexoee.d 42D •.'" .~Qp'liQil·C ....AlteWlhe hel~Ofrh:eelf:1e$,to-ext:e$d42"In SO!'1'li1J.,p.Qf.tflfJ.JlIsoflhtHront yard setback. As .nGfed in the s:taffrepal't,.Stafffelt thatoptiol'l Cmay be the :best-aftema'live but fUrther reseetrGtlw.aeeesSary.At the OO!@.etIS...O'tEi1etiag,the GfiV Ci.ounc:mnm·t1iJat ft WOuld be beneffeial to tes~1t aU three options aad grlIFrted aj:jproval of the calile amendment Jttltiatton n:quesl StIbseque~.staff Wbrke.d W!lh·.the~Pl)bf1b W'oi'kS Depar:'l:t"i;l$nta'nd..r.ese~d an three.options to *leMilme atwhat distance andhM!fhta;h:edgecautd bestJowedw1lf;)in theffont yardar-eawUhout aneating Vts,lbitit¥imp,acts. AooordfJlfl'~'the Oity's PI$IIG Wbfks Staff,the·Federal fJGUOY1'9I\l'CJe~:~tgn qfHighways anl1: $tfee".conctqdes that·the f;le.~~~of a ~er's eye in e~ss~lit~r vetudle Tor ptlrpo~lils .or _ta~niili·.ghf~rstance c.l~Jaijsr!l$l$~·above··t}le~roaliJ~Y'$llrl.'~~AsslJ~.Qbatrucllol1$,ml'l ~~jl).t'QgertY..~ch.as had '8.1111 halghtabQVe 41'mavll!1!itlhe\VJ$lbiUtY Gf:motlllriStsb~ _!~wh'fcb f,~titlt;il'H!t'lil~P$.fQn,p~ntilit1Iyw.nn·~;i~a.~Or.l the sidewalk.1\'$',m:h,...tk$S ..'~,or.rth'fSf$sue Is t~t.~'',.1'struQtUte ~1b~.,.1hM4.t"in blli~hta~p.~ortis 20'fnmlyatr;l $hl;it~sdVlsable.G.I_ .Isi_anatlon,~.b.S ......theOO,(e to~lJt)W·hMtJi.;~mP're ·rroJ!tt~~,_i:lld·not:bepu!SO~d...~..ere.to",~wTti,.tJts.Olt!(fjfthe~dtDde al'nfmr.ttflem illhd II notit'yfrtg tnl Elnt~1 of1hi$·eotlon. As a;.J'e8Ult.th(H~ode fSqUinl!ment:'fhat limitSihaagss!O 42"jA,:h.e'WhtWithitl thcitfrt3ntyard setba;k WIll' tt8f!i'letifllApfl@$filnd SlaffWifl ~anyaJlagath/lc,laU'ons 01 said raqUi$rnentlMt ate bought·. _ff.(uUtellttibn~ ~Ulm' Due fo.fhe ..potentlalsafetyhlmirds1denlifiedbytheGI(yl;,PubIIcWtlltks$talf..,$taffis /'Elcqm~f1dfJT~ that the prevtouslyproposeslilillde ,amendment to possiblY In~lI$e the beigbt hedgelln the ff:Qn! yard selback,not be ptJrsued •. &~END:· •.Ci!yCounoIJ Staff 'Report for O.e'b!)ber 5,2010 •Current RPVMC Chapter 17.76.030 (Fenoes,walfs and hedgeS' 4-124 , c.c.Minutes (October 5,2010) 4-125 F~I:'Jt~(~J\!ed ~nt1 fil..pd lIlt:!\uql.lst 20'10 N F,,;,ltlcl1o P~Jlos VBrtt€"~ '1 i\w c\;::('.j :1 ,(~l ;In'ld t,',•.;1:·\1",-Ahhn:.1 .:1J it!;,:~...:t',I,11;"'~.\;~'ill ii';n arn(iUn r ..,i .".",;'. ;"\"1.·""Inn n !~~l~~;..:Uf:'··..i.,·!li i···.id;tlq Pflh\l~\\.,:h 1i11.',.-1\:'lll<!\lr~':H"Be-·mel'·'.J;·,1:i.·' ,',.",/,L".!'(l/l..'";:!~''''~l ,.'f;:t..I.!'-d}::'!((:lh(~n:;·t.f'··';:~;,,!lfiH";11:.\/}J:"uti'JHZ',·".1 ;!" (I,p;:";f!r 1.!iLl f.'\.i'...~i':c,!/'ltH..'f rl;Ui~.:,;';:~~l ~pr~~;~.!'SL.n .~'':-_''/q ;(.;~":i ~;.;t i\.'ii,':..lf f !~",Af:Il!.~::.1riq ;~'l.J.i!....: l.i(·!(flfJ·i·n('1tlLr'",t.'q~..:,~~~f ~.·"d.J iJ '·'~/'f)EJ~~·;~l.prd;~-:L.:.."fn~~n~·Jt\);.,,~"'·llhu f:\.{~:nt."+~'j:t~>·I·': ,;.,lilt.i~1~'itiH:llh(1 rH,;r ",1 th···iii dd ':l./P:I.::Y tHlli is (jf';''''fi'llp,·!,.l 1;-•.;;rf'quin~d bV 11'1(;L:;""1,' ,"Pllblil:'/V,-;'li.\;. b.DOPTED RESOLUT!(lf\j l\fO ·,010-B8.A FlESOLUTI":·JOF THE CITY COliNe.'I.'")F THE CITY OF RANCHO ptOG VERDE:S,AL.LOWING G,':)TAIN Ct~~\.IMS AND DEMANOS AND $PlSCf .!NG FUNOS.f:;R:OM VvHI(jM l HE b:i E ARE TO BE.Pf.:"~P ADbPTEJ~.;$OLUnO~J NO.2010·89,A ~E$()tUn()N OF THE C-ITV Cfo') THE Crr 'OF ~ANCHO Pi\LOS VERDES,AS,SERTING Al\J ONGOING COM I MENrrORECEIV1NG AND UTIUll'j\l:G PROPOSITiON AANO PI:.{1 .'OeH'JON c:FUND~AS REQUIRED AND ,n~.I~FGTING ,AND AUTHQRi;rING f··EDIFIED STAPF MEMBERS TO EXEOUTE ANY DOCUMENTS THEREFOR. , #'#, PAUSE TOCONSlI3f!Jl fHE ReMAINDER·OF 1Hf!,AGBNOA: REUULARNEW BUSINESS:, A RequHt tO~A$itil"Ildfi'atinga cede .Atnendl'nsDt,toReviae the Ci~sH__e Height Resu1afltma'Wfthin the Front VQJ!d $etback At~a(.case No.ZO.N201'04lO293) City Clerk Morreale ~ortiad that Late CQTTfP~JlonQfen~e was distributed prior to the meeting and the,Fe wet-e no requests to spea~regar-ding the item. Assistant Planner Kim provided a brief staff report re~·a.rdlng the item. CQuncll cJjscu~ion en~ued. Councilman stem moved.seconded by Mayor Pro rem Long,to direct staff toihlfiate a Cod$Amendme.nt process. City Council Mihutes Om-abel"5,2010 P,age 5 of 11 4-126 Without objection,Mayor WoloWicz so ordered. " ("ily'(;ftd it,MI;'It;,,1·,;"!;et'/that hall:!.'l;ml ~',,\:.'nil ,';!';l"fii:"~d!t)trlbu!t3,d rr I'I ::,tr'T-] r,jl;.:>ill1\!:md :/l,.:,;.',L,"'()I't~qlJBst,!,,!n ",p",:!,'i,';t"r;'l1lj the I~(~rn,. '...."., IntGrirn Di~l.t.l(}~'.If i 1•..',;>Ht1(r and P8rr..:,O<:;OIl';~i IIf,:;'J Ih..:lL f-\drninjstrdi.I,.;pI iJ1y&l Ho\,;!\,: '(/\t'nl.lld pmv,d~f!W ':'it:!i!II::PUrf and intr()clu(;~.'d [I If'C;H'y'~new Mafl'lkm~nc(= Supf!l;ririlt~ndfHI)""p"tdl\'81anGO. 1,eWD Fre~m§.t!J.R.;·Ij1(,lro p@.V!3r¢.!Sfl •S'h:1{€l(1 th':li llh~pal'#;::\lre EiI:greall'i::8.,Oun':::fl lor thE~ C:j!fy but opinlJo th-l.l t!:n I!TOf,J('i presevlted rf.'qnrdmg H ,sa-Par~rmprm:8mei Its ",vas inootnt:-'i:lete beGaU:i'/.l·it thd not in 'ltd~a tratHr:..:,ahAy.(par!rjJlg study,lip.noted thnt Mr.Odom CHllf.·d tf!H f'fiiPOflliiif tEl tEii ovation ,ilnc!flO!f cfealk:m af f'l.€IW fk7kl~_(jnJ that st1.lff dfd(lot anl.ictNct··:1 sl,gn1Tf.OOht t·'ffie tmpi:lC:t.!Jt the '!l>taff report cans oui j,1l(.H·(lV(~I::i ;~thletlc field~i'lnd t!;',;'!I'/f)and new CilY-IHBGre-;Inn kW:Y(Jutjl in parks.He ,nqUlMd as ~.o theni'ted for ::l"kihonal $t.)ceef'f!$kl5l ~n t!'lf:pntentinl for mOf~~traffiiC and 1.:*tfKing,and su~!gested ubt.ainrnu tWl'1'Ir..and parking slue'.;:ti !"~lorelllaklflg the park tlnprOVenlents. j,.J;iY.fillJ.:;,t1a§.t,:!,Panchn P~11~$Verd6S.$,tf.ld It"t(l 1!an forthe park dElN'eloPITl,:;mt as pre~nte(~has meri-t hut ~a:cks In-the t,lfJwingl ..vo rr-:as:tJ a IlEt<:ik,0f,tnput from the pUblic rag~rding Il'Jfo'pl ...m me(igtiflg:t .fr..n~s of the L Ider'tt1;1,;and 2}traffic Goncerns" [,.113 remin.ded.Cb,unql 0,1 a sarioH name aCGident last air dof1 Hawthorne Boulevard and Verde RtclgeRQarl.He,c.:Onof\f'ed thtalhe cOI1r.l;imed '1/:a trafftc.CC;l,O't1'Q~ptob1e.m On Ha.vvthol'rlea(}uh::w~;'d.de$'!.-qOitgept rrnblHrn With the pr ",Q,eqqevoloplTl{-ml ~t Lower Hesse Park.'1ndWlj'l9 h;l'sti~$to address, .))rn MQpt.:.~.Pacific::Vfl~.Ho.maoWi1~s Assoc:!atitm.RanchD Pa:\O Verdes,stated that he ,understood fmm II?staff reports that Gatmcil would b~Pte~nt .with options to (lmlSider inGlu{hn~,1\lh~.:;baJ1paI:kri£tde~Mgl'1..He notedth"''lt hadid flof -efreve all of th{1 changes propos d could be incorporaied into the redeSigned baflparlc '~Ids_He ~.tated that the Prt.1P(ed rl'u'lfllfmatlol1s to two of the bel88h;::rU die-monOs WOUl,,"l oj"n IIp the i()r:'~tion to ,~;ilqllf'.Ill;h,whir-h h~believes WdS O~l€~(~r the COUflClt go£ii~'.,.'~f101nd th~1t trr.oifHc will'r.;r~a~-le Ilnd ttl!:;,Iimlte<.1parking f;lt the park$ite will ct;>tJse mure Gel "iQ park 0/1 Loc'enni.t Uflv'C I ~"~~;,(Jgqe:SI0d iJn{fJr':Jill~J Itt..:p<~rkinq at HeBse Paf}~if P0i'!j/lk~to ."cc~1n10''J<W'iN If',f.'!"'J~,<,;ibl(l inr:r~":)g~ed nnr·(j hr pt1r\dnn·, City Council Minutes October 5,2010 Page 6 of 11 4-127 '\ c.C.Staff Report (October 5,2010) 4-128 MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: nATE: SU8JSOT: HO~MAYO~&et ,,'COUNC'f..MEMSBRS JOEl.AGJAI,,",OMI\ilUNITY'fl),:',',NTOIRECTOR OCTOIB".10 A,AI5QlJ;t!S1tOGONSIDSRJNrrtA'tINB.AcOSSAMeNDMfSNT'FO'... REVise TMIS'orrrS~HBDGEJif&t&H:rMGUU\11ON$Wl11fIN tHe FfiGlItt YA'lDS£TJ.I:fACK AtlEA;faAse AlO.a1N2oi.O-t)0293:). CAROLYN uaoJR',OlTY MAN ..-.:-~..,,',I\W~~~ :$0 rqm~Assl~rPhanner',P' _INIA'I1SN PtiiWleJa feecl~ack an.."~e4dfSllttI$st to fllnllitt$'ae_'A~~"'tfment to revfJ'$fh~Clt}/\he!~h£~J:l{a1iQl"I$.JIIl1be fflJlft Yetd~efbaQk a~~$'~f':l'lJ~d.!$1 ~rtf~lS,O~l1taJn$d In "'.,11.76.aao-pe.f.i-,W.ttl1d ~of.lheRanshn PalCJS V8rdesOl:avslopmet'1t Gbd~ ~C}.• Th.'C1tfs.Develop)!JltentGede ltilr)&dhe halslhtQf.anyfemse.waI~or'tl8dge !tIlsated WIthln theftDnt yard sliltbatik SJelil oferresidenhl:propertyiO 42'"1n hei9bt.~fl'.~Gk,area is gelllSraUythe ilIflilSGf the lot wftbln~O'mlle'fi:ort preperty line.Aed.p:are defined .,,"'$f.?f1Jlbbt!ITY.prtp!m$ pl$nted amltrllfll!JtBirTedJPIc suqh fH'I_i7erad,u:Feftlf1 a'Ph~"'nfSP'1RPVOO §1'l:9$.~0()}. P;_~cat.l~$taffwJQ receive Gof.JlP ,abQI,Jt ",.$in ~of#l&42"helght lfmlt.,Whf¢hoaJre It:teq ~l'SUed bytb.$O~O~",;E:..tnenU;)ivislOn.Wl:tlle;rn mfl1$t~tkiJns,;the viotatlo~. breU9ht'intelcompJlEiIn••,,"~es~.owpersprotestifhere,'entbY'pQlhtfn90J,it$lm"~r ViQII!l(£or:m\1n t$fr ~id'el1traf:nfiJl!iJh~!lhPOd'.tFttrthe.~tR ,,;hatrnof:alkinMJ!!9:.bed§lil$. over 4~:inftefgMwtthfn.11'l!;tffQnt~,l1t"tbtJck:area,,potr:J)rn ' .~~jg._pa,:tof;liari.Cl!tpir:w1 ~at aW:l to ttte~ative~.a hQme.Most @qenlly,.~pr;Qpli\1rw.~'wrttUilnon ..ecm1or.mlng hed9$:Jn !.h,e fr'qt;t,)lif<d._,''/:Jl:W1Uure,.~Wbo",·ecat1'le thfi)'S1lb~,~h:lf.:$,t;Q!1Ie.~nfo,.r(Jl9Ailsntca,'sea'tlt:lUS$d,'tb~Gltfs Oode lSnfon.::ement Sff;lfF ~in.,.bJe pFl:l¢l~d~tJ bftl cf2lim ofsirni'tar\1k)latioll$, ~culting1hl'Qu9bout l:\je.t>leig'J1bJ'Jl'b::QQ(I•.Aflerrap$akfAg tp tb~OitY'ManillQlilrand th$Oi.,Attorney about i"is,lssue,rt was a$!ll'eeO that staffwouid f:$'\Iisft tlie t)'61cfgla'heitlht regulation and r.efi'ain from pUl'$Uing non-compUatit hedge hel!JJht CCIlmpfalrrts Whfle staff attempts toflnd a remed¥'through a potential Code ar:tll~ndment. 'ThUS,this matter fs befti:g,brought ffir.wmtl:to the C[tyCdtmeilas Ii $quest to «mSfdettnltiatinga GOds am&Admel1tto revise the Dliy'Shedge·helght resulafions VIilth'in the front yard setbaok area. 4-129 Unless a Variance or MJaor e~eptlon is obtainedby's-properl¥'awner,fences.walls,and hedges wfthin the front Yard setback ares (:20'as measured fram the fr€lnt property fins)are alloWed liIP to 42"In heightlRPVDC §11.76.o30(0)].Hf1dges areregulalefll tQse1her-!'th walls andfeFlcss sin~.y are oonsidel'ed a we ofphysloal barrier.The purpose of phYSlqal barriers is tollplQvide lKIdlfJo.naJ privacy.,protsotlon ~~t~fJ!/oJJS r::qnrJlt/O~,t/apgefQl!$·'lisf.lS/obstrr:Jqtlcm at8tJreet ,httf1meatJ.on..8nd~$Slll!fm.,~'.i t!1ftIt.afVfeWSI>.(RPYOC.··517.76...O$OJ.,The..ifIW.....Dtolre.~latfrl.[Q.·. llulhetg/it ofp~aafb"'WI81I"UJi!Jfr.onty.art:J$~$:k~l$.tQ erJs.u~f!l.uat~apen $~: I!lJOngthe~eGfresfdl9.otf.':~~whjah lS1be PlItPbS$()fthJi:2Q"slillb._!RestriQUt:lgthetreiflJit otfel1eet1l.walls,t;lnd h:ed,g1aS withirtt/;teftt>llt setb$dkaVdld$lh,e W¢fOs$d In''or"Wansd'(n"Af!)P.-taQ$ .of bomes altltlg·l!lil'Jh_.Tt1elinJab.liihJt:Jd tb.e:fi'Glnt)ll.:1n:lsetbaek.~at:2O'ls the :r,na$tn.a"~e tif:tlWse«bat~.f&f,Q.createdpe.t:tl'lMS betwsen ~tttel1ttal:p~'p.$lIes'att~theJlUb1re~t ..NQ!l$ ....$611_~hOli$._Us etJd h~~:'Nl$fq&~thfJ 20'$$l6.~k .\\w.ed up )0·6';Jrt,bilJigijt, Nfji'latl!l~es$.hecl:Qe$f$p_"eftl::'i!tlt~':difteJl!lttt1h1artlenCS$()...slJ:tce~-~@jIll~1Y arinll:oallrui1 whJeh Is '~·""'1tt"'iUil~~fUJfS$.,r farland'''''",''''n j"ClUlltr-fQt·k-,I!l'~""""-~r·."'l!'I""''''""liI...J¥lUII'..'7......_liJ:1(\1l:I...1\I "I.~f'.n~.s,.."1:1 ..\lJllI .,....~""'...n ng Glt"Rftetl!JiQ"the ttj)o~,~wan$1Jtnd:'feni1*$:. 11fe~te .nth..,,,",I!'-~-·""·-"'-"riI'"1ff:"'·.:·.,......--.,r,..'!"-"";-ba.........,tJI"IOl'-MS4hrd--~.......~._,*''''''.l'I;I'l:I.,t1•."""n\t.l_~_Unjll>._._•..,,?~.nasl....-!P'••u'.I!:.w\J'I_'...""~,ClLI:'."..........JV........".·Ili:/Q..U'Htc:t iSSUe.The !.lJpfWrt~ate discu$$$(U,etow. g_A-Mamtain .QlfIa-r:t~,,";uepl8§.rs t:aavlng tll.&~de ssl8.;Wlliulda1inuetb IlmitthEthqh't <!lfh.eclfE$:ftl),the fi\Imt,yarQ sflltba~IUo 4i'f. ThfsWOUld mean that the 'C1y's 061ill!l Snforcelment stalif WIlt 1'S$1lJl:.ltld'fb.~1Sil1ts ab.l:1lJt non.. con.forrnJng hedges 'fn the firol!1't yalitifselbackarea and WIll .1!UNe to pl:ltswe AtImerous ... 1hwlil9OOliinh.e.OIty~rh.r,,~tm..ld..GO.rNIntJ'e.......tl1'E:115.fl.&!.gvtiVe~"1ro.m1b~.Pub.·lIoa.I't~...•e .a:m,mberof.eoosting J1(i)n"COnr~lng 1l!~e$'thrDlIgh~t~'Oit¥.th~~e,ofOOFl!lP~b:th!;Wjfr:lfl$ly etl!ntinue to increase 01$lluiJ1b...·_BeJliIe $Jlfbrcemenl_es~¥eQ\ffn~IlNJl!lt,1Iifi!m~J fIiI$c)~s:tOr -"mertf;IJeSl\It.ns Ill.dd~flID$l.'.tb~ie.~. QptlQn B....Igqrease ite Het,mt;lntH&t.Hsdges {J,s ••d eadler.J.te·~·_.IOP.J.Ren:t¢pd.:.'I(l)W&Jer;t~s'at1t:1 walhl ....pt,flir IFI'f!l.'h\'OuJlil~fH' ~.ftantya...rel6.·~..I"....~,.~.'.'.'$.U.:.Pto.1.·."fn.'..,nefgh.t,t.tn...o.~Pt!l.rt..fA.·....:~..·'lot.lJ~.'..,liJ'ffJ~.*.'..e:~~tJ ,lm."~=~p.~Ol':::.=::l~-==~"=~,.~ yarthJ$tJiJaol(,~$'.tiQltEi:l1!f~...Qi\\1Plj)f);hJ:fhatt1'l:~dg!!¥$d.Q nQl:~~mul$af~·Clps~Jh" ::m-a=~~::'~n'~'re~th:r~~s~=~'~:~:=~ey 1l.IW''1lftJr property.'C1iNt'1ats Wl'lo·wrSl1fo."f,JQte~~.e~hec:Jgss...·In 1I:le.fmnt..._I'd.Setb.~k.~r$9.~d..~PlOPI!lttie$wltb~I!nP!li1il1the.~e·h~'9htswJtHm tJ!t.efront~~_~d·_CQcIfe~ph!int. ~vet.~$nElQllltivefJ;i'tp.a$WOliId ln~.El9111 __ei!l_;Qf 61t1t4d~JA_tro:ntyaltl edt. ~WDtlId,decrEias~theltg11t,aJraDd-o_·'Sp.acequaIJl¥·in~aJ neJghbcmDOcfs.·MdJliJi'tSflyt there may'be a decree_ssMe ofsaf8f.yil'J ce.rtafn C'asesJmcaUSS1aJf'I1Eldg:es Within Ihe.frtmtyai'd setbaCk area may not pr.oVldefGr adequate Visibility Gfvehfdes and·padestlians pasSing on :the public righkllf-wayfr.or.n vehicles enlering·or ·Jl3avlrl0 aresilihmtialsJte. 4-130 QQtton G-Mgdi(fmU:ladge $!1!tbacks OptiOn Cwotilt'J ue to mi$e tlw Code to permit h$(frile$~ver42"tn sbm6 porticms 0'fthe ft(Jnt Yard setback,proVided thal1bey do not impact vehiolelj)~n ViSibility.this would be a mtran€:sd app;roaohthal woultHildlOde the benefits-frOmbQ'ltl_ns A .and B Whife excfudfl'lgassotitated l'1egatilte~.Thtsqptmn would address saM,y~stAes bYptaV-fdihg adequate Vi$ual~~nce for vehides and pede8idal')s WIlDe maintaining suffkijent l~t.·air and open space quality fh restder.rtlal~fghbomDO~.ForexampJe.perAa.Ps bedges_d'bamlowiad uptD 6'(or.sOlJla':o.ther lower h~9ht)QFl"wflliil'~ffOntyard setbac~Iilre&.$at·ts ~part of 1I1e slde yard ~ (genera"5t·fto~tbf;IJ-siti!a p~perty line)10 preveJ1t1h$q~~~,ftf,lmik Of a tafJ;heEfp.~ftIe entt..:retQ1'5~~...S-.,f",e.ddJlfo.n..sm..if.wpuldWO*_.fhe..~!JcW..arks...·OePlilrfment.1f;lenQfyanf~ea1 ~to_M ~eqwate visJpllitYfOrvetht_rm4I'Hn:I$~J1tI.... $jaff te$l's:M ~l1$.A_S'wouJd Fe$u)tin ",,"e:lrng_that'oplronC '$.-fflS~V~ tho·ro.'!l,l!ilJttafJ.ti!ln~•.~J~.··...~'b..,.:Optkm CS~)...'t\i:i.~.''.tJl.l.ct..·'·i14rtherresea..rsh·t'i,~.·aB~t.What.~CEf.~d·bS.R\h'~le ~uldbe ..th~~.!!JvI$fbmlyJmpacff;._~dQA'~ fin....dJnQ$tom.'..':'~~'~;.•'~dre..oommem.,q.($....~..~~~~s.UrIe Oode ln~o...belllfitmth~'fI4llll,I~,~p*nU!jI~blln~lng non~md.tfJi:!J#J1.."toto:C/I)I1Jpfian<;eand''. liI.qW~.llgl;lt,$Ir-~"~~en$'PaQe,qul!llfl.Y()h:$s(lll~f h~Qd$whl,leenslJf.ihsp,c_ eJnd wtit!faRi.. gANPbNQIJ Based .aMthe~dt&i~;si"r.t,jliJ~.e;$taff bellevs'S th~t ~~~P1ll!ltfC and a"~n~f.Utf11et':f.e~eamft w.oUkJ r:'esillUn·..~ab1e;a:tldbafance.dsslutiotl.TheJ!(if_.sfaffsesks dftiectfQnfMttl 'tlil&tlJIly CourteD refard.·.rns ,tn.e ~nWatf.''.'an Qf.a code amendment·to.'potSIlitfaUy~.se the Clttshladue..~el9ttt Te;ufatlQAS fr:t ~~pter 1-1~1"3()(Fences.J:Jec,iges al!ldw.al~of Ule Ranohe.Palos.V$r4es D$velepme~~o~lt·~~. Mrr"JI~ IftbEJ cu,C$Jnc.lI ••$F~es _fnNl',ltl.ortof th($~,~,staff win pr~etrt.~b.ed QQd$:e.m.ndm~:to._~t'iDfr:r,~mml$$fOD~t.fbfJl1r··..~nd.r.eqor:n~d'aa,Jlen1btl'te..eflyCOl'.JncffWadald$n.$tjff~ntlelpatestbat",~take 21o.amunlh$w·~~ ~IIPACJ Since 1bfs Isa ~ted'1!lDEle,amendment.,lie OOSf$,aMtIls1afed wfth 1m pmdeSsma'wooldbe bQtne by the.Oilf:s ,GMetaf Fiilnd.. 4-131 .... The following afternmfivesetre av:ailabJefor:the City Cot;iJ1(lJla oOflsfdeuation: 1.Authori%ethe Jnitisfion Gftf!l&requested>codeamendmentas.recommetlded byslaff.toptiOn C)tQ potentially revISe City's hedgeh&lght regulations ill Chapter 17.76.090 (Fences, hedges and waifS.}oftl:re ~ancho Palos Verdes DeveropmenlCode (RPVOO},via Minute, ()Rie~. l.Autbor1ae 1he~t3tll:ef'8dffereAt ·C(KJeamendment,'f):ptfonB. 3.DG'oot autbfiJ_'~lmllialiQllof1he reqoe~99'lt~EI~dment (Op!tQn A). '"~*...GurlSnt RPVMC Oh$fEjr 17.16.-630 (FeneeiSt w.aHs anti ttedge$) , 4-132 vtunicode J 17·:1§;Q30-Fences.watls and hedges. A. , http://hDrary .muntCtlde.comiprint.aspx?clientlD=16,571 &HTMRequest==http%3a%2fI'1fI2f1ibrary .mumoou .•;9123no1 ( 4-133 M'tI11icode PageZQf: _If!ilJlf'P,ermlt. 'R'JIi_'llIJed sub~~ij),_.~a1ijf'.~r_ptIon,pemt1tpU$IUIf\Ho "~I",·~lth::=~::'~=~~~::~~=~==~,IfIg;,... b. ... a, b, B\.IUding H~ight)of1h1$title;EIl'Id Ul.WIlen 'ceated Within tl:l..;1ioiJ.~y8ltl of affag lot and !hewnl pf'Ol'.lerw1lJle Qf Ihe lJag lot abUlsthe rear cr lnlel'iorsid"e pl'Qperty fin.e iJf an adjacent rol.up 10.sIx reel in height $hall bepermltted. Fl3nces,walls EIl'Id he~9es noUl:lti!f3.Ct to 8ubsecllon (C){1.}ta)oftbis seCUi)i'1 sltalf msaHhe fOQawfng Sfandal'd,$: L Fertoos and walls.tlP to l!ilX'fe&t.In.height.·.shall be perm.·..iltel:f0ll1fll.'1.pt:Jrt ohllOl nat subject 10 sub$etlltJl'I (0), (1)(a),6Xoepla,r~i,it$d·tiy ~n 17;48.079 (il'ib!li$donWSlblll~Gfthis DUB; Ii.HedU,es I..IP lb 8bd~eiJ fi!Iiltln h.l!l1g11t shall be permlttik\on «n~parhlf itlot not subjetlt to stl~SJtiltl'ln (C}(t)(li1. SXc;Eipll:'!&I1iItllrlt:ited .~~.pre!!lervatfon ~ri:!!:ltaratiolll,pl'Qtiisklns whli:lh ep,p1y to ._glll,de desqrlbe(f 11'1 Ohapter 11.02 ~.Re$1denlial Oistriols); lB.WhElIil combltlBd Wllh.j;t.'fente.~m:Ilno W2\lI (lrrelalhln(twalJ.tile,total height i:mly not egce.ed efg1itfeet, ,as measured fAl1ll,gJBde'onttle Iower1ifde,amJmay nDl~d eixf$$f;es me;alWl'E!d ftom glsdiil-Oil the h~ers_' iii..VVhen Qlfl\b_wiiit'lilfll!~,.tmesta,u:Un9 wall,.retaJning W{llt 1JI'~the lotarhlilfghtnuw not ElXCeBd"sbcteetlfbt.,.,m.epumitfi'O"t"l~J1a'dpan the hlgksr 1If*:iimdfl'l1bl~tf el~_t:l\ii:ll1~ frr;m'~l'1ld .•.~J1~~f~~.t)l,'QV!dl9d,~eh~klll.~~...'fI'eaui'Jtllrig w~1 a~orretlillnJI1g'W8l/'al3l!l$lfu)tel(d$ettJlle'h,Ellflhlll~aijijns,f,l...•Il. Ternp.CiFary ~.'..'.l!lPt!ilr 1'1.s6,;(l'efirlItJc:!Ji~)"t!l1to $l~fee~lIS ~IQ,bJ,mal'.J,:I&;,p~lfJliI1~....~~W1~·~~rnU1rt'JI.·m ot$IN Ptli'SQlilnl10 theJ temPQfiiIl,'Y"~l!'Udlt.l!i ftini:lll1g prbl/Wont «~~.,oftMj,tltle.........,M " J. en fhefrortt ~pedyUne,and1bs,dedOr1acadeafthe ~..-srIlDI~ .Ole~th~~~~$\I~llI,"'$-~.'.. ba,permitted WJ'~D ~!l'ftOltlor'4,trf,:I.~tdlt...,~pti!l$~ilt1'~_$m:lmlst)'SBlUimt1iA8IQ1;()'~~i filJ:*;lh S~At;~ $.dl'olty~'liiheslnjhe:fR#!t .U1~-..·J$:~f;S.~Qif'fiA$~··, "illl'l"'~fO!r6W:lrrlt&ti:l.r$rdlr. '"fI:t,Ir!t Qr.Elt~!Oitll!t~Pili pij 1,t.48;WO·(l,1l1$"S~Open b.ttp1/1ibrary .municode.comlprint.aspx?ctientID*16'71 &HT:M.Request=http%lao/o21;!J/02f1ibrary.muni 4-134