Loading...
RPVCCA_SR_2010_04_20_11_View_Restoration_permits_LongMEMORANDUM TO:CITY COUNCIL FROM:MAYOR PRO TEM TOM LONG DATE:April 14,2010 SUBJECT:View Restoration Height Variation Permits The purpose of this memorandum is to ask the council to consider amending the view ordinance. The City's view ordinance was adopted in "Proposition M"in 1989.As adopted by the voters,the ordinance allows a resident to build a structure up to 16 feet above the original grade "by right."Structures in excess of 16 feet require a "height variation permit."If a height variation permit was required the ordinance (as adopted in Proposition M)required that the view impairment created by the structure be considered.Nothing in the ordinance indicated that only the portion of the view impairment above 16 feet should be considered if a height variation permit was sought. Nonetheless,a custom developed among staff,the planning commission and many planning commissioners to ignore that portion of the view below 16 feet anytime a height variation permit was considered arguing that the view below 16 feet was not a "protected view."Staff reports often referred to "protected view"in quote marks as though it was a term defined in the ordinance.The term cannot be found anywhere in the ordinance as adopted by the voters. I raised the concern as a planning commissioner that if a property owner seeks a height variation permit,the ordinance requires consideration of the entire view.Staff's view,and that of the majority of other planning commissioners is different.The issue was brought before the prior city council.Initially,the city council voted 5 to 0 in favor of my point of view.Upon further reflection and considering the views of other former planning commissioners,the city council changed its view and voted 4 to 1 to expressly require that all views below 16 feet be ignored in the consideration of height variation permits.Since a height variation permit can never seek permission to build a structure above 26 feet,this means that no more than a 10 foot sliver of view (and typically not most of the view)is ever considered on a height variation permit application.The vast majority of height variation permit applications are granted in part because the planning commission and the city council are now forbidden by the ordinance (as amended by the city council)from considering most of the view that is impaired by the proposed structure.The city attorney has opined that the change in the ordinance made by the city council is a minor change and therefore did not require approval of the voters.I respectfully disagree. 385128.1 DOC 11-1 -2- Various fallacies are often advanced as to why the portion of the view below 16 feet should not be considered when there is a height variation permit at issue:first, some have suggested that views below 16 feet are never protected and should never be considered under any circumstance.However,the view restoration ordinance specifically requires that foliage not block views which are above either 16 feet or the ridge line of the home,whichever is lower.There are a number of cases of view restoration involving the removal,trimming and maintenance of trees that are below 16 feet in height. Second,considering views below 16 feet will impair a property owner's right to build up to 16 feet "of right."This is also not true.Any property owner who confines his or her structure to 16 feet or less in height does not need a height variation permit and is not subject to any of the requirements of the view restoration ordinance for structures and can therefore build a structure that totally obliterates a view.However,as originally adopted by the voters,Proposition M required property owners who wished to build a structure to more than 16 feet (which is often required in order to build a two-story structure)to compromise with their neighbors and to take steps to avoid significantly impairing a view.As adopted by the voters,the entire view would be taken into account any time a height variation permit was sought.By amending the ordinance and requiring the planning commission and council to ignore that portion of the view below 16 feet anytime a height variation permit is sought,the council dramatically weakened the strength of the view ordinance. I request that the council instruct the staff to bring back a staff report to offer as alternatives to the council amending the ordinance in a way that would restore the original language of Proposition M and would allow consideration of the entire view that is being lost at the time of height variation permit applications as opposed to only that portion of the view above 16 feet that is now defined as a "protected view." Attachments Previous City Council Staff Reports on this issue 11-2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT APRIL 6,2004 ZON2003-00417 (16-FOOT HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT) Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mihranian,Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully requests Council direction on the following items: 1.Determine whether to continue the discussion on the proposed code amendment language,as recommended by the Planning Commission,and the amendments that were introduced at the City Council meeting,until after receiving a comprehensive recommendation from the Planning Commission; and, 2..If the Council wishes to discuss the matter this evening,review the Planning Commission's concerns,as summarized by Staff,and provide Staff with further direction as to any specific language amendments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 17,2004,the City Council unanimously adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 400U,Resolution No.2004-12,and Ordinance No.401 amending the Development Code,that among other things,clarified the application of two Height Variation Findings. The Planning Commission,when presented with the new code requirements at its February 24,2004 meeting,raised concerns regarding the application of the new findings.Based on Staff's understanding of the Commission's and the public's concerns,as discussed in this report,Staff respectfully requests Council direction on suggested draft code amendment language to address the following issues: 1)How to allow flexibility in the view analysis of structures below 16-feet in height when a significant view impairment exists; 2)How to treat "tear-down /rebuild"structures; 3)How to avoid project phasing; 4)The ambiguity with the term "proposed construction;" 5)Clarification of the intent of the Grading View Finding;and, 11-3 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 2 6)Whether to repeal the current requirement that two-story structures under 16-feet in height go through the Height Variation application process. BACKGROUND On February 17,2004,the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider adopting a code amendment that would,among other things,clarify the application of two Height Variation view findings.At the meeting,the Council considered modifications to the code amendment language recommended by the Planning Commission at its December 11,2003 meeting (see attached P.C.Resolution No.2003-62)and after discussion,unanimously introduced Ordinance No.401,which contained the modified language. The Planning Commission's proposed language required that the only portion of a proposed new structure that is less than sixteen feet in height that would be analyzed for view impairment in connection with a height variation permit is the portion directly under the structure that is proposed to exceed sixteen feet in height.The City Council revised the language to expand the review to all of the new areas of the structure that are less than sixteen feet in height in connection with a height variation permit.In order to make the new requirements effective immediately,the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.400U that evening (the minutes from that meeting are not yet available). The Urgency Ordinance mirrors Ordinance No.401 and is attached to this Staff Report (see attachment). At the February 24,2004 Planning Commission meeting,the Commission was informed of the new Height Variation findings adopted under Urgency Ordinance No.400U.The Commission was informed that because an urgency ordinance was adopted,the new requirements became effective immediately and would have to be applied to two Height Variation applications on the Commission's agenda that evening.In reviewing the two proposed projects to determine whether the new findings could be made,the Planning Commission raised some questions regarding the intent of the new language,as they felt there was some ambiguity as to what type of "new construction"would be subjected to the view analysis.Although the Commission went on to make the required findings, it sought further clarification from the Council on how to apply the new findings for various scenarios,including "tear-down and re-build"projects. On March 2,2004,the City Council was set to adopt the second reading of Ordinance 401.However,at that meeting,it was brought to the Council's attention that the Planning Commission had expressed some concerns about the application of the new Height Variation findings language.Since there were questions regarding the code amendment language,the Council agreed to refrain from formally adopting the new height variation language and continued the discussion of the matter to its April 6th meeting.In addition,the Council directed Staff to report back on April 6th with the Commission's specific concerns regarding the proposed code amendment language and any suggested new language that may address the Commission's concerns. 11-4 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 3 The City Council's modified code amendment language to Height Variation Findings Nos.4 and 5 was presented to the Planning Commission at its March 23,2004 meeting. Only the language of the Height Variation findings was presented to the Planning Commission,because this is the only language that was modified by the City Council after receiving the Planning Commission's recommendations,and the Planning Commission did not raise any concerns about the other code amendment language contained in the Urgency Ordinance.Due to other items on the agenda that evening, which involved members of the public who were waiting to speak,the Commission did not get to this agenda item until after 11 :00 pm.As a result,the Commission had a very brief discussion of the matter and heard testimony from only one speaker in attendance, a resident currently proposing to construct a new residence above 16-feet in height. Given the circumstances,the Commission,with a vote of 5-1,agreed to continue the discussion to its April 13,2004 meeting with a recommendation that the Council continue its discussion on this matter until after the Commission could thoroughly discuss the issue and present the Council with a more comprehensive recommendation. As such,this item is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission as the second item on the agenda of its upcoming April 13,2004 meeting. In light of the Commission's recommendation,Staff noted to the Commission that pursuant to previous Council direction,this item would still be on the April 6th City Council agenda.Staff noted that the Commission's recommendation would be provided to the Council,but that it would be at the Council's discretion on whether and how to proceed.Therefore,notwithstanding the Commission's recommendation,Staff is presenting this item to the Council with a Staff Report that summarizes the various issues that have arisen since the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.400U.The purpose of this report is to facilitate the discussion,if the Council wishes to proceed with the item this evening. DISCUSSION PROPOSED LANGUAGE AT ISSUE The subject of concern,as expressed by the Planning Commission and certain public speakers at the Council's March 2,2004 meeting,is the new language of Height Variation Findings Nos.4 and 5.The precise language is contained in Urgency Ordinance No.400U,which is attached to this Staff Report.To assist with the discussion of the issues,Staff is providing an explanation of each finding below: 1.Height Variation Finding (No.iv) According to Urgency Ordinance No.400U,residential development projects that require a Height Variation application will be subject to a view analysis finding for new construction above or below 16-feet in height.The specific language for Height Variation Finding No.iv is as follows: The area of a proposed new structure or addition to an existing structure,when considering both the new area that is above sixteen feet and the new area that is below 11-5 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 4 sixteen feet,as defined in Section 17.02.040(8)of this Chapter,when considered exclusive of existing foliage,does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel. The following diagram helps illustrates the application of the above finding: A' 16' Existing Residence A Based on the diagram,the proposed addition labeled area A'would trigger a Height Variation application because the proposed addition is above 16-feet in height. Pursuant to the Urgency Ordinance,the view analysis finding would apply to proposed additions labeled as areas A',A and B,because together they constitute "new area that is above sixteen feet and new area that is below sixteen feet." As a result of concerns raised at the March 2,2004 City Council meeting,Councilman Stern inquired whether code language could be drafted that would allow more flexibility in the analysis of a Height Variation permit when a significant view impairment exists below 16-feet.Specifically,Councilman Stern is requesting that language be drafted that would allow a Height Variation permit to be granted if the structure causing the view impairment below 16-feet in height is designed to reasonably minimize the impairment of a view.As such,pursuant to Councilman Stern's inquiry,if it is the Council's wish, the following language can be added as the last sentence to Height Variation Finding No.iv: In cases where a significant view impairment exists below 16-feet in height,this finding can be made if the proposed structure below 16-feet in height is designed and situated as to reasonably minimize a significant view impairment. 2.Height Variation Finding (No.v) According to Urgency Ordinance No.400U,a Height Variation application being sought for a residential development project above 16-feet in height will need to be reasonably designed to minimize a view impairment,even if the previous finding determines that a significant view impairment does not exist.The exact language reads as follows: If a view impairment exists,but it is determined not to be significant,as described in Finding No.iv,is the proposed new structure or proposed addition to an existing 11-6 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGES structure designed and situated in such a manner as to reasonable minimize the impairment of a view. Based on the above code amendment language,when assessing whether a project is designed and situated to minimize a view impairment,those portions of the proposed project that are above and below 16-feet are to be considered in the analysis of this finding.Using the previous illustrative example,this finding would apply to the proposed additions labeled as areas A',A and B because they constitute a proposed addition to an existing single-family residence.However,it should be noted that the additions labeled areas A and B would only be analyzed in situations where the addition labeled area A'is requested,since it is addition A'that triggers a Height Variation application. Otherwise,if only additions labeled as areas A and B are requested,whether collectively or independently,this finding would not apply because a Height Variation application is not required. PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT The following discussion is a summary of Staff's understanding of the concerns raised by the Commission during its brief discussion on this matter at its March 23 rd meeting. As previously noted,the Planning Commission did not have enough time to provide suggestions on possible draft language that could address its concerns.Additionally, the Commissioners abbreviated their remarks and some did not speak.Therefore,the Commission is recommending that the Council continue this item to allow a second opportunity for the Commission to provide more comprehensive input.Notwithstanding the Commission's recommendation,if it is the Council's desire to discuss this matter this evening,Staff has summarized the comments made by the Commission below and has included some draft language for consideration by the Council that may address the brief concerns expressed by the Commissioners on March 23 rd • 1.Tear-down /Rebuild Structures: The Commission is concerned that a strict interpretation of the proposed code amendment language could prohibit a property owner who wishes to demolish an existing home that exceeds 16-feet in height from rebuilding that home within the same building envelope,if it is determined that a significant view impairment would result from the new home.This is because anytime a structure is voluntarily demolished or is remodeled,such that over 50%of the interior and exterior walls are removed,the replacement structure is considered a new structure which must receive approval of the necessary applications in order to be built.Under the historical application of the Height Variation findings,only the portion over 16-feet of the new replacement structure would be subject to the view analysis.However,under the new language,the entire new structure would be subject to the view analysis. In order to address this concern,the Council may wish to consider language that states: In cases where a Height Variation application is proposed for a structure that replaces an existing structure that has been voluntarily demolished by the property owner,this 11-7 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 6 finding will not apply,provided that the proposed replacement structure will be within the building envelope of the existing structure,meaning that it will have the same square footage and maximum building height as the existing structure and will be reconstructed within the footprint of the existing structure. Furthermore,if such language is added,Staff recommends that the Council also amend the Code to require that certified plans of the pre-existing residential structure be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the Department of Building and Safety to document said residential structure. 2.Phasing a Project: A concern was raised by the Commission that the Council's intent to protect views below 16-feet when proposing construction above 16-feet,as described in new Height Variation Finding No.iv,could be circumvented by phasing the project construction.In other words,based on the language of new Height Variation Finding No.iv (noted above)and using the diagram below to illustrate this concern,one could conceivably construct areas A and B (provided they do not exceed 16-feet)as phase 1,without having to undergo a view analysis and then construct phase 2 later.If a view exists below 16-feet,said view would be impaired by the phase 1 construction,since said construction up to 16-feet in height is allowed "by right."Then,as phase 2,one could submit a Height Variation application to construct area A'.If there is no view impairment by proposed area A',the Height Variation would likely be approved (provided all other findings can be made).Since Planning approvals are valid for 6-months (1-yearif approved by the Planning Commission),the Phase 1 approval probably would still be valid when the Phase 2 approval is obtained.The applicant would then combine both designs and submit the plans to the Building and Safety Department for "plan check" review and ultimately construct the entire project at the same time.Although more costly to the applicant in terms of time and money,the end result would be the same as if the new finding language did not exist. A' 16' Existing Residence A In order to address this concern,the Council may wish to consider establishing a minimum time period for applicants to wait between the processing of development applications.This would prohibit a property owner from submitting more than one development application during a set time period,thereby discouraging projects from being phased.However,this could inadvertently penalize property owners who wish to 11-8 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 7 upgrade their property after purchasing a home that was recently expanded by a previous property owner,unless the time period is only applied to the same property owner. 3.Ambiguity with the Term "Proposed Construction" According to the Commission,the Council's clarification of the Height Variation Findings only apply to Finding Nos.4 and 5,leaving a question of how the remaining findings should be applied when referring to "proposed structure"or "structure."For example, while it is clear that the view analysis performed under Height Variation Finding No.iv should consider portions of a proposed structure below 16-feet,it is not clear whether the same analysis should be performed for the "Cumulative View Impact"finding (Height Variation Finding No.vi in Urgency Ordinance No.400U).Therefore,in order to alleviate any ambiguity when applying the Height Variation Findings,the Council may wish to add the following language to RPVMC Section 17.02.040(C)(1 )(e): e.A Height Variation application to build a new structure or an addition to an existing structure at a height that exceeds the sixteen foot height limit up to the maximum height permitted in Section 17.02.040(8)(1)of this chapter may be granted,with or without conditions,if the following findings can be made.For the purpose of this finding. "proposed structure"or "structure"shall mean the new area that is above sixteen feet and the new that is below sixteen feet: COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY COUNCILMAN LONG On March 23,2004,Councilman Long submitted a comment letter to the Planning Commission that essentially frames some of the various issues that have been raised with regard to the modified code amendment language (see attachment).Although the Commission was not able to discuss the various points contained in the comment letter at its March 23 rd meeting due to time constraints,Staff has reviewed Councilman Long's letter and would like to address certain points. 1.Grading Permit and the View Finding According to Urgency Ordinance N.400U,in cases where grading is proposed,if the proposed earth movement results in a lower finished grade elevation,then the view finding (referred to as Grading Finding No.2)does not apply: The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with,or the views from the "viewing area"of neighboring properties.This finding shall not apply when the proposed grading will lower the grade of the lot and will result in a structure that will create less view impairment than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot to the maximum building heights described in Section 17.02.040(8)of this Title. 11-9 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 8 As noted on page 1,item 2,of Councilman Long's letter,he states that "even if grading adds to the original grade,if the structure is still below 16 feet from the original grade,it is my understanding that clarification provided by urgency ordinance No.400U would still provide that no view analysis is necessary."After discussing this issue with the City Attorney,it is Staff's understanding that in a case where a project requires a grading permit that will raise the existing pad elevation,then the view finding will apply,even if the resulting structure does not exceed 16-feet in height.As written,the intent of the finding is to encourage grading that lowers a pad,thereby minimizing the potential to impair a view,rather than raising a pad,which is more likely to result in a view impairment.If this is not the intended result of this new finding,then Staff recommends that the Council clarify the intent at this time. 2.Structures Destroyed by a Natural Disaster or Involuntary Act Pursuant to Section 17.84.060(A)(2)of the RPVMC,a residential building damaged or destroyed due to an involuntary act,or a voluntary act against the structure that is not the fault of the property owner may be replaced,repaired or restored to its original condition provided that such construction is limited to the same maximum building height,square footage and general location on the property.In other words,a structure destroyed by a fire or earthquake,for example,may be rebuilt within the same envelope as the original structure without having to go through a comprehensive discretionary review process,including the view analysis typically required for Height Variation applications for structures exceeding 16-feet in height.However,if a damaged or destroyed structure is proposed to be rebuilt beyond the original envelope,then the replacement structure would be considered a new structure and would be subject to all applicable discretionary review applications. 3.Two-story Structures At or Below 16-Feet According to Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(c)of the RPVMC,a Height Variation permit is required for a structure on a pad lot that exceeds one-story even if it is within the 16-foot height limit (it should be noted that the Municipal Code does not limit the number of stories).This requirement was added in 1996 to close a loophole in the pre-existing Development Code that was allowing two-story homes to be built without the benefit of a Height Variation application review.Prior to the comprehensive amendments to the Development Code made in 1996,two-story structures were being built within the permissible 16-foot height limit by lowering the pad elevation through grading.This was possible because the "old"Code established the 16-foot height limit from existing grade and made no reference to finished grade.By not triggering the Height Variation review process,two-story homes were being built without a Neighborhood Compatibility analysis.Therefore,in order to address this loophole,the Code was amended to establish a maximum measurement from both existing and finished grades and a requirement that a two-story structure must go through the Height Variation application process. At this time,Staff believes that the two-story trigger for structures that are less than sixteen feet in height is confusing and no longer necessary because of the 11-10 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 9 establishment of the maximum heights based on existing and finished grades. Furthermore,if a project is proposed to be constructed at 16-feet,the concern would not focus on the interior floor plan,but rather on the exterior appearance,which would be reviewed under the Neighborhood Compatibility guidelines,if a project trips one of the neighborhood compatibility triggers.Therefore,if the Council wishes to eliminate this Height Variation application trigger and not require a Height Variation permit for projects involving two-stories,which are under 16-feet in height,then the following language may be deleted: Structures allowed pursuant to this subsection shaH oontain no more than one story (oe!Jars and basements are exempted fFOm this requirement)and shall not exceed twenty-feet in height,as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade,to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure.Otherwise a height variation permit shall be required. Based on the above discussion,Staff respectfully requests Council direction on the matters discussed and the suggested code amendment language.In the event the Council wishes to continue the discussion on the matter until after receiving a more comprehensive recommendation from the Planning Commission or to further modify the code language contemplated,the Council may wish to consider repealing Urgency Ordinance No.400U to avoid public confusion. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Discussion of Proposition M by the City Attorney Section 1 of Proposition M states,in relevant part,that its purpose is to prevent the needless destruction and impairment of limited vista points and view lots."Specifically, this Ordinance: "1.Protects,enhances and perpetuates views available to property owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. These views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighboring communities and provide for this and future generations examples of the unique physical surroundings which are characteristic of the City. "2.Defines and protects finite visual resources by establishing limits which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view. "3.Insures that the development of each parcel of land or additions to residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonious and maintains neighborhood compatibility and the character of contiguous sub-community development as de~ined in the General Plan. "4.Requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or in conjunction with construction,exceeds defined limits." 11-11 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRil 6,2004 PAGE 10 Section 5 of Proposition M,which is not codified within the Municipal Code,states that future City Councils may amend its provisions,if such amendments are necessary to effectuate or enhance its purposes: "To the extent the City Council finds that changes to this Ordinance are necessary to effectuate or enhance the purposes of this Ordinance as stated in Section 1,the City Council may amend this Ordinance,following the procedures,including all required public hearings,for amending zoning ordinances.The City Council is empowered to adopt such procedures and rules or regulations as are necessary to implement this Ordinance." When then City Attorney Ariel Calonne analyzed the provisions of Proposition M that are related to structures and compared them to the then-current provisions of the Municipal Code,he stated: "Existing Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code provisions permit construction of, or additions to,residences of up to sixteen (16)feet in height,as measured in a specified manner.Existing Municipal Code provisions further allow residential structures of up to thirty (30)feet in height,as measured in a specified manner,upon issuance of a discretionary height variation permit.Before a height variation permit can be issued under existing Municipal Code provisions,the City must determine,among other things,that defined view lots are protected from significant view impairment and that no significant cumulative view impact will result from the height variation. "The proposed measure would modify the existing height variation permit requirements in several ways.The maximum height allowed with a height variation permit would be reduced to twenty six (26)feet.An early neighborhood consultation process would be created to require the person seeking the height variation permit to take reasonable steps to consult with property owners within five hundred (500)feet.If an interested neighborhood homeowners'association exists,the applicant would be required to request its position on the application.The proposed measure would require height variation permits to be supported by a finding that a proposed structure would not significantly impair views from the viewing area of other parcels. "The proposed measure requires height variation permits to be supported by a finding that the proposal is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character,as defined to include the scale of development of surrounding residences,architectural styles and materials,and front yard setbacks." The amendment to the Code that is set forth in Urgency Ordinance No.400U would allow the portion of a proposed development (For purposes of this discussion, "development"means an entirely new structure or an addition to an existing structure). that is at or below 16 feet in height to be reviewed for potential view impairment,if a height variation application is required for a portion of the development that will exceed 16 feet in height.(The amendment does not affect any proposed single-family residential development project that does not exceed 16 feet in height.) 11-12 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 11 The current question that is being posed is whether this amendment effectuates or enhances the purposes of Proposition M so that the City Council can approve it,or is voter approval of the amendment required? One of the overarching purposes of Proposition M was to protect and enhance views, as stated in the first purpose of Section 1.Allowing the Planning Commission and City Council to review the portions of a new development that are below 16 feet in height for potential significant view impairment and adjust any portion of the project,regardless whether above or below 16 feet in height,to eliminate or minimize a view impairment clearly advances the purpose of protecting views,so that voter approval of this amendment should not be required. On the other hand,it can be argued that this amendment conflicts with the second purpose of Proposition M,which was to retain the pre-existing right to develop a structure that did not exceed sixteen feet in height "by establishing limits which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view."(Emphasis added.)In the impartial analysis of Proposition M,Mr.Calonne discussed the then- existing Code provisions that allowed development up to 16 feet in height;his analysis does not state that Proposition M would alter those provisions.However,because the recent amendment does not affect the right to build a structure that is entirely within the 16-foot height limit,it can be argued that the amendment is consistent with the second purpose of the Proposition so that voter approval is not required. Although the amendment and this discussion focus upon the portions of Proposition M that address the development of structures,a significant portion of the Proposition addresses foliage and the height limits to which it can grow before someone can file an application to have it removed so that a view can be restored (sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the structure,whichever is less).It is interesting to note that under the recent amendment,some property owners actually could have the right to keep foliage on their properties that completely obliterates a view (assuming the ridgeline of the structure is at least sixteen feet tall),but would not have the right to build a new structure that is less than sixteen feet in height without a height variation because a portion of the proposed structure will exceed sixteen feet in height.It is doubtful that the drafters of Proposition M intended this result. It should also be noted that historically,documented as far back as 1989 (after the adoption of Proposition M),the practice of the City has been to assess the impact on views only with respect to the components of a project that are above 16-feet in height in connection with Height Variation applications.This approach was upheld by both the Planning Commission and City Council on appeal.1 In situations when an ordinance is ambiguous,interpretations of its provisions by city staff and the administrative bodies that are charged with enforcing and interpreting its provisions are entitled to great 1 Additionally,the submittal requirements for a Height Variation application require a silhouette,depicting the proposed construction above 16-feet,be erected to assist the decision makers and the pUblic in the assessment of views,as well as massing of a structure for Neighborhood Compatibility purposes.In fact, the submittal requirements require that specific color flags be placed that demarcate the 16-foot height limit,in addition to color flags demarcating the proposed roof ridgeline. 11-13 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 12 weight by the courts.(Highland Ranch v.Agricultural Labor Relations Board,29 Cal.3d848,859 (1981 ).Based on these prior determinations and interpretations,it appears that the intent of Proposition M was to analyze only those portions of the structure that were above sixteen feet. After performing this analysis,on balance,it appears that the recent amendment,which was adopted by the City Council in Urgency Ordinance No.400U,does effectuate and enhance one of the primary purposes of Proposition M of preserving views from residential lots in the City.Accordingly,even though the amendment departs from prior City practice,approval by the voters does not appear to be required.Of course,to remove all doubt about this conclusion,a ballot measure could be prepared so that this issue would be presented to the voters. Historical Information Regarding Height Variation Applications Since the inception of the Height Variation requirement in 1976,the City has received approximately 1,031 application requests.Of that number,approximately 325 applications involved construction above and below 16-feet in height,which is approximately 31 %of the total number of Height Variation applications submitted to the City.It should be noted that the information gathered from the City log-books, especially pre-1983,contained limited information on project descriptions.Therefore, the figures provided are considered to be estimates. It should be noted that to date,five Height Variation applications have been processed under the new findings established by the Urgency Ordinance.Of these five applications,only one request was denied because of a view impairment.However,the denial was based on a view impairment resulting from proposed construction above 16- feet,as the portion below 16-feet was not visible from the viewing area. Public Notification Pursuant to the Development Code,a public notice was published in the Peninsula News on March 20,2004 inviting public comments on the proposed code amendment. To date,two written comments have been submitted to the City and are attached for Council review.In the event the City receives additional public comments after the transmittal of this Staff Report,Staff will present the comments at the April 6th public hearing. ATTACHMENTS •Urgency Ordinance No.400U •Councilman Long's March 23,2004 Comment Letter •P.C.Resolution No.2003-62 •RPVMC Section 17.84.060(A)(2)-Structures Destroyed by a Natural Disaster or Involuntary Act •Proposition Land M •Original Height Variation Code Requirement (adopted in 1975) 11-14 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 6,2004 PAGE 13 •Public Comments Respectfully submitted: Joel Rojas,AICP Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed, Les Evans City Manager M:\CODE AMENDMENTS\zON2003-G0417 16 FOOT HEIGHT\CCMEMO 04-06-04.doc 11-15 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT APRIL 20,2004 ZON2003-00417 (16-FOOT HEIGHT CODE AMENDMENT). Staff Coordinator:Ara Michael Mihranian,Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION 1.Introduce Ordinance No._'a City initiated proposal to amend Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code affirming the City's historical interpretation of the 16-foot height requirement and clarifying the "view"finding as it relates to the Height Variation and Grading applications. 2.Adopt Resolution No.2004-_,thereby amending the Height Variation Guidelines and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook to make the language consistent with the proposed code amendments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On April 6,2004,the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No.404U,repealing Urgency Ordinance No.400U and providing Staff with Specific direction for amending the Development Code to affirm the application of the 16-foot height limit and clarify the application of the Height Variation and Grading Permit Findings.The Council directed Staff to bring back precise code amendment language for consideration at its April 20,2004 meeting.Pursuant to Council direction,Staff has prepared the respective code amendment language and respectfully requests Council direction on the proposed language. Additionally,Staff respectfully requests Council direction on proposed amendments to the Height Variation Guidelines and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook that will emulate the new proposed code amendment language. 11-16 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 20,2004 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND On April 6,2004,the City Council opened the public hearing to receive public testimony on the matter related to the Height Variation permit findings.After considering the comments made by the Planning Commission at its March 23 rd meeting,receiving public testimony,and further discussing the matter,the Council, with a vote of 4-1,adopted Urgency Ordinance No.404U,which repealed Urgency Ordinance No.400U.The Council directed Staff to come back at its April 20,2004 meeting with specific code language that affirms the historic application of the 16-foot height limit as being a "by-right"height limit for all citywide residential properties.The draft minutes from the April 6,2004 City Council meeting are under separate cover. Given the Council's action,attached is the draft ordinance that contains the language directed by the Council and the draft resolution that will make the la.nguage contained in the Height Variation Guidelines and Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook consistent with the proposed code amendment language.In order to review the specific draft code amendment language,please refer to the attached ordinance and resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Staff has determined that the proposed code amendment~to the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code will require an addendum to the Environmental Assessment and Negative Declaration prepared and approved by the City Council under Resolution No.97-25 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code.At the time the City Council adopted the Negative Declaration,it found:1)that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the amendments;2)that many of the amendments were clarifications and minor non-substantive revisions;and 3)that the new amendments reaffirm the historic interpretation and application of the 16-foot height requirement and clarify the Height Variation and Grading Permit Findings. Staff believes that the proposed amendments clarify the existing Code requirements and provide the decision makers,Staff and the public with direction on how to process residential development applications.As such,Staff is of the opinion that said amendments to the Code will not result in any new significant environmental effects, but rather serve to reduce impacts upon the environment.As a result,no further environmental review will be is necessary other than the adoption of Addendum No. 10 to Environmental Assessment No.694 and Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION Code Amendments Pursuant to the Council's adopted motion at its April 6,2004 meeting,the following section contains a summary of the code amendments being presented to the Council for consideration this evening.To view the specific code amendment language, 11-17 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 20,2004 PAGE 3 please see the attached draft ordinance that contains underlined text representing added language,and strike through text representing deleted language. 1.Height Variation Findings For the purpose of the view and privacy findings required for a Height Variation application,the Council agreed that only proposed portions above 16-feet are to be analyzed.To implement this direction,Height Variation Findings Nos.2,4,5,6,and 9 of Section 17.02.040(C)(1)are proposed to be amended (see pages 5 and 6 of the attached draft ordinance). 2.Two-Story Structures Under 16-feet According to Section 17.02.040(B)(1)(c)of the RPVMC,a Height Variation permit is required for a structure on a pad lot that exceeds one-story even if it is within the 16- foot height limit (it should be noted that the Municipal Code does not limit the number of stories).This requirement was added in 1996 to close a loophole in the pre- existing Development Code that was allowing two-story homes to be built without the benefit of a Height Variation application review.Since this requirement has caused confusion in the past and is no longer necessary because of the established maximum height measurements from existing and finished grades,the Council agreed to eliminate this Height Variation application trigger.As such,a Height Variation permit will no longer be required for projects involving two-stories,which are under 16-feet in height.In order to implement this direction,Section 17.02.040(B)(1 )(c)will be amended accordingly (see page 5 of the attached draft Ordinance ). 3.Grading View Finding As originally recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council,in cases where grading is proposed,if the proposed earth movement results in a lower grade elevation under the proposed building footprint,then the view finding (referred to as Grading Finding No.2)does not apply.Conversely,in cases where grading is proposed that will raise the existing grade elevation,either under the building footprint or elsewhere on the lot,then the view finding will apply (see page 6 of the attached draft Ordinance).It should be noted that as drafted,the view finding will apply when the existing grade is raised regardless of whether the resulting structure is within the height limits described in Section 17.02.040. 4.Tear-down Rebuild Structures Currently,Section 17.84.060(A)(2)of the RPVMC allows structures damaged or destroyed due to an involuntary act to be replaced,repaired or restored to their original condition.The Council directed that this allowance also be applied to structures that are voluntarily demolished like "tear-down/rebuild"projects.However, this requirement only applies in situations where the proposed structure will be constructed within the same maximum building height,square footage and general 11-18 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 20,2004 PAGE 4 location as the original structure.Furthermore,in terms of view analysis,the Council agreed that a structure proposed to be rebuilt must be within the same envelope as the original structure,whether demolished voluntarily or involuntarily,will not be subject to a view analysis,even if the replacement structure is above 16-feet in height.However,the view analysis will apply to portions of a proposed structure that extend beyond the original structure envelope and that are above 16-feet in height (see page 4 of the attached draft Ordinance). 5.Table 02-A:Single-Family Residential Development Standards In addition to the above text amendments,as an administration "clean-up"item that was overlooked at the time the Development Code was updated in 1997,Footnote No.8 is proposed to be deleted.At the time the Council considered updating the Development Code,the second story 25-foot setback requirement was replaced with a trigger that requires the Planning Commission's review of projects that are closer than 25-feet from the front or street-side property line.Furthermore,the trigger for new single-family residences exceeding 16-feet in height was inadvertently left off the table and is now proposed to be added.As such,Table 02-A of the RPVMC is proposed to be amended accordingly,as depicted in Exhibit B of the attached draft Ordinance.This clean-up amendment was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and was previously presented to the Council which resulted in no comments. Amendment to the Height Variation Guidelines and Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook In order to ensure that the Height Variation Guidelines and Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook emulate the code amendment language being considered by the Council,the following changes are proposed to be made to the following documents (to view the specific amendments,please see Exhibit A of the attached draft Resolution.The amended sections are shaded.): Height Variation Guidelines •The "Purpose"section is proposed to be amended to reiterate the Code's 16-foot height limit requirement. •The "Building Height"and "Criteria for Review"sections are proposed to be amended to reflect the respective language amendments to Title 17. •The "Mandatory Findings"section is proposed to be amended to clarify the intent of Finding No.iv so as to reasonably minimize an impairment of a view. •The order of Findings iv and vi is being amended. Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook •The text in the Mass and Scale section pertaining to "Neighbor's Views"and the Height of Structures section of the Handbook is proposed to be amended to clarify the City's 16-foot "by-right"height limit. 11-19 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 20,2004 PAGES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Effective Date In the event the City Council finds the proposed language acceptable and the proposed code amendment is introduced this evening,the ordinance will be brought back to the City Council for a second reading and adoption at its May 4th meeting. The ordinance will go into effect 30-days from the second reading (May 4,2004),on June 4,2004.It should be noted that since Urgency Ordinance No.400U was repealed by Urgency Ordinance No.404U at the April 6,2004 Council meeting,in the interim the regulations contained in the current Development Code (existing prior to the Urgency Ordinance)are to be applied to Height Variation applications that necessitate decisions by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES The following alternative is available for the City Council's consideration in addition to Staff's recommendation: 1.Identify any issues of concern with the proposed amendments,and provide Staff with modifications,and continue the public hearing to a date certain. FISCAL IMPACT If the City Council approves the proposed code amendment,Staff anticipates that there will be no direct impact to the City's General Fund nor will it have a fiscal impact to the City. Respectfully submitted, Joel Rojas,AICP Director of Planning,Building and Code Enforcement Reviewed by: Les Evans City Manager 11-20 CC MEMORANDUM -16 FOOT CODE AMENDMENT APRIL 20,2004 PAGE 6 ATTACHMENTS •Draft Ordinance No. •Exhibit 'A'-Addendum No.10 to Environmental Assessment No.694 •Exhibit 'B'-Amended Table 02-A -Residential Development Standards Table •Draft Resolution No.2004-_ •Exhibit 'A'-Amended Excerpts from the Height Variation Guidelines and Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook •Commissioner Knight's Comment Letter (late correspondence) M:\CODE AMENDMENTS\ZON2003-00417 16 FOOT HEIGHnCCMEMO 04-20-04.doc 11-21 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE 16·FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES AND CLARIFYING THE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR HEIGHT VARIATION AND GRADING PERMIT APPLICATIONS WHEREAS,on November 25,1975,the City's first Municipal Code was adopted establishing the City's 16-foot height limit and establishing a discretionary review process for any individuals seeking to construct a residence exceeding 16-feet (Height Variation Permit process);and, WHEREAS,in 1979,the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code")was amended to clarify that the Height Variation Permit process applies to both new residences and additions to existing residences;and, WHEREAS,on November 7,1989,the voters of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Proposition M (Cooperative Preservation and Restoration Ordinance) which was incorporated into the Municipal Code;and," WHEREAS,between 1996 and 1997,the City approved a major update and overhaul Title 17 (Zoning)of the Municipal Code,which among other things,clarified how to measure the 16-foot height limit on pad lots;and, WHEREAS,on February 8,2003 the City Council held a joint workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss,among other things,the interpretation of existing codes and the Height Variation Permit Findings involving the protection of residents' views from proposed construction.At the meeting,the City Council directed Staff to bring forward ideas to the Council at a future meeting to clarify or resolve the issues; and, WHEREAS,on June 24,2003,the Planning Commission was asked to review and provide feedback on the content and format of a draft Staff Report to the City Council regarding the clarification and interpretation of existing codes and the Height Variation Permit findings.The Planning Commission continued the discussion and .directed Staff to come back with more information regarding the historical interpretation and application of the 16-foot height limit and the Height Variation Permit findings;and, WHEREAS,on July 15,2003,the City Council,at the request of a Council member,discussed the issues pertaining to the existing Municipal Code and the Height Variation Permit findings.At the meeting,the City Council unanimously reaffirmed the historic interpretation and application of the 16-foot height,measured as set forth in the Municipal Code based on the type of lot involved,as being a "by-right"height limit for all Ordinance No. Page 1 of 7 11-22 i residential properties in the City and clarified the interpretation of specific Height \,"ariation Permit Findings;and, WHEREAS,at its July 15th meeting,the City Council initiated code amendment proceedings in order to codify its interpretation and clarification of the 16-foot height limit and the Height Variation Permit Findings;and, WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 23,2003,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report of that date;and, WHEREAS,after reviewing the proposed text amendments,the Commission directed Staff to prepare precise language for consideration at its October 28,2003 meeting and continued the public hearing;and, WHEREAS,at its October 28,2003,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing,without discussion,and again on November 25,2003,continued the hearing to its December 9,2003 meeting;and, WHEREAS,on December 11,2003 the Planning Commission continued the public hearing proceedings,and reviewed and considered the proposed code amendments to Title 17,and adopted P.C.Resolution No.2003-62 forwarding its recommendations to the City Council for its consideration,and; WHEREAS,on January 31,2004,a notice of a public hearing on the code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 17,2004,at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.After considering the Planning Commission's recommendation and public testimony,the Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 400U and introduced Ordinance No.401 that among other things,required a view analysis for portions above and below 16-feet in height when a Height Variations .application is requested;and WHEREAS,on March 2,2004 the City Council was scheduled to adopt the second reading of Ordinance No.401 when it was brought to the council's attention that the Planning Commission had expressed a concern with the application of the new requirements.Therefore,the Council agreed to continue the discussion to its April 6, 2004 meeting so that the Commission can further review the code language being considered and provide the Council with additional comments;and Ordinance No. Page 2 of7 11-23 WHEREAS,on March 6,2004,a notice of a Planning Commission public hearing on the code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and WHEREAS,on March 23,2004,the Planning Commission briefly reviewed the code amendment language being considered by the Council.Due to time constraints, the Commission,with a vote of 5-1,recommended that the Council ,continue its discussion from April 6,2004 to a later date to allow the Commission a second opportunity to further review the proposed code language and provide a more comprehensive recommendation;and, WHEREAS,on March 20,2004,a notice of a City Council public hearing on the code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and WHEREAS,on April 6,2004,notwithstanding the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council opened the public hearing.After considering the comments made by the Planning Commission at its March 23 rd meeting,receiving public testimony,and further discussing the matter,the Council,with a vote of 4-1, adopted Urgency Ordinance No.404U,which repealed Urgency Ordinance No.400U. Because the Planning Commission already had discussed and considered this issue on several occasions,the Council directed Staff to come back at its April 20,2004 meeting with specific code language that affirms the historic application of the 16-foot height limit as being a "by-right"height limit for all citywide residential properties;and WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a continued duly noticed public hearing on April 20,2004,at which time all interested parties were given the 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 Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Section 2:The amendments to Title 17 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 Title 17 of the Municipal Code are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in that they uphold,and do not hinder,the goals and policies of those plans,in particular to carefully control and direct future growth towards making a positive contribution to all elements of the community. Section 4:The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Rancho Palos Ordinance No. Page 3 of7 11-24 , Verdes Municipal Code and that the amendments to Title 17 shall be construed as a restatement and continuation of the previous provisions and as new enactment. Section 5:The City Council further finds that there is no substantial evidence that the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code would result in new significant environmental effects,or a substantial increase in the severity of the effects,as previously identified in Environmental Assessment No.694 and the Negative Declaration,adopted through Resolution No.97-25 in conjunction with Ordinance No. 320 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the Municipal Code,since the new amendments reaffirm the historic interpretation and application of the 16-foot height requirement and clarify the Height Variation Findings.An Addendum (No.10)to the prior Negative Declaration has been prepared and is attached hereto as Exhibit 'A'.The City Council hereby finds,based on its own independent judgment,that the facts stated in the Addendum are true because the revisions to Title 17 of the Municipal Code will not result in greater environmental impacts in the.City. Section 6:The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code are necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area. Section 7:The first paragraph of Paragraph B and sub-section (1 )(c)of Paragraph B of Section 17.02.040 of Chapter 17.02 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows,with all remaining portions of Paragraph B of Section 17.02.040 of Chapter 17.02 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code retained without amendment: 17.02.040 View Preservation and Restoration. B.Regulations. 1.Building Height.Any individual or persons desiring to build a new structure or an addition to an existing structure exceeding shall be permitted to build up to sixteen feet in height pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B)of this Chapter provided there is no grading,as defined in Section 17.76.040 of this Chapter,to be performed in connection with the proposed construction,and further provided that no Height Variation is required,and all applicable residential development standards are or will be met.In cases where an existing structure is voluntarily demolished or is demolished as a result of an involuntary event,a Height Variation application will not be required to exceed sixteen feet in height,provided that the replacement structure will have the same square footage and maximum building height as the existing structure and will be reconstructed within the building envelope and footprint of the pre-existing structure.Approval for proposed structures or additions to existing structures exceeding sixteen feet in height,may be sought through application for a Height Variation permit,which,if granted pursuant to the procedures contained herein,will permit the individual to build a structure not exceeding twenty-six feet in height,except as provided in Section l7.02.040(B)(1)(d)ofthis chapter,or such lower height as approved by the city, measured as follows: Ordinance No. Page 4 of7 11-25 17.02.040(B)(l)(c): For lots with a "building pad"at street level or at a different level than the street or lot configurations not previously discussed,the height shall be measured from the pre- construction (existing)grade at the highest elevation of the existing building pad area covered by the structure to the ridge line or highest point of the structure,as illustrated in Figure 3 below.Portions of a structure which extend beyond the "building pad"area of a lot shall not qualify as the highest elevation covered by the structure,for the purposes of determining maximum building height.Structures allowed pursuant to this subsection shall contain no more than one story (cellars afld basements are O*empted from this requirement) and shall not exceed twenty-feet in height,as measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade,to the ridgeline or highest point of the structure. Otherwise a height variation permit shall be required. Section 8:Paragraph C subsection (1 )(e)of Section 17.02.040 of Chapter 17.02 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: C.Procedures and Requirements 1.Preservation of Views Where Structures are Involved e..AH Height Variation application to build a new structure or an addition to an existing structure at a height that exceeds the sixteen foot height limit up to the maximum-height permitted in Section 17.02.040(B)(1)of this chapter may be granted,with or without conditions,if the following findings can be made: i.The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the city; ii.The proposed structure or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height does not significantly impair a view from public property (parks,major thoroughfares, bike ways,walkways or equestrian trails)which has been identified in the city's general plan or coastal specific plan,as city-designated viewing areas; iii.The proposed structure is not located on a ridge or a promontory; vi iv.The area of a proposed new structure or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height,as defined in Section 17.02.040(B)of this Chapter,when considered exclusive of existing foliage,does not significantly impair a view from the viewing area of another parcel.If the viewing area is located in a structure,the viewing area shall be located in a portion of a structure which was constructed without a height variation permit or variance,or which would not have required a height variation or variance when originally constructed had this section,as approved by the voters on November 7,1989,been in effect at the time the structure was constructed,unless the viewing area located in the portion of the existing structure which required a height variation permit or variance constitutes the primary living area (living room,family room,dining room or kitchen)ofthe residence; Ordinance No. Page 5 of 7 11-26 w y.her arcel but it is determined not to be si "ficant ,-_described in Findin No.i e ro osed new the structure is or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet in height C~~signed and situated in such a manner as to reasonably minimize the impairment of a VIew; ¥vi.There is no significant cumulative view impairment caused by granting the application.Cumulative view impairment shall be determined by:(a)considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the proposed structure or addition to a structure that is above sixteen feet in height;and (b)considering the amount of view impairment that would be caused by the construction on other par=~::=:or additions that exceed sixteen feet in height.aJ:J.G..at.:0-Sim:~re; vii.The proposed structure complies with all other code requirements;~''''''''\'~-,,", viii.The proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character; ix.The proposed new structure or addition to an existing structure that is above sixteen feet does not result in an unreasonable infringement of the privacy of the occupants of abutting residences. Section 9:Table 02-A:Single-Family Residential Development Standards of Section 17.02.040 of Chapter 17.02 of Title 17 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete footnote number 8,which currently reads "8.The front and side setback for those portions of structures over sixteen feet in height shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet in all residential zoned districts.",as shown in the amended Table 02-A attached hereto as Exhibit 'B'. Section 10:Subparagraph 2 of paragraph E of Section 17.76.040 of chapter 17.76 of Title 17 of the Mu nicipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly adversely affect the visual relationships with,nor the views from the viewing area of neighboring properties.In cases where grading is proposed for a new residence or an addition to an existing residence,this finding shall be satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure,as measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B)ofthis Title,is lower than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if measured from pre-construction (existing)grade; Section 11: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 existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance. (I~~) .............. Ordinance No. Page 6 of 7 11-27 Section 12:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications that have not been finally acted upon as of the effective date of this ordinance. Section 13:For the foregoing reasons,and based on the information and findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes,and other records of proc~edings,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby adopts the fo~egoing amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code. Section 14:The City Clerk is directed to certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and to cause the full text of this ordinance to be published as required by law. PASSED,APPROVED,ADOPTED,and ORDERED this 20th day of April,2004,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTION: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk State of California ) County of Los Angeles )ss City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) I,JO PURCELL,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 April 20,2004. City Clerk Ordinance No. Page 7 of 7 11-28 ADDENDUM NO.10 TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTI NEGATIVE DECLARATION (EAlND)NO.694 April 20,2004 On April 1,1997,the City Council adopted Resolution No.97-25,thereby adopting a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No.694 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the City's Municipal Code.Prior to its adoption,the Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment from March 4 through March 24,1997 and no substantive comments were received from any persons or responsible agencies.In adopting the Negative Declaration,the City Council found:1)that there would be no significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from the adoption of the amendments;2)that many of the amendments were clarifications and minor non- substantive revisions;and 3)that the substantive amendments would not cause impacts on the environment since the requirements and regulations governing development in the City would be clarified,thereby minimizing adverse impacts to adjacent properties and upon the environment. The City Council is currently considering amendments to Title 17 of the Development Code,as it pertains to affirming the historical interpretation and application of the 16- foot height limit and clarifying the Height Variation and Grading Permit findings.The proposed amendments clarify the existing Code requirements and provide the decision makers,Staff and the public with clearer direction on how to process residential development applications.As such,the City Council has independently reviewed this item and determined that the proposed amendments will not result in any new significant environmental effects.Furthermore,the City Council finds that the amendments are within the scope of EA/ND No.694 that were prepared and adopted in conjunction with the amendments to Titles 16 and 17,that were adopted on April 19, 1997 by the City Council.As a result,no further environmental review is necessary other than the adoption of this Addendum No.1 O. Exhibit "A" Ordinance No. Page 1 of 1 11-29 TABLE 02-A:SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS For exceptions and explanatory descriptions of these standards and for other development standards that apply to single-family residential areas,see Articles VI and VII of this title.The number which follows an "RS-"designation indicates the maximum number of lots per acre permitted in the zone;the "RS-A"number indicates the minimum number of acres per lot permitted. LOT MINIMUM SETBACKS3.6.& MINIMUM SETBACKSz.3•6 MAXIMUM MAXIMUM PARKINGDISTRICTDIMENSIONSIFORCITYCREATEDLOTSFORLOTSCREATEDPRIORTOLOTHEIGHT3".7 REQUIREMENT5 INCORPORAnON /ANNEXATION COVERAGE INTERIOR STREET FRONT INTERIOR STREET REAR less than 5,000 s.f. AREA WIDTH DEPTH FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR SIDE SIDE of habitable space =2 enclosed ga- TIL ONE rage spaces BOTH SIDES SIDE 5,000 s.f.or more RS-A5 5 acres 200 300 20 30 10 20 20 20 5 10 15 6%16 of habitable space =3 enclosed ga- RS-I 1 acre 100 150 20 25 10 20 20 20 5 10 15 25%16 rage spaces RS-2 20,000 sf 90 120 20 20 10 20 20 20 5 10 15 40%16 RS-3 13,000 sf 80 110 20 20 10 20 15 20 5 10 15 45%16 RS-4 10,000 sf 75 100 20 20 10 20 15 20 5 10 15 50%16 RS-5 8,000 sf 65 100 20 20 10 20 15 20 5 10 15 52%16 I.For an existing lot which does not meet these standards,see Chapter 17.84 (Nonconformities). 2.Lots of record,existing as of November 25,1975 (adoption of this code),or within Eastview and existing as of January 5,1983 (annexation),shall use these development standards for minimum setbacks. 3.For description,clarification and exceptions,see Chapter 17.48 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height). 4.For a description of height measurement methods and the height variation process,see Section 17.02.040 of this chapter.A height variation application shall be referred directly to the planning commission for consideration,if any of the following is proposed: A.Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height extends closer than twenty-five (25)feet from the front or street-side property line. B.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent (75%)of the existing first story footprint area (residence and garage); and C.Sixty percent (60%)or more of an existing garage footprint is cove-:ed by a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (a second story). D.The portion of a structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height is beir.g developed as part of a new single-family residence;or E.Based on an initial site visit,the director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter. 5.For parking development standards,see Section 17.02.030(B)of this chapter. 6.A garage with direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line,which ever is the street of access. 7.Exterior stairs to an upper story are prohibited,unless leading to and/or connected to a common hallway,deck or entry rather than a specific room.a.The trent lIHa street siae setbaelt feF tRese 13eFtieF!S ef street1:lFes e'/SF siJHeeF!feet in Height SHall ae a flliF!iFHllfFl ef tv.'eHty five feet iF!all FesiaeF!tial zeniF!g aistriets. Exhibit "8" Ordinance No. Page 1 of 1 \§ 11-30 RESOLUTION NO.2004-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES AMENDING THE HEIGHT VARIATION GUIDELINES AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY HANDBOOK IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE 16-FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES AND CLARIFYING THE HEIGHT VARIATION AND GRADING FINDINGS WHEREAS,on November 25,1975,the City's first Municipal Code was adopted establishing the City's 16-foot height limit and establishing a discretionary review process for any individuals seeking to construct a residence exceeding 16-feet (Height Variation Permit process);and, WHEREAS,in 1979,the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code")was amended to clarify that the Height Variation Permit process applies to both new residences and additions to existing residences;and, WHEREAS,on November 7,1989,the voters of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes approved Proposition M (Cooperative Preservation and Restoration Ordinance) which was incorporated into the Municipal Code;and, WHEREAS,between 1996 and 1997,the City approved a major update and overhaul Title 17 (Zoning)of the Municipal Code,which among other things,clarified how to measure the 16-foot height limit on pad lots;and, WHEREAS,on February 8,2003 the City Council held a joint workshop with the Planning Commission to discuss,among other things,the interpretation of existing codes and the Height Variation Permit Findings involving the protection of residents' views from proposed construction.At the meeting, the City Council directed Staff to bring forward ideas to the Council at a future meeting to clarify or resolve the issues; and, WHEREAS,on June 24,2003,the Planning Commission was asked to review and provide feedback on the content and format of a draft Staff Report to the City Council regarding the clarification and interpretation of existing codes and the Height Variation Permit findings.The Planning Commission continued the discussion and directed Staff to come back with more information regarding the historical interpretation and application of the 16-foot height limit and the Height Variation Permit findings;and, WHEREAS,on July 15,2003,the City Council,at the request of a Council member,discussed the issues pertaining to the existing Municipal Code and the Height Variation Permit findings.At the meeting,the City Council unanimously reaffirmed the Resolution No.2004-_ Page 1 of 5 11-31 historic interpretation and application of the 16-foot height,measured as set forth in the Municipal Code based on the type of lot involved,as being a "by-right"height limit for all residential properties in the City and clarified the interpretation of specific Height Variation Permit Findings;and, WHEREAS,at its July 15th meeting,the City Council initiated code amendment proceedings in order to codify its interpretation and clarification of the 16-foot height limit and the Height Variation Permit Findings;and, WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 23,2003 at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report of that date;and, WHEREAS,after reviewing the proposed text amendments,the Commission directed Staff to prepare precise language for consideration at its October 28,2003 meeting and continued the public hearing;and, WHEREAS,at its October 28,2003,the Planning Commission continued the public hearing,without discussion,and again on November 25,2003,continued the hearing to its December 9,2003 meeting;and, WHEREAS,on December 11,2003 the Planning Commission continued the pUblic hearing proceedings,and reviewed and considered the proposed code amendments to Title 17,and adopted P.C.Resolution No.2003-62 forwarding its recommendations to the City Council for its consideration,and, WHEREAS,on January 31,2004,a notice of a public hearing on the code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and, WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 17,2004,at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence.After considering the Planning Commission's recommendation and public testimony,the Council adopted Ordinance No.400U and introduced Ordinance No.401 that among other things,required a view analysis for portions above and below 16-feet in height when a Height Variation application is requested;and, WHEREAS,on March 2,2004 the City Council was scheduled to adopt the second reading of Ordinance No.401 when it was brought to the Council's attention that the Planning Commission had expressed a concern with the application of the new requirements.Therefore,the Council agreed to continue the discussion to its April 6, 2004 meeting so that the Commission can further review the code language being considered and provide the Council with additional comments;and, Resolution No.2004- Page 2 of 5 11-32 WHEREAS,on March 6,2004,a notice of a Planning Commission public hearing on the code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and, WHEREAS,on March 23,2004,the Planning Commission briefly reviewed the code amendment language being considered by the Council.Due to time constraints, the Commission,with a vote of 5-1,recommended that the Council continue its discussion from April 6,2004 to a later date to allow the Commission a second opportunity to further review the proposed code language and provide a more comprehensive recommendation;and, WHEREAS,on March 20,2004,a notice of a City Council public hearing on the code amendment was published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and WHEREAS,on April 6,2004,notwithstanding the Planning Commission's recommendation,the City Council opened the public hearing.After considering the comments made by the Planning Commission at its March 23 rd meeting,receiving public testimony,and further discussing the matter,the Council,with a vote of 4-1, adopted Urgency Ordinance No.404U,which repealed Urgency Ordinance No.400U. Because the Planning Commission already had discussed and considered this issue on several occasions,the Council directed Staff to come back at its April 20,2004 meeting with specific code language that affirms the historic application of the 16-foot height limit as being a "by-right"height limit for all citywide residential properties;and, WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the requirements of Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code,the City Council held a continued duly noticed public hearing on April 20,2004,at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to be heard and present evidence. WHEREAS,after receiving public testimony at the public hearing,on April 20, 2004,the City Council adopted Ordinance No._amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code affirming the City's historical interpretation and application of the 16-foot height requirement and clarifying the Height Variation and Grading findings for Citywide residential zoned neighborhoods;and WHEREAS,in the adoption of Ordinance No._,the City Council further found that there is no substantial evidence that the amendments to Title 17 would result in new significant environmental effects,or a substantial increase in the severity of the effects,as previously identified in Environmental Assessment No.694 and the Negative Declaration,adopted through Resolution No.97-25 in conjunction with Ordinance No. 320 for amendments to Titles 16 and 17 of the Municipal Code,since the new amendments reaffirm the historical interpretation and application of the 16-foot height requirement and clarify the Height Variation Findings.An Addendum (No.10)to the prior Negative Declaration was prepared and attached as Exhibit 'A'to Ordinance No. _The City Council hereby finds,based on its own independent judgment,that the Resolution No.2004-_ Page 3 of 5 11-33 facts stated in the Addendum are true because the revisions to Title 17 of the Municipal Code will not result in greater environmental in't'dcts in the City. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1:The City Council finds that the Height Variation Guidelines and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook,as set forth in Exhibit 'A'hereto,shall be amended to reflect the amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code adopted under Ordinance No.389. Section 2:The City Council finds that the amendments to the Height Variation Guidelines,as set forth in Exhibit 'A'attached hereto,results in substantially the same intent as the document adopted by the City Council on June 3,1996,which was developed in response to the November 17,1989 voter approval of Proposition M. Section 3:The City Council finds that the amendments to the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook,as set forth in Exhibit 'A'attached hereto,results in substantially the same intent as the document adopted by the City Council on May 6, 2003. Section 4:The amendments to the Height Variation Guidelines and the Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook shall be effective immediately from the date of the adoption of Ordinance No._. PASSED,APPROVED and ADOPTED this 20 th day of April,2004. Peter C.Gardiner Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Resolution No.2004- Page 4 of 5 11-34 State of California County of Los Angeles City of Rancho Palos Verdes ) )ss ) I,JO PURCELL,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby certify that the above Resolution No.2004-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City Council at regular meeting thereof held on April 20,2004. City Clerk Resolution No.2004- Page 5 of 5 11-35 AMENDED EXCERPTS OF THE HEIGHT VARIATION GUIDELINES AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY HANDBOOK Resolution No.2004-_ Exhibit 'A' 11-36 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 I.PURPOSE \The intent of this document is to provide guidelines and procedures for protecting views which may be impaired by development of new residential structures or additions to existing residential structures.As specified in Proposition M,which was passed by the voters of Rancho Palos Verdes and became effective on November 17, 1989,the purposes for the regulations are to: a.Protect,enhance and perpetuate views available to property owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the Palos Verdes Peninsula.These views provide unique and irreplaceable assets to the City and its neighboring communities and provide for this and future generations examples of the unique physical surroundings which are characteristic of the City. b.Define and protect finite visual resources by establishing limits which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto a view. c.Insure that the development of each parcel of land or additions to . residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonious and maintains neighborhood compatibility and the character of contiguous subcommunity development in the General Plan. d.Require the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone,or in conjunction with construction,exceeds defined limits. II.DEFINITIONS A.Viewing Area Section 17.02.040 (A)(15)of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines "viewing area"as follows: "'Viewing area'means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms, hallways,garages or closets)or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas) Page 1 11-37 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 are not acceptable.An application will not be considered "complete"for processing without an adequately constructed silhouette in place. 5.The frame must remain in place and be maintained in good condition throughout the required notice period for the Height Variation application or the Neighborhood Compatibility analysis process,the decision process and,if necessary,any appeal periods.The frame may not be removed until the City's appeal process has been exhausted and a final decision has been rendered. The applicant must remove 'the frame within seven (7)days after a final decision has been rendered and the City's appeal process has been exhausted.. VI.BUILDING HEIGHT 1.Proposed residential building height cannot exceed 26 feet.If a greater height is desired,a Variance application is required,rather than a Height Variation Permit. Section 17.02.040(B)(1)of the Municipal Code states that: 2.Height is measured based on whether the subject lot is considered an uphill,downhill,or other (pad)lot relative to the street of access,and based on the extent to which the structure slopes with the lot.Section 17.012.040(B)(1)of the Code defines height measurements as follows: Page 7 11-38 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 (d)"On sloping lots described in sections 17.02.040(B)(1)(a)and 17.02.040(B)(1)(b),the foundation of the structure shall contain a minimum eight (8)foot step with the slope of the lot.However,no portion of the structure shall exceed thirty (30)feet in height,when measured from the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets finished grade to the ridge line or highest point of the structure. The thirty (30)foot height shall not exceed a horizontally projected sixteen (16)foot height line (from the high point of the uphill step of the structure)."(See figure below):If there is not a minimum eight (8)foot step in the structure's foundation,a Height Variation Permit and/or a Variance will be required. VII.SETBACKS FOR SLOPING LOTS Section 17.02.040(B)(2)of the Municipal Code requires that: "On lots sloping uphill from the street of access and where the height of a structure is in excess of sixteen (16)feet above the point where the lowest foundation or slab meets the ground,areas in excess of the sixteen (16)foot height limit shall be set back one (1) foot from the exterior building facade of the first story,most parallel and closest to the front property line,for every foot of height in Page 9 11-39 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 b.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen (16) feet in height (the second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent (75%)of the existing first story footprint area (residence and attached garage); c.Sixty percent (60%)or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (a second story);or e.Based on an initial site visit,the Director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter." IX.MANDATORY FINDINGS 1.liThe applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation process established by the City.II Staff will review the submittal to be sure that the methods of early neighbor consultation,as outlined above on pages 4 and 5 of these Guidelines,are adequate. Any public park or right-of way will be considered for view analysis under this provision.Other sites will be limited to those specifically delineated in the General Plan,Coastal Specific Plan,or areas specifically set aside as public viewing areas. "Significantly impair"is defined in section (6)below. 3. promontory.1I liThe proposed structure is not located on a ridge or Page 11 11-40 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 A ridge is defined in Section 17.96.1550 as "an elongated crest or a linear series of crests of hills,bluffs,or highlands".A promontory is defined in Section 17.96.1420 as "a prominent mass of land,large enough to support development,which overlooks,or projects onto a lowland or body of water on at least two sides".The analysis of ridges and promontories relates to protection of public views and vistas overlooking or looking up at ridges or promontories.The Director or Planning Commission will make a determination as to the degree of visual impact associated with construction over 16 feet in height on a "ridge or promontory"when viewed from a park, public roadway,or a designated public viewing point. The "ridge or promontory"must be prominent in relation to the 16 to 26 foot range of heights permitted under the Height Variation Permit process.Geologic structures which would not be noticeable in relation to the size of the proposed structure probably will not be affected by development of a proposed structure,and accordingly no public view benefit would be provided by prohibiting construction on such ridges or promontories. (a)"Significant view impairment"will be determined by the Director or Planning Commission based on (a)the severity (extent,magnitude,etc.)of impairment of an existing view,and/or (b)the impairment of features of significance, i.ncluding but not limited to Catalina Island and other offshore islands,Point Fermin or other notable coastal promontories,or the Vincent Thomas bridge or other prominent manmade landmarks,etc. (b)The "viewing area"may only be located on a second (or higher)story of a structure if: i.The construction of that portion of the structure did not require approval of a Height Variation Permit or Variance,pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code,or would not have required Page 12 11-41 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 such a permit if that Section had been in effect at the time that portion of the structure was constructed;or ii.The viewing area is located in a part of the structure that constitutes the primary living area of the house,which is the living room,family room, dining room or kitchen. (c)If a master bedroom exists on the same level as the primary living area of the house,and if no views are enjoyed from the other primary living areas, views from the master bedroom will be considered. (d)Views will be analyzed without respect to foliage existing on properties within 1000 feet of the property from which the view is taken.The impact of a proposed structure if the foliage did not exist will be estimated as best as can be determined.However,if the foliage blocking the view is located on the property from which the view is taken,such foliage must be removed prior to the view analysis or that foliage will be considered as remaining in the view. (b)View impairment may be minimized by redesigning a structure to relocate or reduce the size of the portion of the addition over 16 feet in height to lessen the view impact. (c)Redesign to minimize view impairment may include relocation or reorientation of the addition,deletion of a balcony,revised roof pitch,or other measures which generally maintain the scope of the addition. Page 13 11-42 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 (a)Significant cumulative view impairment will be considered when the individual structure may not significantly impair views,but when the effect of the structure could,in combination with other similar structures,create significant view impairment. (b)The Director or Planning Commission will determine which other nearby parcels within the viewshed from a particular property or public place may be developed,consistent with this Section;which would further impair a view.The evaluation will usually not extend beyond three or four parcels adjacent to the subject property. (c)The criteria for determining the significance of the cumulative view impairment is the same as for significance for the individual structure,as outlined below in paragraph 6. 7. requirements.II liThe proposed structure complies with all other Code Any proposed structure will be evaluated to assure compliance with zoning,General Plan,and Specific Plan requirements,including but not limited to setbacks and open space restrictions,as well as any specific conditions associated with the pertinent tract approval.If other discretionary permits are required for the second story addition,approval of the Height Variation Permit shall be contingent on the approval of those other discretionary permit. 8.liThe proposed structure is compatible with the immediate neighborhood character.II "Neighborhood character"is defined to consider the existing characteristics of an area,including: (a)Scale of surrounding residences,including total square footage and lot coverage of the residence and all ancillary structures. Page 14 11-43 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 (b)Architectural styles,including facade treatments, structure height,open space between structures,roof design,the apparent bulk or mass of the structure,number of stories,and building materials. (c)Front,side and rear yard setbacks. The Director's or Planning Commission's determination of compatibility with neighborhood character will be based on a review of the above criteria relative to the immediate neighborhood which is normally considered to be at least the twenty (20) closest residences within the same zoning district,and on property owner response to the required notification.Increases in scale,height,bulk or mass or decreases in setbacks or open space may be considered incompatible. "Privacy is defined as the reasonable protection from intrusive visual observation." (a)The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of indoor and/or outdoor privacy"shall be on the property owner claiming infringement of privacy.The Director or Planning Commission will make a determination on a case by case basis. (b)Given the variety and number of options which are available to preserve indoor privacy,greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor privacy than to protecting indoor privacy. Redesign to minimize invasion of privacy may include using translucent material in (upper floor)windows,eliminating windows,reducing and/or relocating balconies,or eliminating balconies. X.HEIGHT VARIATION PERMIT PROCEDURES A.Height Variation Permit Application The attached "Height Variation Permit Application"must be submitted to the City's Department of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement to initiate a request for a Height Variation Permit. B.Height Variation Permit Process Page 15 11-44 Height Variation Guidelines May 6,2003 The following sequence of steps shall occur in order to process a Height Variation Permit application: 1.The applicant consults with property owners within 500 feet of the proposed project. 2.The applicant completes and submits an application form to the City's Department of Planning,Building,and Code Enforcement along with the appropriate fees.The application must be accompanied by proof of early neighbor consultation (including letter from subject Homeowners Association,if any)and the waiver form for the temporary frame. 3.The applicant erects the temporary frame and notifies Staff that the frame is in place. 4.Staff reviews the application to assure that it is complete,and inspects the site to assure that the temporary frame is in place and adequately constructed.A letter will be sent to the applicant not later than 30 calendar days after . submittal indicating that the application is complete for review or what additional information or corrections are required to make the application complete for review. 5.The Director shall refer an application for a Height Variation Permit directly to the Planning Commission for consideration under the same findings,as part of a public hearing,if any of the following is proposed: a.Any portion of a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height extends closer than twenty-five (25)feet from the front or street-side property line;or b.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (the second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent (75%)of the existing first story footprint area (residence and attached garage); c.Sixty percent (60%)or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen (16)feet in height (a second story);or e.Based on an initial site visit,the Director determines that any portion of a structure which is proposed to exceed sixteen (16)feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter." 6.Staff mails notice to all property owners within a five hundred foot radius and to the affected homeowners'association,if any,and informs them that any Page 16 11-45 3.Window materials should be consistent with the original materials. 9.An addition to an existing residence should appear as if it were part of the original structure by incorporating design details that are true to the architectural style represented in the existing structure. 10.The use of a blank facade that faces a street should be avoided. Design Tip:The privacy of your neighbor should be preserved by carefully locating and sizing windows and decks/balconies. B.HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES The height of a structure should be compatible with the size of a lot,as well as the context of the surrounding neighborhood.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes,by the vote of the citizens on November 7,1989,adopted procedures and decision criteria for evaluating the height of new residences and additions to existing residences that exceed the established height limits.Pursuant to Section 17.02.030(8)of the RPVMC, the established height limit is based on the type of lot (upslope,downslope,pad,or other).As part of the adopted rocedures,a Hei ht Variation Permit rocess was created to C"'" 1.The height of a structure should be compatible with the established building heights in the neighborhood. 2.The height of a structure should be proportionate to the front yard setback. 3.The second story of a structure should be setback from the first story. Design Tip:The privacy of a neighbor can be preserved by placing windows high on a wall to provide light and ventilation, but avoid views onto an adjacent property. 4.The height of a structure on a sloping lot should respect the natural topography. 5. Rancho Palos Verdes Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook 20 11-46 3.Garage The location and size of a garage should not dominate the street view of a residence. Furthermore,a garage and its driveway (direct or indirect)should be sited based on the pattern of the neighborhood. 4.Streetscape Patterns In an established neighborhood,the streetscape should be preserved,especially if it is commonly seen throughout the area. Design Tip:When a residence has more than three bedrooms, there may be a practical need for added garage space. Design Tip:Energy Conservation •Use large roof overhangs. •Plant deciduous trees on south and west elevations. •Use windows for maximum natural light. •Use windows to create through airflow for natural ventilation. •Ventilate attic spaces. •Use porches,covered patios and the like to buffer the residence from heat gain. Natural features such as the natural slope of the land,significant trees and their root systems,existing vegetation,and any other natural site attributes should be preserved and taken advantage of in the design of a project;.....'_. B.LOT COVERAGE Lot coverage is primarily intended to regulate the relationship between lot size and building footprint.A structure should be designed in a manner that does not appear too big for the lot.A project that maximizes the lot coverage requirement, but is within the Code limit,is discouraged. ® Rancho Palos Verdes Neighborhood Compatibility Handbook Lot Coverage -... 17 11-47