RPVCCA_SR_2011_07_05_04_Code_Amendments_To_Several_City_Development_CodesCrrvOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COMMUNITY
JULY 5,2011
SUBJECT:CODE AMENDMENT INITIATION REQUEST TO MAKE
MISCELANEOUS MINOR AMENDMENTS TO DIFFERENT SECTIONS
OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE (CASE NO.ZON2011-00023)
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Project Manager:Leza Mikhail,Associate Plann~
RECOMMENDATION
Initiate a Code Amendment to make a number of miscellaneous minor "clean up"amendments
to the City's Development Code in order to clarify ambiguous language,remove language
discrepancies,simplify or modify certain requirements,and codify existing policy procedures
and/or application requirements.
BACKGROUND
In the course of providing zoning information to the general public,Staff sometimes comes
across Development Code sections that are a little unclear as to their intent.Additionally,while
processing development applications,Staff has come across certain Development Code
requirements which in Staff's opinion could be simplified and/or modified.Over the past few
years,Staff has been compiling a list of these "clean up"amendments.In addition,there are a
number of processing requirements that exist as policy but are not contained in the Code.As a
result,Staff is recommending that the City Council initiate a code amendment to pursue these
miscellaneous minor amendments.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.68.030.8,the Community Development Director
and/or Planning Commission may initiate an amendment to any part of Development Code upon
petition to the City Council.The City Council is required to review the petition to determine if the
proposed code amendment is necessary or desirable.
As noted above,Staff has identified a number of code sections that need to be amended in
order to fix small discrepancies,modify or clarify certain requirements,or codify policy
procedures and/or application requirements.The following is a summary of Staff's proposed
"clean-up"code amendments:4-1
•Codify the current policy of requiring geology review and approval prior to
processing a planning application for a new single family residence or for a
remodel of an existing single-family residence whereby more than 50%of the
interior and exterior walls will be removed.This ensures that any potential geologic
issues that could potentially affect the design of a home are considered early in
the process.
•Require that both "roof decks"and "balconies"be subject to a privacy review prior
to approval.The current code only requires said review for new roof decks.Staff
believes that both proposed roof decks and balconies should be subject to a
privacy review.
•Clarify that an on-site parking space for a Home Occupation Permit is required.
The current code does not specify where the required parking space is to be
provided.
•Update the requirements for "hillside setbacks"to be consistent with the most
recent California Building Code (C.B.C.)
•Establish a maximum allowable height for chimneys.
•Include stand-alone chimneys,such as back yard fireplaces,to the list of
accessory structures that must comply with setbacks and the established 12-foot
maximum height requirement.
•Clarify that the Planning Commission,through the CUP process,has the ability to
establish parking requirements that deviate from the code listed parking standards
provided that a parking demand study is submitted and approved by the City to
justify the deviation from the code.
•Clarify that Special Use Permit applicants must submit their application at least 60
days prior to the date of a proposed special use/event.This is to ensure adequate
public noticing time and permit processing time.
•Allow Minor Exception Permits (MEP)to be processed for after-the-fact
construction.The code currently does not allow MEP's for after-the-fact projects.
As such,a property owner with a projectthatwould otherwise qualify for an MEP is
required to apply for an after-the-fact Variance,whereby the findings are more
difficult to make and often not supported and a Variance application is
considerably more expensive.
•Insert a diagram into the Coastal Permit section of the Code that delineates the
Coastal Setback Zone,Coastal Structure Setback Zone,Coastal Setback Line
and Coastal Structure Setback Line.A diagram will help describe the various
zones within the City's Coastal Zone.
•Clarify that filling an existing swimming pool/spa with dirt does not require the
approval of a Coastal Permit unless it occurs within the Coastal Setback Zone.
•Remove the reference to Section 6.04.230 of the RPVMC under the Exotic Animal
Section since Section 6.04.230 no longer exists.4-2
•Remove the reference of the Equestrian Committee within the Large Domestic
Animal Section of the Development Code and change the deciding body of a
Conditional Large Domestic Animal Permit from the Equestrian Committee to the
Planning Commission.This change is necessary because there is no longer an
Equestrian Committee.
•Clarify that non-conforming structures that are destroyed may be replaced with the
same number of pre-existing,legal dwelling units.
•Include Code language that is-consistent with the City Council adopted fee
resolution which states that a property owner is exempted from paying a penalty
fee for an after-the-fact application if it is demonstrated that an unpermitted
structure was constructed prior to the current property owner taking title and the
unpermitted structure was not disclosed as such.
•Codify the requirement that commercial antenna applicants must provide
photographic simulations for any proposed antenna and/or monopole as part of
the application and require that a mock-up be erected during the required 15-day
comment period and for at least one (1)continuous week before the public
hearing.These requirements are currently outlined in the City's Wireless
Communications Antenna Development Guidelines.
•Codify a number of Development Code Interpretations that have been identified in
the Planning Department's Procedures Manual
•Correct typographical errors
If the City Council initiates the Code Amendment as recommended by Staff,the formal Code
Amendment will be presented to the Planning Commission for review and consideration at a
noticed pUblic hearing.The Planning Commission's recommendation will then be forwarded to
the City council for a final decision,during a noticed public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT
This is a Staff-initiated Code Amendment,and the costs associated with its processing would be
borne by the City's General Fund.The Staff time associated with the processing of this
proposed Code Amendment is estimated to be approximately 60 hours.This process would be
considered an Advanced Planning Project and is accounted for in the Community Development
Department's budget.As such,no bUdget adjustment would be required.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration:
1.Deny the CAIR,and direct Staff to take no further action on the matter.If this alternative is
chosen,the current Development Code will remain "as is".
2.Direct Staff to initiate a Code Amendment for only certain "clean-up"code changes only.
4-3