RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_11_07_01_Code_Amendment_Allowing_Hedges_Over_42_InchesCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY~~MENT DIRECTOR
NOVEMBER 7,2012 Uv
CODE AMENDMENTTO ESTABLI~HA PROCEDURE FOR
ALLOWING HEDGES OVER 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE
FRONT YARD SETBACK OF PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES AND TO SIMP.LlFY THE EXISTING
INTERSECTION VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS
(ZON2010-00293)
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER09-
Project Manager:So Kim,Associate Planne~
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce Ordinance No._,thereby amending 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 establish a new discretionary permit process to allow hedges above 42"
in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties and to simplify the
review process to allow improvements within the intersection visibility triangle area.
BACKGROUND
On May 1,2012,the City Council received a status update on the progress of a code
amendment and directed Staff to work with the Planning Commission and create a permit
process to allow hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback of residential
properties.An in-depth historical background of the proposed code amendment prior to
May 1,2012 is available as an attachment.
Pursuant to City Council direction,on June 26,2012,the Planning Commission discussed
a proposed code amendment to potentially allow hedges over 42"in height within the front
yard setback of residential properties through a discretionary permit process.The
Commission also discussed a code amendment proposed by Staff to simplify the existing
1-1
review process for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications.The proposed hedge height
review procedure would involve the Public Works Department and the Planning Division
conducting a site visit to determine if there are any traffic visibility or view impacts resulting
from a proposed hedge over 42"in height in the front yard setback area.The Planning
Commission questioned the Public Works analysis criteria and voted to continue the
meeting to July 24 th with a request that a Public Works Staff member attend the meeting to
explain the review process and criteria that will be utilized.Consistent with the
Commission's direction,Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer was present to answer questions at
the July 24th public hearing and the Planning Commission ultimately adopted Resolution
No.2012-13,recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the
intersection visibility triangle review process and establish procedures allowing hedges
above 42"within the front yard setback of residential properties.
DISCUSSION
Proposed Amendment to Code Section 17.76.030 (Fences,~Walls and Hedges)
.,J'"
The proposed new subsection would establish a permit process (with a fee),a set of
findings,a notice of decision procedure and an appeal process for property owners to
pursue if they wish to have hedges over 42"in height within the front yard setback of
residential properties.This proposed permit review procedure would be codified.as
subsection 17.76.030E within the Fences,Walls and Hedges section of the City's
Development Code as follows:
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,including the 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 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 a
visual impairment that would adversely affect the public
health,as determined by the Director of Public Works;and
3.The height of the hedge 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;and.
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
1-2
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.
5.Hedges that exceed 3D"in height and are located within the
intersection visibility triangle shall be reviewed pursuant to
the criteria set forth in Section 17.48.070 D.
Proposed Amendment to Code Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Triangle
Review Procedure)
Currently,a Site Plan Review Permit,subject to Planning Commission review and approval
is required when applicants propose improvements exceeding 30"in height within the
intersection visibility triangle area of their private property.The intersection visibility triangle
area is formed by the intersection of extended curblines and a line joining points on the
curb 60'from the point of intersection of curbline extension~,q,s'iIIustrated below.
O"l
c::!•,----------
"
GO'
I
I·I
I·I
I·I·I·I·I·---------------I
42"max.•
I
Street
fO'(FrOnl Yard Setback)
Since the Planning Commission makes decisions on these applications primarily based on
the Public Works Department's visibility impact determinations,Staff felt that it would be
less time consuming for both the applicants and the City if decisions for these applications
1-3
are made by the Director instead of the Planning Commission,using the same Public
Warks Department review criteria.The proposed amendment to existing section 17.48.070
is 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.
'J.:l.
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 ofall 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 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 pl-anning
commission's director's decision to the city councl!planning commission
1-4
pursuant to Chapter 17.80 (Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of
this title,and the Planning Commission's decision may be appealed to the
City Council.
CONCLUSION
The proposed code amendment language identified in this report was previously reviewed
and approved by the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.Since the proposed
code amendments address the Council's direction on this matter,Staff is recommending
that the City Council read the ordinance by title only,waive further reading and reintroduce
Ordinance No._'thereby amending Sections 17.76.030 and 17.48.070 of the Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code to establish procedures allowing hedges over 42"in height
within the front yard setback of private residential properties and simplify the existing
intersection visibility triangle review process.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
An in depth historical background prior to May 1,2012 is available as an attachment.
Additionally,if the City Council is interested,all previous City Council and Planning
Commission minutes,Staff Reports and Resolutions can be provided upon request.
Attachments:
•Historical Background Prior to May 1,2012
•C.C.Ordinance No.
•P.C.Minutes (dated July 24,2012)
•P.C.Resolution No.2012-13
•P.C.Staff Report (dated July 24,2012)
1-5
Historical Background Prior to May 1,2012
1-6
Historical Background Prior to Mav 1,2012
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 banier"(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.
',,"
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 not pursue 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 over 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 14,2011 (Staff Report is attached).The
proposed review procedure would involve the Public Works Department and the
Planning Division conducting a site visit to detElrmine if there would be 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 26,2011 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 within the
front yard setback (July 26,2011 Staff Report attached).However,the
Commission felt that a new permit process was unnecessary (July 26,2011
1-7
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 simplify the review process to allow proposed structures in
an intersection visibility triangle by changing the review process from a Planning
Commission decision to a Staff decision.
On August 9,2011,the Commission voted 3-2 to adopt the resolution
recommending the conceptually approved code amendm;~nt agreed to on July
26,2011 (Commissioners Knight and Leon dissel1tihg &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
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 then agreed 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 if Commissioner Lewis was in attendance the vote 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 27,2011,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 25,2011.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
1-8
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 the 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.
On May 1,2012,the City Council received a status update on the progress of a
code amendment and directed Staff to work with the Planning Commission and
create a permit process to allow hedges over 42"in height within the front yard
setback of residential properties.
1-9
c.c.Ordinance No.
1-10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 17.76.030 AND 17.48.070 OF
THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH
PROCEDURES ALLOWING HEDGES OVER 42"IN HEIGHT WITHIN
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTIES AND TO SIMPLIFY THE EXISTING INTERSECTION
VISIBILITY TRIANGLE REVIEW PROCESS.
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 height;and
WHEREAS,during the analysis,Staff found that Chapters 17.48.070
(Intersection Visibility Triangle)and 17.76.030 (Fences,¥,!alls and Hedges)had
similarities that necessitates amendments to both Chapters;'and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000 ef.seq.("CEQAn),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 July 24,2012,the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
2012-13,recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the
intersection visibility triangle review process and to establish procedures allowing
hedges above 42"within the front yard setback of residential properties;and,
WHEREAS,a notice was published on October 4,2012,pursuant to the
requirements of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and,
WHEREAS,on October 16,2012,the City Council continued the matter to the
following public hearing on November 6,2012;and,
WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on November 7,
"2012,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and
present evidence.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The City Council 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.
1-11
Section 2:The City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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:Section 17.48.070 (Intersection Visibility Tri.angle)of Chapter 17.48
of Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is he,reby amended,to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language;the1ext in strikethrough is to be
deleted),as shown in Exhibit 'A':
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 approval by the
1-12
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,and the Planning Commission's decision
may be appealed to the City Council.
Section 6:Section 17.76.030 (Fences,Walls and Hedges)of Chapter 17.76 of
Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code is hereby amended to read
as follows (the underlined text represents new language;the text in strikethrough
is to be deleted),as shown in Exhibit 'A':
17.76.03Q -Fences,walls and hedges
'i"
A.Purpose.These standards provide for the donstruction 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:
1-13
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 requiremeq!'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.
1-14
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 0f this section and other
'i"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:
1-15
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,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.
1-16
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,Rursuant to the temporary
construction fencing provisionS !I"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.
1-17
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 Sectiorr'f7.76.040 (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.including the 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 exceeding 42"allows for the safe view of on-
coming vehicular traffic and pedestrians by a driver
existing his or her driveway and does not cause a visual
impairment that would adversely affect the public health,
as determined by the director of public works;and
3.The height of the hedge exceeding 42"does not
significantly impair a view from the viewing area of
residential parcel as defined in Section 17.02.040 (View
Preservation and Restoration)of this title.
4.The property owner submits a complete application and
fee for a Site Plan Review permit and obtains approval of
said permit.The approval of said permit shall include a
condition of approval that specifies the hedge's permitted
height above 42"and that the hedge shall be maintained
at said height.
5.Hedges that exceed 30"in height and are located within
the intersection visibility triangle shall be reviewed
pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 17.48.070 D.
1-18
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"",sJ1)as and standing
bodies of water eighteen inches or mbre 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 th.e 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:
a.Crenshaw Boulevard;
b.Crest Road;
c.Hawthorne Boulevard;
1-19
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 7: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 amel'J,prtlents 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 8:Severability.If any section,subsection,subdivision,sentence,
clause,phrase,or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
place,is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction,such dectsion shall not affect the validity of the remainder of
this ordinance.The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this
ordinance,and each and every section,subsection,subdivision,sentence,clause,
phrase,or portion thereof,irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections,
subsections,subdivisions,sentences,clauses,phrases,or portions thereof be declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 9:The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in three (3)
public places in the City within fifteen (15)days after its passage,in accordance with the
provisions of Section 36933 of the Government Code.The City Clerk shall further
certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance,and shall cause this Ordinance
and its certification,together with proof of posting,to be entered in the Book of
Ordinances of the Council of this City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Section 10:This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect at
12:01 AM on the 31 st day after its passage.
Section 11: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.
1-20
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this t h day of November 2012.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
?
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the
above Ordinance No._was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on November 7,2012.
City Clerk
1-21
P .C.Minutes
(July 24,2012)
1-22
1.Code Amendment -Hedges within the front yard setback (Case No.
ZON2010-00293)
Associate Planner Kim presented the staff report,giving a brief history of the project and
the Commission's request that a member of the Public Works Department be present at
this meeting to answer questions,and introduced Nicole Jules from the Public Works
Department.
Ms.Jules gave a brief power point presentation explaining how Public Works staff
determines traffic visibility impacts.
Commissioner Leon asked Ms.Jules if the Public Works Department has a set of
criteria for review that is reasonably objective in which residents could read the criteria
to determine ahead of time whether or not their hedge mayor may not comply.Or,is it
fairly subjective in the kinds of criteria the Public Works Departm~nt will apply in viewing
different applications.'"
Ms.Jules answered that for the most part the objectivity comes when reviewing hedges
located at a curve in the street.She explained that she would determine if the minimum
clear visibility exists,which is 155 feet from her point of reference coming out of the
driveway extended both directions of traffic.She stated everything else is subjective
and based on engineering judgment,conditions at the site,and several other elements
involved to deem it safe or unsafe.
Commissioner Gerstner questioned why staff would use the criteria of a driver sitting in
the driveway looking for oncoming cars,when in fact the critical criteria is whether or not
the oncoming traffic can see the vehicle pulling out of the driveway.
Ms.Jules explained that one needs a point of reference,that being the driveway,then
measure from the driveway 155 feet in both directions.
Commissioner Gerstner understood that,but explained that his concern is that there are
not some objective criteria that a reasonable resident can understand whereby they feel
comfortable with the determination.These criteria would allow them to look at the
application and feel confident that their application may be approved based on this
criteria.
'Ms.Jules stated this criterion does exist,explaining she has a thick book which is a
guideline for road design which clearly dictates what objective elements can be used
when evaluating a driveway or an intersection or a roadway on a curve.
Vice Chairman Emenhiser asked Ms.Jules how often she is called into the field on
these types of issues,and if this policy is approved how often she anticipates she will be
addressing these issues.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24,2012
Page 2
1-23
Ms.Jules answered she has been called into the field to look at this type of issue
maybe two or three times in the past ten years.
Chairman Tetreault explained that he could foresee a situation where there may be
some fairly tall hedges up against a driveway where the hedges terminate at a driveway
edge.Somebody backing their car out of the driveway,once past the hedge can clearly
see 155 feet in both directions.However,there is still the sidewalk,and as they are
backing their car out of the driveway they would not be able to see a pedestrian
emerging from around that hedge.He felt that would seem to be a rather significant
hazard,and hoped that this type of scenario would be considered when reviewing
applications.
Ms.Jules stated that this situation would absolutely be looked at,as she would be
looking,a~motor and pedestrian safety.
Chairman Tetreault asked Ms.Jules what her recommendatj,olW'would be if she were to
look at a tall hedge that obstructed the view of traffic,but would continue to obstruct the
view even if cut down to 42 inches in height.
Ms.Jules answered that staff would make the recommendation that the hedge be
trimmed down to a height that is safe,even if that height is below 42 inches.
Commissioner Gerstner stated that would then mean a resident was not allowed to
have a 42 inch tall hedge by right,but rather the hedge height would be dependent on
staff's recommendation.
Director Rojas clarified that currently 42 inches is a by-right height limit for hedges in the
front yard setback,however what is before the Commission is a permit process to
exceed the 42 inch height limit.Specifically,a change to the Code is being
contemplated,which would subject properties to a discretionary process.As a result of
that,it will need to be reflected in the Code that a hedge can be up to 42 inches in the
front yard setback unless restricted further through this process.He added that,not
withstanding a memo from the Public Works Department stating a hedge at 42 inches is
not safe,the hedge will typically be left at 42 inches since that is the by-right height.
Commissioner Leon suggested establishing a permit process with a by-right height limit
of 42 inches so that residents are running the risk of having their hedge cut to a level
.lower than 42 inches.This would allow residents to live with the level of safety that the
City has afforded them for many years.
Chairman Tetreault hoped there would not be a situation where an inspection was
performed by the Public Works Department and it was their opinion that,even at 42
inches,the hedge presents a hazard to pedestrians and other vehicles.This hazard
would then be documented and what would happen if some time in the future this
hazard comes to pass and someone was injured because of a visibility problem caused
by the hedge.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24,2012
Page 3
1-24
Commissioner Gerstner felt that criteria for the analysis or report could be a review or
analysis of that portion of the hedge that is above 42 inches in height,since the by-right
height of the hedge is 42 inches.
Commissioner Nelson moved to approved staff's recommendation,seconded by
Vice Chairman Emenhiser.
Commissioner Leon stated that in his reading of staff's recommendation a resident
could submit an application requesting a hedge at some height over 42 inches,but
depending on staff's analysis,could end up being required to trim the hedge to 30
inches.
Associate Planner Kim clarified that Planning staff and Public Works staff would conduct
an analysis of only the portion of the hedge that is over 42 inches in height.The
resolution'included in the staff report does not include the discre~pn to require a hedge
be trimmed to a level below the by-right level of 42 inches.it
Vice Chairman Emenhiser noted his frustration with this issue and the number of
meetings that have been spent on the topic.He felt that if the City Council keeps
sending the issue back to the Planning Commission,and staff keeps recommending
approval,then the Planning Commission should give the Council and staff what they
want.If it is something that is enforced frfty times a year rather than once a year,and
there is an objection from the public,then the City Council can once again change the
Code.
Director Rojas suggested adding language to findings 2 and 3 for clarification that states
if the height of the hedge over 42 inches does not significantly impair a view or that the
hedge over 42 inches does not impair vehicular visibility.
Commissioner Gerstner agreed with the Director's suggestion.
Commissioner Nelson moved to amend the motion to add the language for
finding Nos.2 and 3 as suggested by Director Rojas,seconded by Vice Chairman
Emenhiser.
Associate Planner Kim clarified the suggested language,referring the to page 11,E(2)
to say the proposed hedge over 42 inches in height allows for the safety of oncoming
'vehicular traffic.Further,E (3)would be modified to say the height of the hedge over 42
inches in height.
The motion approving PC Resolution 2012·13 was approved as amended,(5-1-1)
with Commissioner Gerstner dissenting and Commissioner Lewis abstaining.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission Minutes
July 24,2012
Page 4
1-25
· .
P.c.Resolution No.2012-13
1-26
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2012-13
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-iCity Council withdraw the
code amendment based on the finding that allowing hedge.s@Ner 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.(ItCEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et.seq.,the Gity'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 pubJic 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 continued the public hearing
and 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.2012-13
Page 1 of 10
1-27
WHEREAS,on September 27,2011,the Planning Commission failed to adopt a
resolution for approval and therefore continued the public hearing and directed Staff to re-notice
the item for further discussion at a future meeting;and,
WHEREAS,a notice was published on October 6,2011,pursuant to the requirements of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and,
WHEREAS,on October 25,2011,since not all Commissioners were present to discuss
the code amendment in detail,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a
future meeting at which time all seven Commissioners were expected to be present;and,
WHEREAS,on January 10,2012,the Planning Commission directed Staff to provide a
status update on the proposed code amendment to the City Council to seek direction as to
whether to continue with the proposed code amendment;and,
WI;-lEREAS,on May 1,2012,the City Council directeq Staff and the Planning
Commission to create a process whereby residents could apply for·,a discretionary permit to
allow hedges exceeding 42"in height within the front yard setbad<;trnd,
WHEREAS,a notice was published on June 7,2012,pursuant to the requirements of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and,
WHEREAS,on June 26,2012,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
July 24,2012,with a request that a Public Works Staff member be present to answer questions
related to the analysis criteria and directed Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption;
and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 24,
2012,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,WaBs 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.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-13
Page 2 of 10
1-28
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 underUned text represents new language;the text in
strikethrougf:l is to be deleted):
17.48.070 -Intersection Visibility
A.
. .
B.
C.
D.
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 .
Trees located within the intersection visibility triangle '''hich are trimmed to
the trunk up to a minimum branch height of 6'above the adjacent street
curb elevation are exempt from these regulations.
The intersection visibility triangle shall be shown oh 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 shaH show the common name,locations and
mature dimensions plotted to scale of all proposed trees,shrubs and plants
within the intersection visibility triangle.
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 interseotion 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 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 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.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-13
Page 3 of 10
1-29
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 tOlD &f 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
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
P.C.Resolution No.2012-13
Page 4 of 10
1-30
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 OWAe~of property adjacent of the
sUbject property.Notice of denial shaH 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)ofthis title.
4.This decision of the planning commission may be appealed to the city council
pursuant to Section 17.80.070 (Hearing Notice and P,ppeal Procedures)of
this title.
5.The director,the planning commission and city council may impose such
conditions on the approva'i 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;
P.C.Resolution No.2012-13
Page 5 of 10
1-31
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;.;.p.
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,
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:
P.C.Resolution No.2012-13
Page 6 of 10
1-32
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 intersectio'ff 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;
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;
p.e.Resolution No.2012-13
Page 7 of 10
1-33
..
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.wal·1 or hedge will not be detrimental to the
public safety and welfare;
b.The line of sight over or through the fenee is adequate for safety
and does not significantly impair a 'devl'lrom 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 vislblJity 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 tit/e.
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
exceeding 42"allows for the safe view of on-coming vehicular
traffic and pedestrians by a driver existing 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 exceeding 42~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
P.C.Resolution No.2012-13
Page 8 of 10
1-34
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,spaStit8tfCl 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 se~f-Iatching
device located nat 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 tl:1e 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 fa9ade of the
existing single-family residence closest to the front property line,in
side yards between the street-side property line and the exterior
fayade of the existing single-famfly 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;
P.C.Resolution No.2012-13
Page 9 of 10
1-35
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 effe~tive 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 above42"in height up to 6'maximum within the front
yard setback of residential properties (ZON2010-00293).
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of July 2012,by the follOWing vote:
AYES:Commissioner Leon"Nelson"Tomblin,Vice Chairman Elnenhiser"Chairman
Tetreault
NOES:Commissioner Gerstner
ABSTENTIONS:Commissioner Lewis
RECUSALS:None
ABSENT:None
P.C.Resolution No.2012-~
Page 10 of 10
1-36
· .
P.C.Staff Report
(July 24,2012)
1-37
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Staff Coordinator:
RECOMMENDATION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CHAIRMAN AND MErBERS0 THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JOEL ROJAS,COMM NI EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
JULY 24,2012
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 ¢
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 amend the review process
for Intersection Visibility Triangle applications,and establish a new discretionary permit process to
allow hedges above 42"in height within the front yard setback of private residential properties.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to City Council direction,on June 26,2012,the Planning Commission discussed a
proposed code amendment to potentially allow hedges over 42"in height within the front yard
setback of residential properties through a discretionary permit process.The Commission also
discussed a code amendment proposed by Staff to simplify the existing review process for
Intersection Visibility Triangle applications.The proposed hedge height review procedure would
involve the Public Works Department and Planning Division conducting a site visit to determine if
there are any traffic visibility or view impacts resulting from a proposed hedge over 42"in height in
the front yard setback area.The Planning Commission questioned the Public Works analysis criteria
and voted to continue the meeting to July 24th with a request that a Public Works Staff member
attend the meeting to explain the review process and criteria that will be utilized.The Commission
also directed Staff to prepare a resolution for adoption by the next meeting .
.Consistent with the Commission's direction,Nicole Jules,Senior Engineer will be present at the July
24th meeting,to explain the analysis criteria that would be used to determine if a hedge over 42"
within the front yard setback would cause traffic visibility impacts.Additionally,Staff prepared a
resolution for potential adoption at tonight's meeting which recommends that the City Council adopt
a code amendment to implement the proposed review process for hedges in the yard setback in
excess of 42"in height and modifies the existing review process for Intersection Visibility application.
The proposed code amendment language has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department and the City attorney.
1-38
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that the proposed Code Amendment,as reviewed by the Public Works Department
and the City Attorney,is consistent with the City Council's direction to establish a discretionary
review process to allow hedges above 42" within the front yard setback of private residential
properties.As such,Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached P.C.Resolution,
recommending that the City Council approve the proposed code amendment.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
At the last public hearing,there was some confusion about the difference between an 'Intersection
Visibility Triangle',the 'Front Yard Setback'area,and different height limitations in each location.As
such,below is a diagram to help clarify the confusion.
i.-I·I·I·I·I·I·I·;.,a I
('.,:'k l'?....
·'V·',·"~~>~"!~'%~"/>""/'''N'~.e'I~·'tr..j'..~f..r::.;~~~··"··i to'(FrOnl Yard 8otback)
'--__~""""".j.4;'h.......~~~.•~__•...........~
60'
Street
ATTACHMENTS
•P.C.Resolution No.2012-
•P.C.Staff Report (dated June 26,2012)
•C.C.Minutes (dated May 1,2012)
•C.C.Staff Report (dated May 1,2012)
1-39
•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)
1-40
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 tq.eCity Council withdraw the
code amendment based on the finding that allowing hedges'aver 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,on August 9,2011,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing
and 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.2012-_
Page 1 of 10
1-41
WHEREAS,on September 27,2011,the Planning Commission failed to adopt a
resolution for approval and therefore continued the public hearing and directed Staff to re-notice
the item for further discussion at a future meeting;and,
WHEREAS,a notice was published on October 6,2011,pursuant to the requirements of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and,
WHEREAS,on October 25,2011,since not all Commissioners were present to discuss
the code amendment in detail,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a
future meeting at which time all seven Commissioners were expected to be present;and,
WHEREAS,on January 10,2012,the Planning Commission directed Staff to provide a
status update on the proposed code amendment to the City Council to seek direction as to
whether to continue with the proposed code amendment;and,
WI-:IEREAS,on May 1,2012,the City Council directed Staff and the Planning
Commission to create a process whereby residents could apply ffJr 1:1 discretionary permit to
allow hedges exceeding 42"in height within the front yard setback';and,
WHEREAS,a notice was published on June 7,2012,pursuant to the requirements of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code;and,
WHEREAS,on June 26,2012,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
July 24,2012,with a request that a Public Works Staff member be present to answer questions
related to the analysis criteria and directed Staff to prepare a resolution of approval for adoption;
and,
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 24,
2012,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.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 2 of 10
1-42
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.
S.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
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 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 commission's director's
decision to the city counoil planning commission pursuant to Chapter 17.80
(Hearing Notice and Appeal Procedures)of this title.
17.76.030 -Fenbes,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.
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 3 of 10
1-43
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 d(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
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
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 4 of 10
1-44
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 ofa f~ce,wall and hedge permit
shall be given to the applicant and to all own~rg 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.
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;
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 5 of 10
1-45
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 Se~ti9n"17.48.070 (I ntersection
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,
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:
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 6 of 10
1-46
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 b~hind the front ?r street-~i~~'~e:t~~ck area~,except as
restncted by the Intersectfbn vIsibility requirements of
Section 17.48.070 (Lots,setbacks,open space area and
building height)of this title.
ii.When combined with a retatning 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;
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;
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 7 of 10
1-47
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 f~e 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 visibiHty 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 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 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
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 8 of 10
1-48
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.
'!I-
5.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas ,ana 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 twe~ve 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
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;
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 9 of 10
1-49
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 Municip~1 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.
'Jb
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).
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of July 2012,by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
RECUSALS:
ABSENT:
Paul Tetreault
Chairman
Joel Rojas,AICP
Community Development Director and
Secretary of the Planning Commission
P.C.Resolution No.2012-_
Page 10 of 10
1-50