RPVCCA_SR_2010_06_01_12_Part I_RDSSC_Code_AmendmentCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
COUNCIL MEMBERS
N EVELOPMENT
HONORABLE MAYOR &CI
JOEL ROJAS,
DIRECTOR
JUNE 1,2010
PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2007 -00377 (CODE AMEND-
MENT,ZONE CHANGE AND ENVIRONMENTALASSESS-
MENT).,;,RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STEERING COMMITTEE CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONE
CHANGE
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER oSL.
Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner@
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION
1)Adopt Resolution No.2010-_,thereby certifying the Negative Declaration;and
2)introduce Ordinance No._'thereby amending miscellaneous provisions of Title 17
(Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code and the City's Zoning Map,as recommended by the
Residential Development Standards Steering Committee.
BACKGROUND
In 2003,the City Council formed the Residential Development Standards Steering
Committee (RDSSC),charged with the task of reviewing the City's residential development
standards in relation to current housing construction trends.The RDSSC was composed
of the following combination of City residents,Planning Commissioners and City
Councilmembers:Jon Cartwright,Kristine Denton,Ken Dyda,Lois Karp,Frank Lyon,Jim
Slayden,Planning Commissioner Bill Gerstner,Planning Commission Chairman Craig
Mueller,Planning Commissioner Steve Perestam,Councilman Tom Long and Councilman
Steve Wolowicz.
The RDSSC met for nearly two (2)years and,on August 1,2006,presented its
recommended Code amendments to the City Council for its consideration.The City
12-1
MEMORANDUM:RDSSC Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2007-00377)
June 1,2010
Page 2
Council reviewed the RDSSC recommendations and authorized the initiation of a formal
Code Amendment and Zone Change to enact them.The Planning Commission reviewed
the RDSSC recommendations (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377)at a series of public
hearings held between November 2007 and December 2009.On December 8,2009,the
Planning Commission adopted a resolution summarizing its recommendations to the City
Council.
On March 29,2010,a public hearing was originally scheduled for the May 4,2010,City
Council meeting for the City Council to discuss the Planning Commission's
recommendations and the proposed draft Negative Declaration (NO).However,as a result
of the reconsideration of the appeal of the Marymount College Expansion Project on that
evening's agenda and on May 18,2010,this matter was continued to tonight's meeting.
DISCUSSION
Based upon its review of the RDSSC recommendations,the Planning Commission is
recommending code and zoning changes related to the issues listed in the table below.
Beside each issue heading is a brief summary of the recommendation,along with a page
reference to the attached "Issue Summary Packets,"where more information on each issue
can be found.
Issue
Issue Summary Recommendation SummaryPacket
Page
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the
15-foot rear-yard setback for pre-incorporation/pre-
Rear-Yard Setbacks IS-1 annexation lots in the RS-A-5,RS-1 and RS-2 zoning
districts not be increased to twenty feet (20'),as originally
recommended by the RDSSC.
Staff recommends that a 15-foot aggregate side-yard
setback requirement for pre-incorporation/pre-annexation
Side-Yard Setbacks IS-13 lots in all RS zoning districts not be imposed,as originally
recommended by the RDSSC and endorsed by the
PlanninQ Commission.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that all
Eastview Rezoning from RS-4 to single-family residential neighborhoods in the Eastview
IS-27 area be rezoned from RS-4 to RS-5 to reduceRS-5 nonconformities and more accurately reflect the existing
pattern of development in this area.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that an
Overlay Control District be established for the 215-home
Mira Vista Overlay District IS-40 Mira Vista neighborhood to reflect the unique
development constraints present in the oldest subdivision
in the Eastview area.
12-2
MEMORANDUM:RDSSC Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2007-00377)
June 1,2010
Page 3
Issue
Issue Summary Recommendation SummaryPacket
Page
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
Courtyard Area Lot Coverage IS-67 eliminating uncovered courtyard areas from the
calculation of lot coverage.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
Private Street Easement Lot IS-71 eliminating private streets and other hardscape
Coverage improvements within private street easements from the
calculation of lot coverage.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the
"pole"portion of flag lots not be included in the calculation
Flag-Lot Lot Coverage IS-79 of lot coverage unless the "pole"serves as a private
driveway for only the lot of which it is a part,contrary to
the original RDSSC recommendation to include the "pole"
in the calculation of lot coverage for all flag lots.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend
Minimum Driveway Areas IS-97 establishing minimum driveway areas for the off-street
parking of vehicles in addition to the required garage
spaces.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend requiring
Driveway Landscape Buffers IS-108 an 18-inch-wide landscape buffer between driveways and
side property lines.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that
tandem parking spaces in garages not be permitted
unless such spaces are in excess of the minimum garage
Tandem Parking IS-119 space requirement,contrary to the original RDSSC
recommendation to allow tandem parking spaces in all
cases.The only exception would be in the Mira Vista
Overlav Control District.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that
fences,walls and hedges up to six feet (6')in height be
allowed anywhere within the street-side setback area of
corner lots,contrary to the original RDSSC
Street-Side Wall and Fence Height IS-133 recommendation to only allow such fences,walls and
hedges outside of the 1a-foot street-side setback area
and to limit the height of fences,walls and hedges within
the 1a-foot street-side setback area to forty-two inches
(42").
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the
so-called "barrier test"continue to be used by Staff to
Definition of "Hedge"IS-147 determine when foliage constitutes a "hedge,"contrary to
the RDSSC recommendation to discontinue the use of
the "barrier test"and develop some new definition of
"hedge."
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adding
Chain-Link Fencing along Palos IS-164 Palos Verdes Drive Westto the list of major arterials where
Verdes Drive West the use of chain-link,chicken-wire and fiberglass fencing
is prohibited.
12-3
MEMORANDUM:RDSSC Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2007-00377)
June 1,2010
Page 4
Issue
Issue Summary Recommendation SummaryPacket
Page
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend limiting
the height of fences,walls and hedges between the front
Fence/Wall/Hedge Height in Other property line and the front-yard setback line to forty-two
Setback Areas IS-168 inches (42")and allowing 6-foot-tall fences,walls and
hedges outside of the 20-foot front setback area.This is
a Staff-initiated issue that was not recommended by the
RDSSC.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend clarifying
Clarification of Permitted Encroach-IS-173 the permitted encroachments for architectural features,
ments into Setbacks garden windows/awnings and eaves into required setback
areas.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend resolving
the current conflict between the Zoning and Building
Resolution of Inconsistencies Regar-Codes regarding the maximum depth permitted for
ding the Depth of Ornamental Pools IS-184 ornamental pools (Le.,<24"in the Zoning Code versus
<18"in the Building Code)without triggering the pool
fencing requirement by uniformly adopting the Building
Code standard.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend modifying
Development Standards for Minor the list of the types of minor structures permitted within
the setback areas-with and without Site Plan ReviewStructuresEncroachinguponSet-IS-194 approval-while restricting the hours of operation ofbackAreasfountainsduetoconcernsaboutnoiseimpactsupon
neighbors.
To assist the City Council in understand the background and rationale behind these
recommendations,Staff has attached an "Issue Summary Packet"for each of these topics.
Each packet includes:
•The name of the issue to be addressed;
•The ROSSC recommendation regarding the issue;
•Oiscussion of the rationale for the ROSSC recommendation and specific language or
map changes recommended;
•Alternatives that were considered by the Planning Commission;
•The Planning Commission's action on the issue;
•Minutes,diagrams and other attachments;and,
• A cross-reference to the relevant section(s)on the draft Ordinance.
In general,the ROSSC's recommendations were upheld by the Planning Commission.
However,there were instances where Staff and/or the Planning Commission suggested
alternatives to the ROSSC-recommended action.These alternative actions (where
applicable)are discussed in the attached Issue Summary Packets.The draft Ordinance
12-4
MEMORANDUM:RDSSC Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2007-00377)
June 1,2010
Page 5
presented this evening contains all of the recommended changes in Code language and
zoning that were recommended by the Planning Commission.
As the City Council may recall,on August 18,2009,the City Council adopted a policy that
directed Staff to identify specific instances where a Planning Commission recommendation
or action conflicted with Staff's best professional opinion on a matter or project,and to
present Staff's opinion as the preferred alternative.As a result of the public notification for
this proposal,one issue has emerged as being particularly troubling to some City residents
such that,upon further reflection,Staff believes that the Planning Commission's
recommendation should not be accepted by the City Council.
The issue in question is the imposition of a 15-foot aggregate side-yard setback
requirement upon so-called "pre-incorporation/pre-annexation"lots in the City.1 Currently,
a 5-foot setback is required on each side of a lot in the City's single-family zoning districts
in areas that were subdivided prior to incorporation (or annexation,in the case of the
Eastview area).The RDSSC recommended-and the Planning Commission accepted-
the imposition of an aggregate 15-foot combined side-yard setback for these lots,as well
as a minimum 5-foot setback on one side.This would effectively mandate the creation of a
1O-foot setback on one side of each lot,a condition that does not occur widely in some of
the City's more densely-developed neighborhoods (except,perhaps,on corner lots,which
already have a 10-foot street-side setback requirement).
Staff believes that the imposition of this requirement would create thousands of
nonconforming conditions throughout the City,which would then create an unreasonable
burden upon property owners.Therefore,Staff recommends that the City Council reject
this specific recommendation from the RDSSC and Planning Commission.This has
required a modification to Table 02-A (as compared to the Planning Commission's
recommendation),which is attached as Exhibit 'C'to tonight's report.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion,Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No.2010-_,
thereby certifying the Negative Declaration;and introduce Ordinance No._,thereby
amending miscellaneous provisions of Title 17 (Zoning)of the City's Municipal Code and
the City's Zoning Map,as recommended by the Residential Development Standards
Steering Committee.
1 This issue was considered by the Planning Commission on April 8,2008,more than sixteen (16)
months before the City Council's policy directive of August 19,2009.
12-5
MEMORANDUM:RDSSC Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2007-00377)
June 1,2010
Page 6
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
CEQA Compliance
Once the Planning Commission completed its review of the RDSSC recommendations in
December 2009,Staff compiled all of the recommended Code and zoning changes and
analyzed their environmental impacts.Based upon this analysis,Staff prepared the
attached Initial Study (IS)and found that the proposed project would not have a significant
adverse effect upon the environment.Therefore,a Negative Declaration (ND)for the
project was issued on March 29,2010.The ND was circulated for a 30-day public
comment period from April 1,2010,to April 30,2010.Aside from an acknowledgement
letter from the State Clearinghouse (see attachments),no comments regarding the ND
were received during the 30-day public comment period.
Public Notification
On March 29,2010,public notice of the ND and the May 4,2010,City Council hearing
were mailed to nearly two thousand (2,000)residents in the Eastview area 2 ,to the State
Clearinghouse and to other public agencies or parties with a potential interest in this
proposal.Notice of the May 4,2010,City Council public hearing was published at 1/8th
_
page size in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News on April 1,2010.As of the date of this
report,Staff had received many telephone and e-mail inquiries requesting clarification of
the proposed Code Amendment and Zone Change,particularly from Eastview residents.
On April 13,2010,Staff was invited to attend the Rolling Hills Riviera homeowners
association meeting to answer the community's questions about the proposed project.
Written public comments objecting to this proposal have focused on the proposed 15-foot
aggregate side-yard setback requirement for pre-incorporation/pre-annexation lots.Since
this matter was continued to a date certain at the May 4,2010,City Council meeting,no
additional public notification for tonight's meeting has been required.However,Staff did
post messages on the City's website in early April 2010 and late May 2010 to advise
interested parties that this matter would be discussed by the City Council at tonight's
meeting.All public correspondence received is attached to tonight's report.
FISCAL IMPACT
As a City Council-initiated Code Amendment and Zone Change,the costs associated with
the review and processing of this project have been wholly borne by the City's General Fund.
2 While the proposed miscellaneous amendments to the City's single-family residential development
standards would generally apply citywide,the proposed zone changes would only affect properties in
Eastview.Therefore,pUblic hearing notices were mailed to the owners of all detached,single-family
residences in Eastview
12-6
MEMORANDUM:RDSSC Code Amendment (Case No.ZON2007-00377)
June 1,2010
Page 7
Otherwise,there are expected to be no fiscal impacts associated with the City Council's
review of this proposal.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration:
1.Identify issues of concern with the proposed RDSSC Code Amendment and Zone
Change,direct Staff to revise the draft Ordinance accordingly,and continue this
matter to a date certain for the first reading of the revised draft Ordinance.
2.Identify issues of concern with the proposed RDSSC Code Amendment and Zone
Change and remand this matter to the Planning Commission with direction for further
review and consideration.
3.Reject the proposed RDSSC Code Amendment and Zone Change in its entirety and
take no further action.
Attachments:
•Resolution No.2010-
•Ordinance No.
•Initial Study/Negative Declaration
•P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
•Public correspondence
•Issue Summary Packets
M:\Projects\ZON2007-00377 (Citywide,Residential Development Standards)\20100601_StaffRpt_CC.doc
12-7
RESOLUTION NO.2010-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
PALOS VERDES,CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIAENVIRONMENTALQUALITYACT FOR PLANNING
CASE NO.ZON2001-00377 (CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE)
FOR MiSCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE
17 (ZONING)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL .c;ODE AND.THE.CITY'S
ZONING •MAP TO ENACT THE RECOMMENDATIONS •·OF .THE
RESIDENTIAL·DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE
WHEREAS,in 2003 the City Council formed the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC)-composed of City residents,Planning
Commissioners and City Councilmembers-and charged the RDSSC with the task of
reviewing the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing
construction trends.The RDSSC met for nearly two (2)years and eventually presented a
summary of its recommended amendments to the City Council for its consideration;and,
WHEREAS,on August 1,2006,the City Council authorized the initiation of a Code
Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377)to implement the
RDSSC recommendations;and,
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code,the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on
November 13,2007,February 12,2008,March 11,2008,April 8,2008,May 13,2008,
June 10,2008,JUly 8,2008,July 22,2008,September 8,2009,October 13,2009,
November 10,2009 and December 8,2009,at which times all interested parties were
given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to
Title 17 as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff reports of those dates;and,
WHEREAS,on December 8,2009,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No.2009-52,thereby forwarding its final recommendations regarding the
proposed RDSSC Code Amendment and Zone Change to the City Council;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et seq.,the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5(f)(Hazardous Waste and Substances
Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study and determined that
there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377
would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.Accordingly, a Draft
Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review for thirty (30)days
between April 1,2010 and May 1,2010,and notice of that fact was given in the manner
required by law;and,
12-8
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code,the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 4,2010,May
18,2010,and June 1,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity
to be heard and present evidence regarding the proposed revisions to Chapter 15.20 as
set forth in the City Council Staff reports of those dates.
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 has independently reviewed and considered the
proposed Negative Declaration,the public comments upon it,and other evidence before
the City Council prior to taking action on the proposed project and finds that the Negative
Declaration was prepared in the manner required by law and that there is no substantial
evidence that the approval of Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377 (Code Amendment and
Zone Change),would result in a significant adverse effect upon the environment.
Section 2:Planning Case No.ZON2007 -00377 for the RDSSC Code Amendment
and Zone Change is consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and with the
underlying Residential,~1 DU/5 acres,Residential,~1 DU/acre,Residential,1-2 DU/acre,
Residential,2-4 DU/acre and Residential,4-6 DU/acre land use designations that apply to
the City's single-family neighborhoods,which will not be changed as a result of the
approval of the proposed project.
Section 3:Based upon the foregoing findings,the adoption of the proposed
Negative Declaration is in the public interest.
Section 4:The time within which the judicial review of the decision reflected in
this Resolution,if available,must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 ofthe California
Code of Civil Procedure and other applicable short periods of limitation.
Section 5:For the foregoing reasons and based on the information and findings
included in the Staff Report,Environmental Assessment and other components of the
legislative record,in the proposed Negative Declaration,and in the public comments
received by the City Council,the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby
certifies that the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with CEQA,
thereby approving miscellaneous amendments to the provisions of Title 17 (Zoning)ofthe
City's Municipal Code and the City's Zoning Map to enact the recommendations of the
Residential Development Standards Steering Committee.
12-9
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this _st day of June 2010.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss
City of Rancho Palos Verdes )
I,Carla Morreale,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,hereby certify that the
above Resolution No.201 O-_was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said City
Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June _'2010.
City Clerk
M:\Projects\ZON2007-00377 (Citywide,Residential Development Standards)\201 00601_DraftResolution_CC.doc
12-10
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ADOPTING MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS
OF TITLE 17 (ZONING)OF THE CITY'S MUN.ICIPAL CODE AND THE
CITY'S ZONING MAP TO ENACT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STEERING COMMITTEE
WHEREAS,in 2003 the City Council formed the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC)-·composed of City residents,Planning
Commissioners and City CouncUmernbers-••and charged the RDSSC with the task of
reviewing the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing
construction trends.TheRDSSC met for nearly two (2)years and eventually presented
a summary of its recornmended amendments to the City Council for its consideration;
and,
WHEREAS,on August 1,2006,the City Council authorized the initiation of a
Code Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case No.ZON2007~00377)to imple-
ment the RDSSC recommendations;and,
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant tothe provislons of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code,the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on
November 13,2007,February 12,2008,March 11,2008,April 8,2008,May 13,2008,
June 10,2008,JUly 8,2008,July 22,2008,SeptemberS,2009,October 13,2009,
November 10,2009 and December S,2009,at which tirnesatl interested parties were
given an opportunity to be.heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to
Title 17 as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff reports of those dates;and,
WHEREAS,on December 8,2009,the Planning Commission adopted P.C.
Resolution No.2009~52,thereby forwarding its final recommendations regarding the
proposed RDSSC Code Amendment and Zone Change to the City Council;and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act,Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.("CEQA"),the State's CEQA
Guidelines,California Code of Regulations,Title 14,Section 15000 et seq.,the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines,and Government Code Section 65962.5{f)(Hazardous Waste
and Substances Statement),the City of Rancho Palos Verdes prepared an Initial Study
and determined that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of Planning Case
No.ZON2007 ~00377 would result in a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Accordingly,a Draft Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review
for thirty (30)days between April 1,2010 and May 1,2010,and notice of that fact was
given in the manner required by law;and,
WHEREAS,after notice issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code,the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 4,2010,
May 18,2010,and June 1,2010,at which time all interested parties were given an
12-11
opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding the proposed revisions to
Chapter 15.20 as set forth in the City Council Staff reports of those dates;and,
WHEREAS,at its June 1,2010,meeting,after hearing public testimony,the City
Council adopted Resolution No.2010-_making certain findings related to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and adopting
Negative Declaration for the proposed project.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The City Council has reviewed and considered the amendments to
Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
Section 2:The City Council finds that 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 are
consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in
that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment,and
enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods.
Section 4:The City Council finds that the amendments to Title 17 are
necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area,while
balancing property rights.
Section 5:The City's Zoning Map,as codified in Section 17.88.020 of Title 17
and incorporated therein by reference,shall be amended such that the areas of the
"Eastview"portion of the City that are currently zoned "RS-4"shall be re-zoned "RS-5,"as
depicted in the areas outlined in red on the attached Exhibit 'A.'
Section 6:The City's Zoning Map,as codified in Section 17.88.020 of Title 17
and incorporated therein by reference,shall be amended such that the "Mira Vista
Overlay Control District (OC-5)"shall be established in the "Eastview"portion of the City,
specifically affecting lots located within Tract No.16010,as recorded on September 8,
1949 in Book 353,Pages 23 through 29 (inclusive),of maps of the County of Los
Angeles,including therein any lots created through the subsequent subdivision of the two
hundred fifteen (215)original lots in the tract,but excluding therefrom that portion of Lot
215 of Tract No.16010 that was subdivided as a portion of Tract No.21184,as recorded
on September 28,1955 in Book 578,Pages 7 through 8 (inclusive),of maps of the
County of Los Angeles;as depicted in the area outlined in blue on the attached Exhibit
'B.'
12-12
Section 7:Section 17.40.080 of Title 17 is hereby established to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
17.40.080 Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5)and regulations
A.Purpose.The purpose of the Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5)is
established to:
1.Acknowledge the unique qualities of the overlay area,which is generallv
characterized by very small homes on small lots,with substandard or no
off-street parking facilities;and,
2.Allow for the modernization and enlargement of the homes in the overlay
area,in a manner compatible with the unique character of the
neighborhood,and with the needs and desires of current property owners.
B.Application.The Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5)shall be applicable to
lots located within Tract No.16010,as recorded on September 8,1949 in Book
353,Pages 23 through 29 (inclusive),of maps of the County of Los Angeles,
including therein any lots created through the subsequent subdivision of the two
hundred fifteen (215)original lots in the tract,but excluding therefrom that portion
of Lot 215 of Tract No.16010 that was subdivided as a portion of Tract
No.21184,as recorded on September 28,1955 in Book 578,Pages 7 through 8
(inclusive),of maps of the County of Los Angeles.
C.Development Standards.The following development standards shall apply to
lots subject to the Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5).If not specified
below,the RS-5 zoning district and other general development standards shall
apply.
1.Minimum Setbacks.The following minimum building setbacks shall be
maintained:
I
I
Front
20'
Interior Side I
5'I
Street Side
10'
Rear
15'
I
2.Front Entry Porch.A front entry porch shall be permitted to encroach into
the required front-yard setback,provided that the following criteria are
met:
a.The footprint of the porch does not exceed 50 square feet in area;
b.The footprint of the porch does not encroach more than 5 feet into
the required front yard;and,
c.The height of the porch does not exceed 16 feet in height or the
highest roof ridgeline,whichever is lower.
3.Front-Yard Landscaped Area.If a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is
required for a project,where applicable a landscaped parkway shall be
provided by the property owner.Approvals for parkway landscaping shall
be obtained from the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building
or grading permits.In addition,at least 50%of the front yard area shall be
12-13
maintained as landscape area,in accordance with as defined in Section
17.48.030(0).
4.Drivewavs.In cases where a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is
required for a project,if a garage is located in the rear of a property,a
minimum 9-foot-wide driveway shall be provided that utilizes grass strips
or "grasscrete."If a garage is located at the front of a property,a
minimum 18-inch-wide landscaped area shall be provided between the
side property line and the nearest edge of the driveway.
5.Garages.As alternatives to the minimum off-street parking requirements
specified in Section 17.02.030(E),enclosed garage spaces may be
provided as follows:
a.Tandem parking spaces in an attached garage,provided that each
garage space meets the minimum dimensions specified in Section
17.02.030(E);or,
b.Detached garage encroaching to within five feet of the rear
property line provided that:
i.The each garage space meets the minimum dimensions
specified in Section 17.02.030(E);
ii.The maximum height of the garage does not exceed twelve
feet;and,
iii.The Director determines that the detached garage will not
result in significant view impacts from the viewing area of
any nearby properties.
iv.All other development standards are met.including but not
limited to lot coverage,side setbacks and construction on
extreme slopes.
6.Lot Coverage.Notwithstanding the underlving zoning within the overlay
control district area,the maximum permitted lot coverage shall be 52%.as
defined in Section 17.02-040(A)(5).
Section 8:Table 02-A "Single-Family Residential Development Standards"of
Section 17.02.030(A)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as depicted in the attached
Exhibit 'e'(the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language).
Section 9:Section 17.02.040(A)(5)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
5."Lot coverage"means that portion of a lot or building site which is occupied by
any building or structure,including oourtyards whioh are ful!y enoJosed or whioh
ha\l-e a maximum of one exterior entranoe;trellises;decks over thirty inches in
height (as measured from existing adjacent grade);parking areas;driveways;or
impervious surfaces (impervious surfaces less than five feet in width and/or one
patio area less than five hundred square feet in area shall be excluded from the
12-14
lot coverage calculation).(The let coverage of a courtyard V'lhich is not ful!y
enclosed shall be caJculated by the director as if ,it were fuJly enclosed by
drawing an imaginary line between the walls on either side of the entranoe to the
oourtyard.~lhen the waJls on either side of the entrance are of uneven length,
the imaginary line shall be an extension of the end of the wall on the shortest
side of the oourtyard,see diagram below.)
Section 10:Section 17.48.040 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows
(the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents
deleted language):
An open space area shall be provided on each lot with a residential structure.Open
space area shall not include any portion of a lot or building site which is within the
definition of lot coverage,as defined in Section 17.02.040(A).Lot coverage shall not
exceed the maximum area requirements established in the district development
standards (see Table 02-A in Chapter 17.02).For purposes of calculating lot coverage.
a private street easement area shall not be considered a part of the lot area.For flag
lots.the "pole"portion of any flag lot that is encumbered by an access easement
benefiting another property shall not be considered a part of the lot area.In no case
shall any hardscape or other improvements within a private street easement or a flag-lot
"pole"that is encumbered by an access easement be counted as lot coverage.In
multiple-family residential units,private outdoor decks and balconies with one minimum
horizontal dimension of seven feet which are designated for the exclusive use of the
occupants of an individual unit may comprise up to thirty percent of required open
space.
12-15
Section 11:Section 17.96.2020 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
"Private street"means any lot not dedicated as a public street over which a private
easement for road purposes has been recorded and used or intended to be used for
ingress to or egress from a lot or lots which mayor may not have frontage on a public
street.For purposes of measuring setbacks and calculating lot coverage.a private
street easement shall not be considered a part of a lot.A private street does not mean
a "driveway."
Section 12:Section 17.02.030(E)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
E.Parking/Driveway Standards.
1.A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in
a garage.and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided
and maintained as a driveway,on the property of each single-family dwelling unit
containing less than five thousand square feet of habitable space,as determined
by the director.
2.A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained
in a garage.and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be
provided and maintained as a driveway,on the property of each single-family
dwelling unit containing five thousand square feet or more of habitable space,as
determined by the director.
3.A garage with a direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be
located less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line,whichever
is the street of access.
4.In addition to the parking requirements for the primary single-family residence on
a property,parking for city-approved second units shall be provided in
accordance with Chapter 17.10 (Second Unit Development Standards).
5.An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less
than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth,with a minimum of seven feet of
vertical clearance over the space.An unenclosed parking space shall have an
unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in
depth.
6.The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all
driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on
a residential parcel:
a.A driveway shall be a minimum width of ten feet;and
b.A paved twenty-five-foot turning radius shall be provided between the
garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways which
have an average slope of ten percent or more,and which are fifty feet or
more in length.
12-16
7.Driveways shall take into account the driveway standards required by the
department of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-of-
way.
8.A driveway that is located adjacent to a side property line shall provide a
minimum 18-inch-wide landscaped area between the side property line and the
adjacent driveway,unless such buffer would reduce the minimum width of the
driveway to less than ten feet,in which case the width of the landscape buffer
may be narrowed or eliminated at the discretion of the Director.
}l8.All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the specifications
of the Los Angeles County fire department.If there is any inconsistency between
the standards imposed by this chapter and the standards imposed by the Los
Angeles County fire department,the stricter shall apply.
10.Unless otherwise expressly permitted elsewhere in this title,enclosed tandem
parking spaces may only be used for parking spaces in excess of the minimum
requirements of subsections (1)and (2)of this section,provided that each space
meets the minimum dimensions specified in subsection (5)of this section.
Section 13:Section 17.76.030(C)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit.Unless restricted by
conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to
subsection B of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following
requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1.Residential Zoning Districts.
a.Fences,walls and hedges located between the front property /,ine
and the e*ferior facade of the eJdstlng single famlly residence
closest to the front property /,ine within the front-yard setback area
or between the street side property /,ine and the e>ds#ng single
family residence closest to the street side property line shall meet
the following standards:
i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of
Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Areas and
Building Height)of this title;
ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may
not exceed forty-two inches,except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Areas and Building Height)of
this title;and
iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front
property line of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side
property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall
be permitted.
12-17
b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a)of
this section shall meet the following standards:
i.Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted
on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a),
except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
visibility)of this title;
ii.Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any
part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a),except as
restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions
which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02
(Single-family Residential Districts);
iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining
wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as
measured from grade on the lower side,and may not
exceed six feet,as measured from grade on the higher side;
iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining
wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet,
as measured from grade on the higher side and may not
exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower
side;provided,the height of each individual fence,
freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the
height limitations prescribed by this title.
c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or
street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction
fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020(C)(Environmental
Protection)of this tit/e.
2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a.Fences,walls and hedges located between the front property !fne
and the exterior facade of the existing singffi within front and street
side setbacks within the front-yard and street-side setback areas
shall meet the following standards:
i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the
front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height)of
this title.
ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may
not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side
setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection
visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,
Open Space Area and Building Height)of this title.
b.Fences,walls and hedges located behind front and street-side
setbacks shall meet the following standards:
12-18
i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot
behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of
Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and
Building Height)of this tit/e.
ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may
not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower
side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade
on the higher side.
c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or
street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction
fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental Protection)
of this tit/e.
Section 14:Section 17.76.030(E)(5)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
5.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-
family residence closest to the front property line;in side yards between the
street side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family
residence closest to the street side property line;and within a rear yard setback
which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
a.Crenshaw Boulevard;
b.Crest Road;
c.Hawthorne Boulevard;
d.Highridge Road;
e.Miraleste Drive;
f.Palos Verdes Drive East;
g.Palos Verdes Drive North;
h.Palos Verdes Drive South;amJ
i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and.
i i.Silver Spur Road.
Section 15:Section 17.48.030(E)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
E.Exceptions.
1.Architectural Features.Cornices,belt courses and other similar
architectural features may project into the required setback area not more
than four inches for each foot of the required setback;provided,that no
portion of such an architectural feature is located or projects below eight
feet above grade;and provided,that there are no vertical supports or
12-19
members within the required setback area.Garden windows may project
into the required setback area not more than four inches for each foot of
the required setback;provided,that there are no 'I8rtical supports vlithin
the required setback area.Eaves may project into the required setback
not more than six inches for each foot of the required setback.
2.Garden Windows and Window Coverings.Garden windows and window
coverings.including retractable awnings.may project into the required
interior side and rear year setback areas not more than four inches for
each foot of the required setback;provided that there are no vertical
supports within the required setback area.
3.Roof Eaves.Roof eaves may project into the required setback not more
than six inches for each foot of the required setback;provided that there
are no vertical supports within the required setback areas.Roof eaves
shall not be calculated towards lot coverage as defined in Section
17.02.040(A)(5).
~.Fireplace Chimneys.Chimneys may project two feet into any required
setback.
fi3.Minor Structures and Mechanical Equipment.Trash enclosures,storage
sheds or playhouses less than one hundred twenty square feet,
doghouses,play/sports equipment,fountains,light fixtures on a standard
or a pole.flag poles.enclosed water heaters,barbecues,outdoor
kitchens.garden walls,air conditioners,pool filters,vents and other minor
structures or mechanical equipment shall not be located in any setback
area in residential districts except as specified below:
a.Minor structures and equipment less than six inches in height,as
measured from adjacent finished grade,may be located in any
required front,side or rear setback;
b.Minor structures and mechanical equipment which exceed six
inches in height,as measured from adjacent finished grade,may
be permitted within an interior side or rear setback area by the
director,through a site plan review application,unless the minor
structure is a play house less than 120 square feet.a dog house.or
plav/sports equipment.then a site plan review application shall not
be required;provided that no significant adverse impacts will result
and provided that:
i.Noise levels from mechanical equipment do not exceed
sixty-five dBA as measured from the closest property line,
ii.No part of any minor structure or mechanical equipment,
exceeds six feet in height (as measured from adjacent
finished grade),
iii.If located within a rear setback area which abuts a public or
private street,the minor structure or mechanical equipment
is not visible from the public or private street,
iv.No part of any mechanical equipment,including but not
limited to pool/spa equipment and air conditioning/heating
equipment,extends within three feet of the property line,and
12-20
v.No part of any minor structure extends within three feet of
the property line.However,minor structures (not
mechanical equipment)may be allowed to abut the side or
rear property line;provided,that the minor structure:
(A)Is placed adjacent to an existing solid wall;
(B)Does not exceed the maximum height of the adjacent
solid wall,up to a maximum of six feet;
(C)Is less than one hundred twenty square feet in size;
and
(D)Is located a minimum of three feet from an adjacent
structure,unless the structures are parallel and
abutting each other,as determined by the director.
c.The following minor structures shall be permitted within a front yard
setback area provided that the minor structure does not exceed 42-
inches in height.as measured from adjacent pre-construction
grade:
i.Balustrades and columns;
ii.Light fixtures.including light fixtures attached to a standard.
a pole or a column;
iii.Fountains.provided that the fountain is within the maximum
front yard landscape requirement and is not operated
between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m.;and;
iv.Ornamental ponds less than 18 inches deep.
v.Decorative landscape elements.including but not limited to:
rocks.boulders.raised planter beds.pilasters and statuary.
§4.Decks,Walkways and Paving.Decks,asphalt paving,concrete walkways
or similar ground surfacing less than six inches in height (as measured
from adjacent finished grade),shall not be subject to setback
requirements.Decks (including any railing),six inches to thirty inches in
height (as measured from adjacent finished grade),may be permitted in
any setback area upon determination by the director,through a site plan
review application,that no significant adverse impacts will result.
Za.Swimming or Ornamental Pools.Swimming pools,spas,ornamental
pools and any other body of water measuring more than eighteen tlll-enty
feHF inches or more deep,may be located within an interior or rear yard
setback;provided,that no portion of said pool is located closer than three
feet from the property line.Ornamental ponds less than eighteen tlll-enty
feHF inches deep may be located within any required setback and may
abut any property line.
11:9.Foundations and Footings.Below grade foundations and/or footings for
above ground main buildings may be located in any setback;provided,
that no portion of the foundation or footing is located closer than three feet
from the property line.
fFI.Subterranean Structures.Subterranean structures,including holding
tanks,which are located entirely below grade shall not be extended any
12-21
closer than half of the required setback to any property line or three feet
from the property line,whichever is greater.
100.Fences,Walls and Hedges.Fences,walls and hedges may be permitted
within any front,interior side,street side or rear yard setback pursuant to
Section 17.76.030 (Fences,walls and hedges).
Section 16:Section 17.76.030(E)(3)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
3.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas and standing bodies of water
eighteen twenfy four inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure
and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside
ground level at a point twelve inches horizontal from the base of the fence or
wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device
and a self-latching device located not less than four feet above the ground.
Such fences,walls and gates shall meet City specifications and shall be
constructed to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
Section 17:Section 17.96.1460 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
"Swimming or ornamental pool"means any body of water measuring more than
eighteen tl/lenfy four inches or more deep at its deepest point,whether above or below
the surface of the ground."Ornamental pool"means any body of water measuring less
than eighteen inches in depth at its deepest point.whether above or below the surface
of the ground.
Section 18: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 said ordinance.
Section 19:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the
effective date of the adoption of said ordinance and to all development applications that
have not been decided upon prior to the effective date of the adoption of said
ordinance.
Section 20:The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be posted in the manner prescribed by law.
12-22
PASSED,APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS _TH DAY OF JUNE 2010.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I,CARLA MORREALE,City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,do hereby
certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five;that the
foregoing Ordinance No._passed first reading on June _'2010,was duly and
regularly adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting thereof held on
June _,2010,and that the same was passed and adopted by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CITY CLERK
12-23
Areas outlined
in RED to be
re-zoned from
RS-4 to RS-5
Ordinance _,Exhibit 'A'
Proposed Eastview Re-Zoning RS-4 to RS-5
12-24
Area outlined
in BLUE to be
designated
Mira Vista
Overlay Control
District (OC-5)
Ordinance _,Exhibit '8'
Proposed Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-S)
12-25
16
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 lotsperasre (J~rrTlitte.d"inth~zone;th~:R§:I\"lllllll~erindicatesme .lllillilllulllnllmber ofacres perlot permitted.
ismOTI[LOT DIMENSIONS'If F~:~~~MC~~~K~~;'I_~N~~:~=E~~~~~t:!a:.1 =~f~~·jL~NG-REQU;EM~
I j AREAIWIOTH:IOEPTH[FRONT INTERIOR I STREErtIREARI[FR~NTI INTERIOR'IISTREETijREARI ...n less than 5,000 s.f.of habitable space =2nnn:E~jl~~~il SIDE II II II SIDE JiSIDE Inl ,"0-"m,"p,re.
rRS-~A~5"'r:~;~:""1200--r"'30'0"-r······zo ··:"'''30 .1 r--1Oj r"20'--L20 ..1/20 1l__..:-J r~.1.0 ..]r1"5'r·.---6-%-'-]r..-16·]:~oc~~s:~·;~r:;~es~:~::itable space =3
fRs~1 ···..,~..~~~~-r"100·..[..150--r..··..20-..··[25.·[10]["""2Q 1[20][?Q ..Jf 5 1[~][1.?I 2?%'[]"16:
PI:~:00°ro--I120 ira-I 20 !110!1+2~..JI ..~~JI.20 II.5 II 10 1115
I I 0[801[110J20:l 20J1011~01115jl."~~Jt 5 Ii 10 1
110 ,000:1 75 11 100 1/20 :1 20 11 10 If2Oi l 15 If 20 II 5 II 10 If 15 II 50%
:s.f.,,..c,,I...................Ii;1,.1,. ,,,..:',',:'_._-_,'',',,..........•.....:,._.,~,,.__...•__.v__'__•....;~"_,__"",,,,"",,,}.'"..,','"w".,",..;..'====
IRS-5 ;1::~0°rs-1100 II 20 1 20 II 10;12°11151120 ]1 5 :1 10 1f15'1 52%
footprint area (residence and
1.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 feet in height extends closer than twenty-five feet from the front or street-side property line.
B.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent of the existing first story
garage);
C.Sixty percent or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (a second story).
O.The portion of a structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height is being 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 feet in height may significantly impair a view as defined in this
chapter.
5.
6.
7.
8.
For parking development standards,see Section 17.02.030(B)of this chapter.
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,whichever is the street of access.
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.
For purposes of calculatina lot coveraae.a private street easement shall not be considered a part of the lot area and the improved area oLa..private street easement shall not be counted as lot
coverage.
Ordinance ,Exhibit 'C'
Proposed Table 02-A
12-26
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1.Project title:
Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment and Zone
Change
Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377
(Code Amendment,Zone Change and Environmental Assessment)
2.Lead agency namel address:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
3.Contact person and phone number:
Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
(310)544-5228
4.Project location:
Citywide
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
County of Los Angeles
5.Project sponsor's name and address:
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
6.General plan designation:
Varies
7.Coastal plan designation:
Varies
8.Zoning:
Varies
9.Description of project:
The proposed "Residential Development Standards Steering Committee Code Amendment
and Zone Change"would enact miscellaneous revisions to provisions of the City's
Development Code that regulate the development of single-family residential
neighborhoods.These include,but are not limited to:
12-27
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
•Side-Yard Setbacks for Pre-Incorporation Lots
•Eastview Rezoning from RS-4 to RS-5
•Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5)
•Courtyard Area Lot Coverage
•Private Street Easement Lot Coverage
•Flag-Lot Lot Coverage
•Minimum Driveway Areas
•Driveway Landscape Buffers
•Tandem Parking
•Front and Street-Side Wall and Fence Height
•Chain Link Fencing along Palos Verdes Drive West
•Clarification of Permitted Encroachments into Setbacks
•Resolution of Inconsistencies Regarding the Depth of Ornamental Pools
•Development Standards for Minor Structures Encroaching upon Setback Areas
The specific Development Code revisions proposed are described in detail in the attached
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52,as adopted by the City's Planning Commission on December
8,2009.Graphic depictions of the boundaries of the proposed Eastview Re-Zoning and
Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5)are included below as Figures 1 and 2,respect-
ively.
10.Description of project site (as it currently exists):
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes was incorporated in 1973 and consists of a total area of
about 13.6 square miles with 7.5 miles of coastline.Elevations range from sea level to
1,480 feet.The population of the City is over 42,000 and the character of the community is
primarily residential with about 15,000 single-family residences,40 multi-family properties
and 155 commerciallinstitutional parcels.The City is largely built out,with most
development activity in the City's single-family neighborhoods consisting of the expansion
and/or redevelopment of existing residences,with the occasional development of new
residences on vacant lots.There are few large contiguous parcels remaining to be
subdivided for single-family residential use.
On-site
Existing residential,commercial,insti-
tutional and open space land uses in See description above.
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Northeast,
East &
Southeast
The cities of Lomita and Los Angeles
(Harbor City,Wilmington and San
Pedro)
The cities of Lomita and Los Angeles
serve as gateways to the Port of Los
Angeles and the harbor area.They are
developed with a mixture of single-and
mUlti-family residential,commercial and
industrial uses.
Page 2
12-28
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
South &
Southwest
Northwest
North
Pacific Ocean
The City of Palos Verdes Estates
The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and
Rolling Hills
The Pacific Ocean borders the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes for roughly 7.5
miles,and includes tidepools and sandy
beaches.There is a State marine
reserve at Abalone Cove.
The City of Palos Verdes Estates is the
oldest city on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula.It is primarily developed with
single-family residential neighborhoods,
with commercial and multi-family
development at Lunada Bay and Malaga
Cove.
The cities of Rolling Hills Estates and
Rolling Hills were both incorporated in the
1950s,and both emphasize a semi-rural
equestrian lifestyle.The major com-
mercial center on the Palos Verdes
Peninsula is located in the City of Rolling
Hills Estates.The City of Rolling Hills is
gated and contains no commercial
development.
12.Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
Page 3
12-29
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
Figure 1
Eastview Re-Zoning from RS-4 to RS-5
Areas outlined
in to be
re-2!oned from
RS-4to RS-5
Page 4
12-30
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007 -00377
March 29,2010
Figure 2
Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5)
Area outlined in
BLUE to be
designated
MiraVVista
Overlay Control
District (OC~5)
Page 5
12-31
Environ mental Chec.klist
Case No.ZON2QQ7~00377
March 29,2010
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact"as indicted by the checklist on the following
pages.
D Aesthetics
D Biological Resouroes
D Agricultural Resources
D Cultural Resources
D Air Quality
D Geology/Soils
L.J Greenhouse Gas Emissions D Hazards &Hazardous Materials D HydrologylWater Quality
D Land Use/Planning
D Population/Housing
D Transportationrrraffic
DETERMINATION.:
D Mineral Resources
L_...]Public Services
D Utilities/Service Systems
D Noise
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
On the basis of this initi.al evaluation:
I find that the prqject COULD NOT have a significant effeot on the environment,and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that,although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the prOjeot
proponent.A MlTlGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o
D
D
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and anENVJRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact"or "potentially significant unless
mitigated"impact 011 the enVironment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuanUo applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the eatlieranalYsis as descrlbedon attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reqUired
but must analyZe only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that,although the proposed project could have a significant effeot on the environment,because all
potentially significant effects,(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,inoluding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed on the
proposed project,nothing further is reqUired.
Signature:
Printed Name:
Date:Maroh 29.2010
For:City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Page 6
12-32
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007·00377
March 29,2010
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b)Substantially damage scenic resources,
including,but not limited to,trees,rock
outcropplngs,and historical bUildings,
within a state scenic highway?
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d)Create a new source of substantial light
or glare,which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
x
x
x
x
Comments:
a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods in the City fall within scenic vistas identified in the City's General
Plan and Coastal Specific Plan.However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to
development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would
therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon identified scenic vistas.
b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods in the City may include scenic resources or historical structures.
However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that
would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon
scenic resources.
c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.In-fill development in some single-family neighborhoods in the City may involve the replacement of
undeveloped land areas with built environments,which would change the visual character of the site and surroundings.
However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that
would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon
visual character.
d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City'S existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.In-fill development in some single-family neighborhoods in the City may involve the construction that
would introduce additional sources of light and glare.However,the implementation of the proposed project would tend
to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be compatible with existing neighborhood character,and
would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon day-or nighttime views.
Page 7
12-33
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007 -00377
March 29,2010
a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique
Farmland.or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland),as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resource
Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b)Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use,or a Williamson Act
contract?
c)Conflict with existing zoning for,or
cause rezoning of,forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g»,timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526),or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Govemment Code section 511 O4(g»?
d)Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e)Involve other changes in the existing
environment that,due to their location or
nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland,to a non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
a-e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.There are no lands containing significant agricultural or forest resources within the City's single-family
residential neighborhoods.Therefore,the proposed project will have no impact upon agricultural and forest resources.
Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
1 In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the
Callfomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the california Dept of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.In determining whether impacts to forest resources,induding timberland,
are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources
Board
2 Where available,the significant criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control districts
may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Page 8
12-34
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
b)Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d)Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
x
x
x
x
Comments:
a-d)The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is located within the South Coast Air Basin,which is an area of non-attainment
for Federal air quality standards for ozone (03),carbon monoxide (CO),and suspended particulate matter (PM 10 and
PM2.5).The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Construction activity with the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods could result in the
movement of soil and the operation of construction equipment.Based upon the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD)guidelines for estimating air quality impacts from construction activities,the development of
individual parcels would not exceed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs)for nitrous oxides (NOx),CO,PM 10 or
PM2.5 •Therefore,the air quality impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
e)Since the zoning of the City's single-family residential neighborhood does not permit industrial or commercial
uses,no objectionable odors are expected to be generated as a result of the proposed project.
a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies,or regulations,or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b)Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or
regional plans,policies,or regUlations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service?
x
x
Page 9
12-35
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands,as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marsh,
vernal pool,coastal,etc.),through direct
removal,filling,hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d)Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e)Conflict with any local polices or
ordinances protecting biological
resources,such as tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f)Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,regional,or
state habitat conservation plan?
x
x
x
x
Comments:
a-d,f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.There is generally no sensitive habitat located with the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.However,in cases where the development or redevelopment of an individual residential property may
have impacts upon sensitive habitats or species,such impacts will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact
analysis for those projects.The City has already adopted a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)that
includes provisions for the mitigation of any habitat loss that may result from development activity.Therefore,the
biological resources impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
e)The City has a Coastal Sage Scrub Conservation and Management Ordinance,which is codified as Chapter
17.41 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.This ordinance only applies to parcels over two (2)acres in size
that contain Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS)habitat.Most of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods are made up
of lots that are smaller than two (2)acres in size and do not contain CSS habitat.As such,any conflicts of the proposed
project with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are expected to be less than significant.
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in §15064.5?
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
x
x
x
Page 10
12-36
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
d)Disturbed any human remains,including
those interred outside of formal X
cemeteries?
Comments:
a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods in the City may include historical structures.However,the
implementation of the proposed project would tend to lead to development in these neighborhoods that would be
compatible with existing neighborhood character, and would therefore have less-than-significant impacts upon historical
resources..
bod)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the Integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.According to the City's Archaeology Map,some single-family neighborhoods in the City may be located
within areas of possible area of archaeological and paleontological resources.In cases where the development or
redevelopment of an individual residential property may have impacts upon potential cultural resources,such impacts
will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact analysis for those projects.Otherwise,the proposed project is
expected to have less-than-significant impacts upon archeological and paleontological resources.
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects,including
the risk of loss,injury,or death
involving:
i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault?3
ii)strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)Seismic-related ground failure,in-
cludin Ii uefaction?
iv)Landslides?
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c)Be located on a geological unit or soil
that is unstable,or that would become
unstable as a result of the project,and
potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
3 Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
X
X
X
X
x
x
Page 11
12-37
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994),thus creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e)Have soils incapable 'of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
x
x
Comments:
a,cod)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.According to the Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the State of California Department
of Conservation,some single-family neighborhoods in the City are located within areas that are potentially subject to
earthquake-induced landslides and/or liquefaction.These neighborhoods may also be within the vicinity of the Palos
Verdes fault zone.The soils of the Palos Verdes Peninsula are also generally known to be expansive and occasionally
unstable.Given the known and presumed soils conditions in and around City's single-family residential neighborhoods,
it is expected that soil investigations,reviewed and conceptually approved by the City's geotechnical consultant,will be
required on a case-by-case basis prior to development or redevelopment within of the City's single-family residential
neighborhoods.Otherwise,the proposed project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts upon soil stability.
b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.During grading and construction operations for any new residences in these neighborhoods,top soil
will be exposed and removed from individual properties.It is the City's standard practice to require the preparation and
implementation of an erosion control plan for wind-and waterborne soil for construction projects.Therefore,the effects
of erosion or loss of topsoil related to the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City'S single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Some single-family neighborhoods in the City are reliant upon septic tanks and alternative waste water
disposal systems because sanitary sewer systems are not available.In cases where the development or
redevelopment of an individual residential property is proposed in a neighborhood without access to a sanitary sewer,
the adequacy of the subject property to accommodate septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems would
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.Otherwise,any geology/soils impacts related to septic systems are expected to
be less-than-significant.
a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly,that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b)Conflict with any applicable plan,policy
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
x
x
Comments:
a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
nei hborhoodso Thea rovalofthe ro osed rooectcouldleadtothefuturedevelo mentorredevelo mentofsin le-
Page 12
12-38
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
family residences throughout the City,but will not directly grant any entitlement for such development or redevelopment.
Based upon data obtained from Coo/California.org,the average California household generates thirty-eight (38)tons of
carbon dioxide (C02)emissions annually.Currently,there are no generally-accepted significance thresholds for
assessing greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions.However,the potential,future development and redevelopment of
residences in the City would include features that tend to offset the carbon footprint of their development.For example,
the use of water would continue to be carefully controlled,and reducing the use of water reduces energy use related to
the transport of water.New residences would be constructed to the most current energy efficiency standards of the
current Building Code (i.e.,Title 24).The development and redevelopment of homes within existing single-family
residential neighborhoods would tend to counteract the negative effects of sprawl by "in-filling"established residential
neighborhood rather than converting raw land to urban use.For all of these reasons,the GHG emissions associated
with the proposed project would be less than significant.
b)California's major initiatives for reducing climate change or greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions are outlined in
Assembly Bill 32 (signed into law in 2006),a 2005 Executive Order and a 2004 Air Resources Board (ARB)regulation to
reduce passenger-car GHG emissions.These efforts aim at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (a
reduction of approximately 30 percent)and then an 80-percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050.Currently,there
are no adopted plans,policies or regulations for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions for the development of new,
single-family residences.However,as such plans,policies and regulations are adopted In the future,the development
and redevelopment of new homes in the City would be SUbject to and consistent with them.For this reason,the GHG
emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.
a)Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport,use,or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b)Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environ-
ment?
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials,substances,or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d)Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
complied pursuant to Govemment Code
Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e)For a project located within an airport
land use plan or,where such a plan has
not been adopted,within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
x
x
x
x
x
Page 13
12-39
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip,would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working In the project area?
g)Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h)Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss,injury,or death
involving wildland fires,including Where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
x
x
x
Comments:
a-b)The proposed project woUld enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity··of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Conventional residential construction practices are not expected to involve the transport,disposal,
emission or handling of hazardous wastes or materials.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed
project are expected to be less than significant.
c)The proposed project woulclenact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's·.existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.There are many public and private schoolwithin or in the vicinity of the City's single-family residential
neighborhoods.However,.conventional residential construction practices are·not expected to involve the emission or
handling of hazardous wastes or materials.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed project upon
schools are expected to be less than significant.
d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Only four (4)existing single-family residence are included on the list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.Therefore,the hazardous materials impacts of the proposed
project are expected to be less than significant.
eMf)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Some of these neighborhoods are located within two (2)miles ofTorrance Municipal Airport,but there
are no private airstrips within the project vicinity.Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the
public to any greater risk associated with living in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip.
g)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods. In 2004,the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates adopted a Joint Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan (JNHMP).The purpose of the JNHMP is "to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens,
critical facilities,infrastructure,private property,and the environment from natural hazards."The approval of the
proposed project is not incompatible with the purpose of the JNHMP.
h)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Based upon maps prepared by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CaiFire),the
entire Palos Verdes Peninsula is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.As such,new construction in the City's
single-family residential neighborhoods is subject to compliance with the most-recent building codes for fire-safe
construction.Therefore,the wildfire hazard impacts of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
Page 14
12-40
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
a)Violate any water quality standards or
wastewater discharge requirements?
b)Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
or a lowering of the local groundwater
(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river,in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on-or off-site?
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river,or SUbstantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e)Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
f)Otherwise SUbstantially degrade water
quality?
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area,as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i)Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss,injury,or death
involving flooding,including flooding as
a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j)Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or
mudflow?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Page 15
12-41
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007·00377
March 29,2010
Comments:
a,c-t)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential
neighborhoods may alter the topography of properties and increase the amount of impermeable surface area.Future
development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods may also result in
changes to the current drainage patterns of the area,as well as the potential for erosion and run-off during construction.
In such limited cases where a lot falls within or adjacent to a designated Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)and
involves the creation of two thousand five hundred square feet or more ~2,500 SF)of impervious surface,the City
already requires the review and approval of the project by the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)consultant.Therefore,the hydrologylwater quality impacts of the proposed project are expected to be to less
than significant..
b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Future development or redevelopment in these neighborhoods will not involve or require the withdrawal
of groundwater because residential water service throughout the City is provided by the California Water Service
Company.
g-h)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.However,there are no Federally-mapped 100-year flood hazard areas anywhere within the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes.
i)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single.family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.There are above-and underground reservoirs maintained by California Water Service Company and
the Metropolitan Water District within and/or in the vicinity of some of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods.
Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the public to any greater risk associated with living in
the vicinity of these reservoirs.
j)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.According to the Official Maps ofTsunami Inundation for Emergency Planning provided by the State of
Califomia Emergency Management Agency and the Califomia Geological Survey,some single-family neighborhoods in
the City are located within areas that are potentially subject to tsunami inundation.Nevertheless,the proposed project
would not significantly expose the pUblic to any greater risk associated with liVing in the vicinity ofthe City's coastline.
a)Physically divide an established com-
munity?
b)Conflict with any applicable land use
plan,policy,or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general
plan,specific plan,local coastal plan,or
zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c)Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Com-
munity Conservation Plan?
x
x
x
Page 16
12-42
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007..Q0377
March 29,2010
Comments:
a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhahce the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Future development and redevelopment of single-family residence would occur within existing
neighborhoods.As such,it would not divide theses neighborhoods;rather,it would constitute "in-fill"development within
the community.
b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential devefopment standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.These revisions include the rezoning of the single-family residential neighborhoods in the City's
Eastview area from RS-4 to RS-5;and the establishment of an Overlay Control District for the Mira Vista neighborhood
in Eastview to:1)acknowledge the unique qualities of the overlay area,which is generally characterized by very small
homes on small lots,with substandard or no off-street parking facilities;and 2)allow for the modernization and
enlargement of the homes in the overlay area,in a manner compatible with the unique character of the neighborhood,
and with the needs and desires of current property owners.Such zoning changes are consistent with the underlying
Residential,4-6 DUlacre land use designation for these portions of Eastview,and with the goals and policies of the
City's General Plan governing the establishment of Overlay Control Districts.Therefore,the proposed project's conflicts
with any existing land use and planning regulations are expected to be less than significant.
c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.There is generally no sensitive habitat located within the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.However,in cases where the development or redevelopment of an individual residential property may
have impacts upon sensitive habitats or species,such impacts will be addressed as a part of the environmental impact
analysis for those projects.The City has already adopted a Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP)that
includes provisions for the mitigation of any habitat loss that may result from development activity.Therefore,any
inconsistency of the project with the City's NCCP is expected to be less than significant.
a)Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b)Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan,specific plan,or other land
use plan?
x
x
~omments:
a-b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.There are no minerai resources known or expected to exist within any of the City's existing single-family
residential neighborhoods.
Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance,or applicable stan-
dards of other agencies?
x
Page 17
12-43
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundbome vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c)A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d)A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels eXisting
without the project?
e)For a project located within an airport
land use plan or,where such a plan has
not been adopted,within two miles of a
public airport or a public use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip,would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.The City of Rancho Palos Verdes does not have a noise ordinance.However,General Plan Noise
Element Policy No.5 "[requires]residential uses in the 70 dB(A)location range to provide regulatory screening or some
other noise-inhibiting agent to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance."The Noise Levels Contour diagram in the
General Plan does not depict single-family residential neighborhoods as falling with the 70 dB(A)noise contour.There-
fore,the proposed project's noise impacts are expected to be less than significant.
b-d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Future construction activity related to the development or redevelopment of properties in the City's
single-family residential neighborhoods would create short-term construction-related noise.The City already imposes
limitations on the days and hours of construction activity,which are from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM,Mondays through
Saturdays.Therefore,the proposed project's noise impacts are expected to be less than significant.
e-f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Some of these neighborhoods are located within two (2)miles of Torrance Municipal Airport,but there
are no private airstrips within the project vicinity.Nevertheless,the proposed project would not significantly expose the
public to any greater noise associated with living in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip.
Induce substantial growth in an area
either directly (e.g.,by proposing new
homes or businesses)or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
x
Page 18
12-44
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007 -00377
March 29,2010
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing,necessitating the construction X
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of
people,necessitating the construction X
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.These revisions would primarily affect the aesthetics and physical form of development or
redevelopment within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods,but would not result in any substantial increase
in the number of residential dwelling units in the City.Therefore,the population and housing impacts of the proposed
project are expected to be less than significant.
b-c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.No existing housing or persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed project.
Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities,the construction of which could
cause significant environmental im-
pacts,in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios,response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
following public services:
i)Fire protection?
ii)Police protection?
iii)Schools?
iv)Parks?
v)Other public facilities?
Comments:
a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Future development or redevelopment within the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods
would be characterized as "in-fill"development.Such development or redevelopment would not place substantial
additional burdens on public services.Therefore,the public services impacts of the project are expected to be less than
significant.
Page 19
12-45
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007·00377
March 29,2010
a)Would the project increase the use of
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that X
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b)Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,.X
which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Comments:
a)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.These revisions would primarily affect the aesthetics and physical form of development or
redevelopment within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods,but would not result in any substantial increase
in the population of the City that would impose a burden upon recreational facilities.Therefore,the impacts of the
proposed project upon the use of recreational facilities are expected to be less than significant.
b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.The use and development ofthe City's recreational facilities are regulated under the provisions of the
Open Space Recreation (OR)zoning regulations,not the single-family residential zoning regulations.Therefore,the
proposed project would have no impacts related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.
a)Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit
and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
inclUding but not limited to intersections,
streets,highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass
transit?
b)Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program,including,but
not limited to level of service standards
and travel demand measures,or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
X
X
X
Page 20
12-46
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g.sharp curves or
dangerous intersections)or incom-
patible uses (e.g.farm equipment)?
e)Result in inadequate emergency ac-
cess?
f)Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
x
x
x
Comments:
a-b)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Based upon the most-current ITE Trip Generation Manual (Land Use 210,Single-Family Detached
Housing),the development of any new residences in existing single-family residential neighborhoods would only be
expected to generate ten (10)daily trips and one (1)peak-hour trip per residence,while the redevelopment of existing
residences would generate no additional trips.Any additional trips resulting from "in-fill"development in existing single-
family residential neighborhoods will be negligible.Therefore,the transportation/traffic impacts ofthe proposed project
are expected to be less than significant.
c)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential
neighborhoods will have no impact upon air traffic patterns.
d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.These development standards do not address the design or configuration of roadways in the City.
Therefore,the proposed project would have no impacts related to the creation of traffic hazards.
e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.In 2004,the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates adopted a Joint Natural Hazards
Mitigation Plan (JNHMP).The purpose ofthe JNHMP is "to promote sound public policy designed to protect citizens,
critical facilities,infrastructure,private property,and the environment from natural hazards."The approval of the
proposed project is not incompatible with the purpose of the JNHMP,nor would it have any impact upon emergency
access.
f)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.These development standards do not address the design or configuration of pUblic transit,bicycle,or
pedestrian facilities.Therefore,the proposed project would have no impacts related to conflicts policies,plans or
programs for alternative modes of transport.
a)Exceed wastewater treatment require-
ments of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
x
Page 21
12-47
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
b)Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction ofwhich could
cause significant environmental effects?
c)Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d)Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources,or are new
or expanded entitlements needed?
e)Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in additioh
to the prOVider's existing commitments?
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g)Comply with federal,state,and local
statures and regulations related to solid
waste?
x
x
x
x
x
x
Comments:
a-c,e)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Most of the City's single-family residential neighborhoods are served by sanitary sewers,although
some utilize septic tanks.These neighborhoods are similarly served by both public and private storm drain systems.
The development or redevelopment of residences within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is not
expected to place substantial additional burdens upon these systems.Therefore,the utilities/service systems impacts
of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant.
d)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.California Water Service Company provides the City's water service.Given that the City is largely built
out,the number of new residences to be constructed within the City's single-family residential neighborhoods is
expected to be relatively small.In cases where new construction is proposed on vacant lots,individual property owners
would be responsible for connecting to existing water-distribution facilities in the area,including the costs of making
such connections.As such,the water supply impacts of the proposed project are expected to be to less than significant.
fog)The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that
would serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential
neighborhoods.Given that the City is largely built out,the number of new residences to be constructed within the City's
single-family residential neighborhoods is expected to be relatively small.The City's single-family residential
neighborhoods already have access to solid waste disposal services through existing City contracts with residential
waste haulers.Therefore,the solid waste disposal impacts are expected to be less-than-significant.
Page 22
12-48
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007M00377
March 29,2010
a)Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species,cause a fish or
wildlife popUlation to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community,reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples ofthe major periods
of California history or prehistory?
x
Comments:
The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would
serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.
These revisions will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment;substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species;cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community;or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.The proposed
project will not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history.Therefore,the
effects of the proposed project upon the natural environment and cultural resources will be less than significant.
b)Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited,but cumulatively
considerable?4
x
Comments:
The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would
serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.
The approval of the proposed project will not directly grant any entitlement to develop or redevelop these lots.On an
individual basis,the development or redevelopment of single-family residences on existing lots would not be expected to
have any adverse impact upon the environment.Since the homes in the City's single-family residential neighborhoods
are owned by numerous individual owners,they are very unlikely to be developed or redeveloped concurrently,but
rather on a piecemeal basis over a period of many years.Therefore,the cumulative effects ofthe proposed project area
expected to be less than significant.
c)Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,either
directly or indirectly?
x
Comments:
The proposed project would enact revisions to the City's single-family residential development standards that would
serve to enhance the character and protect the integrity of the City's existing single-family residential neighborhoods.
As discussed above,all of the potentially environmental effects of the proposed project are expected to be less than
significant levels.Therefore,the proposed project will have no substantial adverse effects on human beings,either
directly or indirectly.
4 "Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of the past projects.the effects of other current projects.and the effects of probable future projects.
Page 23
12-49
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007 -00377
March 29,2010
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration.Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).In this case a
discussion should identify the following items:
a)Earlier analysis used.Identify and state where they are available for review.
Comments:Not applicable.
b)Impacts adequately addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Comments:Not applicable.
c)Mitigation measures.For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
address site-specific conditions of the project.
Comments:Not applicable.
Authority:Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference:Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c),21080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,321094,
21151;Sundstrom v.County of Mendocino,202 Cal.App.3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v.Monterey Board of SupeNisors,
222 Cal.App.3d 1337 (1990).
2 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Zoning Map
3 South Coast Air Quality Management District.CEQA AIR Quality Handbook.Diamond Bar,Califomia:
November 1993 (as amended).
4 Official Maps of Seismic Hazard Zones provided by the Department of Conservation of the State of
California,Division of Mines and Geolo
5 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Archeology Map.
6 City of Rancho Palos Verdes,Natural Communities Conservation Plan.Rancho Palos Verdes,
California as adopted August 2004
7 Institute of Traffic Engineers,ITE Trip Generation.7 Edition.
8 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Geographic Information System (GIS)database and maps
9 State of California,Department of Forestry and Fire Protection,Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
Maps.Sacramento,California,accessed via website,March 2008
10 Official Maps of Tsunami Inundation Areas provided by the Department of Emergency Management of
the State of California and the California Geological Survey
11 City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code
12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Le.,·Cortese List")
13 Cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills Estates Joint Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
14 City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Housing Element
Page 24
12-50
Environmental Checklist
Case No.ZON2007-00377
March 29,2010
ATTACHMENTS:
P.C.Resolution No.2009-5i
M:\Projecls\ZON2007-00377 (Citywide,Residential Development Standards)\lnltial Study.doc
Page 25
12-51
....
P.C.RESOLUTION NO.2009-52
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MISCELLANEOUS
PROVISIONS OF TITLE 17 (ZONING)OF THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL
CODE AND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO ENACT THE RECOMMEN-
DATIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STEERING COMMITTEE (PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2007-00377)
WHEREAS,in 2003 the City Council formed the Residential Development
Standards Steering Committee (RDSSC}--composed of City residents,Planning
Commissioners and City Councilmembers-and charged the RDSSC with the task of
reviewing 'the City's residential development standards in relation to current housing
construction trends.The RDSSC met for nearly two (2)years and eventually presented
a summary of its recommended amendments to the City Council for its consideration;
and,
WHEREAS,on August 1,2006,the City Council authorized the initiation of a
Code Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377)to imple-
ment the RDSSC recommendations;and,
WHEREAS,on October 24,2007,and August 17,2009,notices for the Planning
Commission's consideration of the RDSSC Code Amendment and Zone Change were
published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News;and,
WHEREAS,after notices issued pursuant to the provisions of the Rancho Palos
Verdes Municipal Code,the Planning Commission conducted public hearings on
November 13, 2007,February 12,2008,March 11,2008,April 8,2008,May 13,2008,
June 10,2008,July 8,2008,JUly 22,2008,September 8,2009,October 13,2009,
November 10,2009 and December 8,2009,at which times all interested parties were
given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendments to
Title 17 as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff reports of those dates.
NOW,THEREFORE,THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND,DETERMINE,AND RESOLVE AS
.FOLLOWS:
Section 1:The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the
amendments to Title 17 of the Municipal Code.
Section 2:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17 of
the Municipal Code are consistent with California Government Code Section 65853,
zoning amendment procedures.
12-52
Section 3:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17
are consistent with the Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan and Coastal Specific Plan in
that they preserve and enhance the community's quality living environment,and
enhance the visual character and physical quality of existing neighborhoods.
Section 4:The Planning Commission finds that the amendments to Title 17
are necessary to preserve the public health,safety,and general welfare in the area,
while balancing property rights.
Section.5:The City's Zoning Map,as codified in Section 17.88.020 of Title 17
and incorporated therein by reference,shall be amended such that the areas of the
"Eastview"portion of the City that are currently zoned "RS-4"shall be re-zoned "RS-5,"
as depicted in the areas outlined in red on the attached Exhibit 'A.'
Section 6:The City's Zoning Map,as codified in Section 17.88.020 of Title 17
and incorporated therein by reference,shall be amended such that the "Mira Vista
Overlay Control District (OC-5)"shall be established in the "Eastview"portion of the
City,specifically affecting .lots located within Tract No.16010,as recorded on
September 8,1949 in Book 353,Pages 23 through 29 (inclusive),of maps of the
County of Los Angeles,including therein any lots created through the subsequent
subdivision of the two hundred fifteen (215)original .I01s in the.tract,but excluding
therefrom that portion of Lot 215 of Tract No.16010 that was subdivided as a portion of
Tract No.21184,as recorded on September 28,1955 in Book 578,Pages 7 through 8
(inclusive),of maps ofthe County of Los Angeles;as depicted in the area outlined in
blue on the attached Exhibit'S.'
Section 7:Section 17.40.080 of Title 17 is hereby established to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
17.40.080 Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5)and re.gulations
A.Purpose.The pumose of the Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5)is
established to:
1.Acknowledge the unique qualities of the overlay area,which is generally
characterized by very small homes on small lots. with substandard or no
off-stre.et parking facilities:and.
2.Allow for the modernization and enlargement of the homes in the overlay
area.in a manner compatible with the unique character of the
neighborhood,and with the needs and desires of current property owners.
B.Application.The Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5)shall be applicable to
lots located within Tract No.16010.as recorded on September 8.1949 in Book
353,Pages 23 through 29 (inclusive).of maps of the County of Los Angeles.
including therein any lots created through the SUbsequent subdivision of the two
hundred fifteen (215)original lots in the tract.but excluding therefrom that portion
of Lot 215 of Tract No.16010 that was subdivided as a portion of Tract
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 2 of 13
12-53
(...........~,,
No.21184,as recorded on September 28,1955 in Book 578,Pages 7 through 8
ljnclusive),of maps of the County of Los Angeles.
C.Development Standards.The following development standards shall apply to
lots subject to the Mira Vista overlay control district (OC-5).If not specified
below,the RS-5 zoning district and other general development standards shall
apply.
1.Minimum Setbacks.The following minimum building setbacks shall be
maintained:
Front
20'
Interior Side
5'
Street Side
10'
Rear
15'
2.Front Entry Porch.A front entry porch shall be permitted to encroach into
the required front-yard setback.provided that the following criteria are
met:'
a.The footprint of the porch does not exceed 50 square feet in area;
b.The footprint of the porch does not encroach more than 5 feet into
the reqUired front yard;and,
c.The height of the porch does not exceed 16 feet in height or the
highest roof ridgeline,whichever is lower.
3.Front-Yard Landscaped Area.If a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is
required for a project,where applicable a landscaped parkway shall be
provided by the property owner.Approvals for parkway landscaping shall
be obtained from the Director of Public Works prior to issuance of building
or grading permits.In addition,at least 50%of the front yard area shall be
maintained as landscape area.in accordance with as defined in Section
17.48.030(0).
4.Driveways.In cases where a Neighborhood Compatibility finding is
required for a project.if a garage is located in the rear of a property.a
minimum 9-foot-wide driveway shall be prOVided that utilizes grass strips
or "grasscrete."If a garage is located at the front of a property.a
minimum 18-inch-wide landscaped area shall be provided between the
side property line and the nearest edge of the drivewav.
5.Garages.As alternatives to the minimum off-street parking requirements
specified in Section 17.02.030(E),enclosed garage spaces may be
provided as follows:
a.Tandem parking spaces in an attached garage,provided that each
garage space meets the minimum dimensions specified in Section
17.02.030(E);or,
b.Detached garage encroaching to within five feet of the rear property
line provided that:
i.The each garage space meets the minimum dimensions
specified in Section 17.02.030(E);
ii.The maximum height of the garage does not exceed twelve
feet;and,
p.e.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 3 of 13
12-54
iii.The Director determines that the detached garage will not
result in significant view impacts from the viewing area of
any nearby properties....
iv.All other development standards are met.including but not
limited to lot coverage.side setbacks and construction on
extreme slopes.
6.Lot Coverage.Notwithstanding the underlving zoning within the overlav
control district area,the maximum permitted lot coverage shall be 52%.as
defined in Section 17.02-040(A)(5).
Section 8:Table 02-A "Single-Family Residential Development Standards"of
Section 17.02.030(A)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as depicted in the attached
Exhibit 'C '(the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language).
Section 9:Section 17.02.040(A)(5)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language.):
5."Lot coverage"means that portion of a lot or building site which is occupied by
any building or structure,including sourtyaFds whish are fully onGlosod or whish
have a maximum of one eKte."'ior entranse;trellises;decks over thirty inches in
height (as measured from existing adjacent grade);parking areas;driveways;or
impervious surfaces (impervious surfaces less than five feet in width and/or one
patio area less than five hundred square feet in area shall be excluded from the
lot coverage calculation).(The lot oO'lo."'age of a oourtyatd which is not fully
enolosed shal.'be oakJt:JIated by the direotor as ,if it W6Fe fully enGlosed by dra'lling
an imaginal}'line between the walls on elther side of the entFanGe to the
oourtyatd.When the walls on either 8fde of the entranoe are of r:meven longth,
the imaginal}'line shaH be an ex/enslon of the end of the wall on the shortest
side of the courtyard,see diagFam beloW.)
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 4 of 13
12-55
Section 10:Section 17.48.040 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as follows
(the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text represents
deleted language):
An open space area shall be provided on each lot with a residential structure.Open
space area shall not include any portion of a lot or building site which is within the
definition of lot coverage,as defined in Section 17.02.040(A).Lot coverage shall not
exceed the maximum area requirements established in the district development
standards (see Table 02-A in Chapter 17.02).For purposes of calculating lot coverage.
a private street easement area shall not be considered a part of the lot area.For flag
lots,the "pole"portion of any flag lot that is encumbered by an access easement
benefiting another property shall not be considered a part of the lot area.In no case
shall any hardscape or other improvements within a private street easement or a flag-lot
"pole"that is encumbered by an access easement be counted as lot coverage.In
multiple-family residential units,private outdoor decks and balconies with one minimum
horizontal dimension of seven feet which are designated for the exclusive use of the
occupants of an individual unit may comprise up to thirty percent of required open
space.
Section 11:Section 17.96.2020 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
"Private street"means any lot not dedicated as a public street over which a private
easement for road purposes has been recorded and used or intended to be used for
ingress to or egress from a lot or lots which mayor may not have frontage on a public
street.For purposes of measuring setbacks and calculating lot coverage,a private
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 5 of 13
12-56
street easement shall not be considered a part of a lot.A private street does not mean
a "driveway.J1
Section 12:Section 17.02.030(E)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
E.Parking/Driveway Standards.
1.A minimum of two enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in
a garage,and a minimum of two unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided
and maintained as a driveway,on the property of each single-family dwelling unit
containing less than five thousand square feet of habitable space,as determined
by the director.
2.A minimum of three enclosed parking spaces shall be provided and maintained in
a garage,and a minimum of three unenclosed parking spaces shall be provided
and maintained as a driveway.on the property of each single-family dwelling unit
containing five thousf!jnd square feet or more of habitable space,as determined
by the director.
3.A garage with a direct access driveway from the street of access shall not be
located less than twenty feet from the front or street-side property line,whichever
is the street of access.
4.In addition to the parking requirements for the primary single-family residence on
a property,parking for city-approved second units shall be provided in
accordance with Chapter 17.10 (Second Unit Development Standards).
5.An enclosed parking space shall have an unobstructed ground space of no less
than nine feet in width by twenty feet in depth,with a minimum of seven feet of
vertical clearance over the space.An unenclosed parking space shall have an
unobstructed ground space of no less than nine feet in width by twenty feet in
depth.
6.The following minimum driveway widths and turning radii shall be provided for all
driveways leading from the street of access to a garage or other parking area on
a residential parcel:
a.A driveway shall be a minimum width often feet;and
b.A paved twenty-five-foot turning radius shall be provided between the
garage or other parking area and the street of access for driveways which
have an average slope of ten percent or more,and which are fifty feet or
more in length.
7.Driveways shall take into account the driveway standards required by the
department of public works for driveway entrances located in the public right-of-
way.
8.A driveway that is located adjacent to a side property line shall provide a
minimum 18-inch-wide landscape area between the side property line and the
adjacent driveway.unless such buffer would reduce the minimum width of the
driveway·to less than ten feet.in which case the width of the landscape buffer
may be narrowed or eliminated at the discretion of the Director.
p.e.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 6 of 13
12-57
fiS.All driveways shall be built and maintained in accordance with the specifications
of the Los Angeles County fire department.If there is any inconsistency between
the standards imposed by this chapter and the standards imposed by the Los
Angeles County fire department,the stricter shall apply.
10.Enclosed tandem parking spaces may only be used for parking spaces in excess
of the minimum requirements of subsections (1)and (2)of this section,provided
that each space meets the minimum dimensions specified in subsection (5)of
this section.
Section 13:Section 17.76.030(C)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
C.Fences,Walls and Hedges Allowed Without a Permit.Unless restricted by
conditions imposed through a fence,wall and hedge permit pursuant to
subsection B of this section,fences,walls and hedges which meet the following
requirements shall be allowed without a permit:
1.Residential Zoning Districts.
a.Fences,walls and hedges located between the front property Une
and the exterior faoade of the existing single family residenoe
oIosest to the front property line within the front-yard setback area
or between the street side property line and the existing slngle
family res,idenoe oIosest to.the ..street side property fine shall meet
the following standards:
i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted,except as
restricted by the intersection Visibility requirements of
Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Areas and
Building Height)of this title;
ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may
not exceed forty-two inches,except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Areas and Building Height)of
this title;and
iii.When located within the front yard of a flag lot and the front
property .fine of the flag lot abuts the rear or interior side
property line of an adjacent lot,up to six feet in height shall
be permitted.
b.Fences,walls and hedges not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a)of this
section shall meet the following standards:
i.Fences and walls up to six feet in height shall be permitted
on any part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1)(a),
except as restricted by Section 17.48.070 (Intersection
visibility)of this title;
ii.Hedges up to sixteen feet in height shall be permitted on any
part of a lot not subject to subsection (C)(1 )(a),except as
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 7 of 13
12-58
restricted by the view preservation and restoration provisions
which apply to foliage,as described in Chapter 17.02
(Single-family Residential Districts);
iii.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall or retaining
wall,the total height may not exceed eight feet,as measured
from grade on the lower side,and may not exceed six feet,
as measured from grade on the higher side;
iv.When combined with a fence,freestanding wall,retaining
wall or hedge,the total height may not exceed sixteen feet,
as measured from grade on the higher side and may not
exceed eighteen feet,as measured from grade on the lower
side;provided,the height of each individual fence,
freestanding wall and/or retaining wall does not exceed the
height limitations prescribed by this title.
c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or
street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction
fencing.provisions of Section 17.56.020(C)(Environmental
Protection)of this title.
2.Nonresidential Zoning Districts.
a.Fences,walls and hedges located betvleen the front property Nne
and the exterior 'aaade of the existing single within front and street
side setbaaKs within the front-yard and street-side setback areas
shall meet the following standards:
i.Up to forty-two inches in height shall be permitted within the
front or street-side setback areas,except as restricted by the
intersection visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070
(Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and Building Height)of
this title.
ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may
not exceed forty-two inches in the front or street-side
setback areas,except as restricted by the intersection
visibility requirements of Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,
Open Space Area and Building Height)of this title.
b.Fences,walls and hedges located behind front and street-side
setbacks shall meet the following standards:
i.Up to six feet in height shall be permitted on any part of a lot
behind the front or street-side setback areas,except as
restricted by the intersection visibility requirements of
Section 17.48.070 (Lots,Setbacks,Open Space Area and
Building Height)of this title.
ii.When combined with a retaining wall,the total height may
not exceed eight feet as measured from grade on the lower
side and may not exceed six feet as measured from grade
on the higher side.
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 8 of 13
12-59
c.Temporary construction fences,as defined in Chapter 17.96
(Definitions),up to six feet in height may be located within front or
street side setback areas,pursuant to the temporary construction
fencing provisions of Section 17.56.020 (Environmental Protection)
of this title.
Section 14:Section 17.76.030(E)(5)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
5.Chain link,chicken wire and fiberglass fences are prohibited in front yards
between the front property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-
family residence closest to the front property line;in side yards between the
street side property line and the exterior facade of the existing single-family
residence closest to the street side property line;and within a rear yard setback
which abuts the following arterial streets identified in the city's general plan:
a.Crenshaw Boulevard;
b.Crest Road;.
c.Hawthorne Boulevard;
d.Highridge Road;
e.Miraleste Drive;
f.Palos Verdes Drive East;
g.Palos Verdes Drive North;
h.Palos Verdes Drive South;aRfI
i.Palos Verdes Drive West;and.
i i.Silver Spur Road.
Section 15:Section 17.48.030(E)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
E.Exceptions.
1.Architectural Features.Cornices,belt courses and other similar
architectural features may project into the required setback area not more
than four inches for each foot of the required setback;provided,that no
portion of such an architectural feature is located or projects below eight
feet above grade;and provided,that there are no vertical supports or
members within the required setback area.Garden windows may projeot
into the required setback aFea not mOFe than four inches for each foot of
the required setback;pFOvided,that there are no 'lertical supports vlithin
the requlred setback aFea.Ea\,lBs may project into the Feql:Jired setbaok
not more than six inches for each foot of the reqE:Jired setback.
2.Garden Windows and Window Coverings.Garden windows and window
coverings.including retractable awnings.may project into the required
interior side and rear year setback areas not more than four inches for
p.e.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 9 of 13
12-60
each foot of the required setback;provided that there are no vertical
supports within the required setback area.
3.Roof Eaves.Roof eaves may project into the required setback not more
than six inches for each foot of the required setback;provided that there
are no vertical supports within the required setback areas.Roof eaves
shall not be calculated towards lot coverage as defined in Section
17.02.040(A)(5).
1:;2.Fireplace Chimneys.Chimneys may project two feet into any required
setback.
§d.Minor Structures and Mechanical Equipment.Trash enclosures,storage
sheds or playhouses less than one hundred twenty square feet,
doghouses,play/sports equipment,fountains,light fixtures on a standard
or a pole.flag poles.enclosed water heaters,barbecues,outdoor
kitchens.garden walls,air conditioners,pool filters,vents and other minor
structures or mechanical equipment shall not be located in any setback
area in residential districts except as specified below:
a.Minor structures and equipment less than six inches in height,as
measur~d from adjacent finished grade,may be located in any
required front,side or rear setback;
b.Minor structures and mechanical equipment which exceed six
inches in height,as measured from adjacent finished grade,may
be permitted within an interior side or rear setback area by the
director,through a site plan review application unless the minor
structure is a playhouse less than 120 square feet.a dog house.or
plaY/sports equipment.then a site plan review application shall not
be required;provided that no significant adverse impacts will result
and provided that:
i.·Noise levels from mechanical equipment do not exceed
sixty-five dBA as measured from the closest property line,
ii.No part of any minor structure or mechanical equipment,
exceeds six feet in height (as measured from adjacent
finished grade),
iii.If located within a rear setback area which abuts a public or
private street,the minor structure or mechanical equipment
is not visible from the public or private street,
iv.No part of any mechanical equipment,including but not
limited to pool/spa equipment and air conditioning/heating
equipment,extends within three feet of the property line,and
v.No part of any minor structure extends within three feet of
the property line.However,minor structures (not
mechanical equipment)may be allowed to abut the side or
rear property line;provided,that the minor structure:
(AJ Is placed adjacent to an existing solid wall;
(B)Does not exceed the maximum height of the adjacent
solid wall,up to a maximum of six feet;
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 10 of 13
12-61
(
(C)Is less than one hundred twenty square feet in size;
and
(D)Is located a minimum of three feet from an adjacent
structure,unless the structures are parallel and
abutting each other,as determined by the director.
c.The following minor structures shall be permitted within a front yard
setback area provided that the minor structure does not exceed 42-
inches in height,as measured from adjacent pre-construction
grade:
i.Balustrades and columns;
ii.Light fixtures,including light fixtures attached to a standard,
a pole or a column;
iii.Fountains,provided that the fountain is within the maximum
front yard landscape requirement and is not operated
between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m.;and;
iv.Ornamental ponds less than 18 inches deep.
v.Decorative landscape elements,including but not-limited to:
rocks,boulders,raised planter beds,pilasters and statuary.
§!t.Decks,Walkways and Paving.Decks,asphalt paving,concrete walkways
or similar ground surfacing less than six inches in height (as measured
from adjacent finished grade),shall not be subject to setback
requirements.Decks (including any railing),six inches to thirty inches in
height (as measured from adjacent finished grade),may be permitted in
any setback area upon determination by the director,through a site plan
review application,that no significant adverse impacts will result.
Za.Swimming or Ornamental Pools.Swimming pools,spas,ornamental
pools and any other body of water measuring more than eighteen n¥enty
.feI:JF inches or more deep,may be located within an interior or rear yard
setback;provided,that no portion of said pool is located closer than three
feet from the property line.Ornamental ponds less than eighteen twenty
.feI:JF inches deep may be -located within any required setback and may
abut any property line.
[16.Foundations and Footings.Below grade foundations and/or footings for
above ground main buildings may be located in any setback;provided,
that no portion of the foundation or footing is located closer than three feet
from the property line.
~.Subterranean Structures.Subterran/3an structures,including holding
tanks,which are located entirely below grade shall not be extended any
closer than half of the required setback to any property line or three feet
from the property line,whichever is greater.
100.Fences,Walls and Hedges.Fences,walls and hedges may be permitted
within any front,interior side,street side or rear yard setback pursuant to
Section 17.76.030 (Fences,walls and hedges).
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 11 of 13
12-62
('
Section 16:Section 17.76.030(E)(3)of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
3.Fences or Walls -Required.All pools,spas and standing bodies of water
eighteen tVilenty four inches or more in depth shall be enclosed by a structure
and/or a fence or wall not less than five feet in height measured from the outside
ground level at a point twelve inches hori'zont211 from the base of the fence or
wall.Any gate or door to the outside shall be equipped with a self-closing device
and a self4atching device located not less than four feet above the ground.Such
fences,walls andg21tes shall meet City specifications and shall be constructed to
the satisfaction of the City's Building Official.
Section 17:Section 17.96.1460 of Title 17 is hereby amended to read as
follows (the underlined text represents new language and the strikethrough text
represents deleted language):
"Swimming or ornamer-Jtal,pool"means any body of water measuring moFS than
eighteen t~"l(i~nty few inchesormoredeepatits deepest point,whether above or below
the surface of the ground."OmamentatpooJ"means any body of water measuring less
than eighteen inches in degth at its deepest point,whether above or below the surface
of the ground.
.Section 18:The dghtsgiven 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
ot Title 17 as they existed prior to the effective dateot said ordinance.
Section 19:The amendments to Title 17 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal
Code as identified herein shall apply to all development applications submitted after the
effective date of the adoption of said ordinance and to aU development app.lications that
have not been decided upon prior to the effective date of the adoption of said ordinance.
Section 20:.For the foregoing reasons,and based on the information and
·findings included in the Staff Report,Minutes, and other records of proceedings,the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes hereby recommends that the
City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend miscellaneous provisions of Title 17 (Zoning)
of the City's Municipal Code and the City's Zoning Map to enact the recommendations
of the Residential Development Standards Steering Committee (Planning Case
No.ZON2007-00377).
P.C.Resolution No.2009-52
Page 12 of 13
12-63
/"(
~
",
PASSED,APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this ~th day of December 2009,by the
following vote:
AYES:Commissioners Knight,Perestam~Ruttenberg,Tetreault and Tomblin.
Vice Chairman Gerstner
NOES:none
ABSTENTION:nom
ABSENT:Chairman Lewis
RECUSALS:none
~effJey Lewis~l'-''''G."",rt-STl-UtC.
y\~Chairman
M:\Projecls\zON2007-00377 (Citywide,Residential Development Standards)\2009120B_Reso_PC.doc
P.C.Resolution No.2009~
Page 13 of 13
12-64
Areas outlined
in RED to be
re-zoned from
RS-4 to RS-5
EXHIBIT 'A'
Proposed Eastview Re-Zoning RS-4 to RS-5
12-65
Area outlined in
BLUE to be
designated
Mira Vista
Overlay Control
District (OC-5)
EXHIBIT 'B'
Proposed Mira Vista Overlay Control District (OC-5)
12-66
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.
IDISTRICT I LOT DIMENSIONS''I MINIMUM SETBACKS'"i MINIMUM SETBACKS2
"..l MAXIMUM !l'MAXIMUM PARKING I'I I FOR CITY CREATED LOTS I FOR LOTS CREATED PRIOR TO LOT HEIGHr'REQUIREMENTsIiIINCORPORATION/ANNEXATION COVERAGE§4.7
,iAREA IWiDTH 'DEPTH IFRONTI INTERIOR i!STREET IREAR !FRONT "INTERIOR IISTREET iREAR ncless than 5,000 I: i .1 SIDE iL SIDE I SIDE:I SIDE I sJ.of habitable
l-r--r---r---~IONE Unr---'~IONE DI-space =2 I
I,BOTH SIDE I I BOTH ISIDE I enclosed garage
SIDES i ISIDES --:spaces
r-!R-S--A---5-''-I~-c-re-s-1 ,200 ,.'300".'..20"J"30.1
10
.il 2°..12°.1.2°.i1
15
i 1.5..11.1°1115 ......•,60/0 ·1 16 ...•~~~~~i~~~itablel
!RS-1 --'r1-a~re-r10o-[-156-·-[--20·-·_·[-25 J[10.[---20-----][20 .[J'20J[15 .·-[s·-'[]J10-1[1S--J[]J25070·J--]fJ---16--·-space =31
rRs=2·-··--1[~fOOor---90···]'-·1-20--r20-lr20-r10-r-20.f20-lr 20---1'"15 11--s'-'ilw-r 15 ~-f-40%-'1'--16----':~~~::d garage I
[~~~-_~]~I~~~[~=:'[11.0=][~.~_.iLo.~o.=J I_.~~_I[.._.._~.~il 1~][_~~~J 11~..J[.~jl ~~I]I oo.1~......•,_4~~JJJ[~-1~J--I
IRS4-1~:foooi C75-l [-10~][20 0 ••••[2~11.10.1,....~~_I [__1_~...1[20::]t ..1~i L~..['1~-][.1 ~.....i[~oo~_'m_,[...16'--I
IRs:s-·::-::]~f~I_es][~~rO-J[~][1~~~=·[~~J[~-]~[5-1[:·1-O']~][=:52~]J'[:~~]-'l-.1
1.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 feet in height extends closer than twenty-five feet from the front or street-side property line.
B.The area of the structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (second story footprint)exceeds seventy-five percent of the existing first story
footprint area (residence and garage);
C.Sixty percent or more of an existing garage footprint is covered by a structure which exceeds sixteen feet in height (a second story).
D.The portion of a structure that exceeds sixteen feet in height is being 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 feet in height may
significantly impair a view as defined in this chapter.
5.For parking development standards,see Section 17.02.030(B)ofthis 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,whichever 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.
8.For purposes of calculating lot coverage.a I?rivate street easement shall not be considered a part of the lot area and the improved area of a private street
easement shall not be counted as lot coverage.
EXHIBIT 'e'
Proposed Table 02-A
12-67
Bizhan Khaleeli,Architect
27823 South Montereina Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
ViaE-Mail
April 19,2010
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Re:No Increase in Side-yard Setbacks Requirements
for Pre-Incorporation Lots
Dear City Council:
The purpose of this letter is to address my concerns with the Planning Case No.
ZON2007-0037.
As an Architect practicing in the Palos Verdes Peninsula,I have completed numerous
residential addition and remodel projects.Every day,I face the challenge of
accommodating new needs within existing structures and conditions in the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes. Therefore,I understand first-hand the importance of improving
zoning codes to better serve our community.I do support the majority of the zone
change and code amendments.However,I do not support the increase in the
requirements concerning the Side-Yard Setbacks.
Currently for lots with interior side yards,the requirements are 5 feet on each side,
totaling a minimum of 10 feet per lot.The proposed requirement would maintain the 5
feet minimum on each side but increase the total lot requirement to 15 feet.This would
place an undue burden for homeowners.
1.Creation of Nonconforming Conditions
Although the rezoning ofthe Eastview area seeks to reduce the number non-conforming
lots,the revision to the Side-Yard setback requirements will increase the current number
of existing nonconforming homes due to their built conditions.
Negative consequences abound including the complication of future improvements for
these homeowners as well as negative effects upon property values due to nonconforming
conditions.
I
12-68
2.Vertical Consequences-More Second StOry Proposals
As opportunities for expansion are reduced on the ground floor,homeowners will seek to
resolve their space needs vertically rather than horizontally.This will include more
second story proposals in order to satisfy the new requirements.The influx of second
story proposals and hence approvals will therefore drastically impact the character of
existing single story neighborhoods.This will considerably alter the current privacy,
light and views of the homeowners in the area.
3.More Complicated Application Process
The application process for new construction will be unnecessarily complicated as well.
Increases in various planning applications such as height variances,neighborhood
compatibility and minor deviations,will result.This will undoubtedly burden
homeowners,create less incentive for home improvements,and discourage renovations
and improvements to properties.
4.Economic Change
As the economy has slowed,the number of smaller projects has increased.Homeowners
have become more modest in their renovations and improvements to their homes,and are
more respectful oftheir neighborhood character.Thus increasing the Side Yard setback
requirements is unnecessary to restrict overbuilding.
Yours truly,
Bizhan Khaleeli,Architect
2
12-69
Kit Fox
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com]
Monday,May 03,20109:13 AM
'Kit Fox';'Joel Rojas'
FW:Do not revise Side-yard Setbacks for Pre-Incorporation Lots
-----Original Message-----
From:Marcus [mailto:marcus_ob@yahoo.com]
Sent:Monday,May 03,2010 8:55 AM
To:CC@rpv.com
Subject:Do not revise Side-yard Setbacks for Pre-Incorporation Lots
Dear City Council:
This letter concerns Planning Case No.ZON2007-0037,specifically the proposed rev~s~ons
to the requirements concerning the Side-Yard Setbacks for Pre-Incorporation Lots in the
city of Rancho Palos Verdes.
As a homeowner on the verge of completing our own addition/remodel project,we are
intimately aware of the City'S zoning requirements.Fortunately,our goals were modest
and the City's requirements were flexible enough to make our dream home possible.
An increase in the Side-Yard Setback requirements such as that proposed in Case No.
ZON2007-0037,would have severely restricted our options and may have forced us to add a
second story to our home.In turn,this would have greatly complicated our project
necessitating a Height Variation Application and a Neighborhood Compatibility Review.
We are concerned that with the new requirements,when our neighbors decide to remodel or
build new homes,they will opt to add more second story additions.It is clear that these
new setbacks will negatively impact the future development within the City.With more
second story additions in our neighborhood,it will impede our privacy,light and views.
We respectfully request that the City not revise the Side-Yard Setbacks for Pre-
Incorporation Lots.
Warmest Regards,
Marcus &Marie O'Brien
28040 Ella Road
RPV,CA 90275
1
12-70
Page 1 of1
Kit Fox
From:Erica Buck [ericarunrn@yahoo.com]
Sent:Monday,May 03,2010 3:20 PM
To:kitf@rpv.com
Subject:Side yard set back issue
May 3,2010
Emad and Erica Khaleeli
6121 Monero Drive
Ramcho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Dear Rancho Palos Verdes City Council,
We request that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes not revise the Side Yard Setback
requirements for interior lots as proposed by Planning Case No.ZON2007-0037.
An increase in the Side-Yard Setback requirements such as proposed in Case No.ZON2007-
0037,would unreasonably restrict the use of residents property.We feel that the existing Side
Yard Setbacks are 'sufficient and will maintain our beautiful neighborhoods.
Side-Yard Setbacks are especially critical in single story neighborhoods where flexibility is
essential to resolve space needs on the existing level.When our neighbors decide to remodel
or build new homes,they will opt to add more second story additions reducing privacy,
impacting scenic views and destroying the continuity of single story neighborhoods.It is clear
that these new setbacks will negatively impact the future development within the City.
We respectfully request that the City not revise the Side-Yard Setbacks for Pre-Incorporation
Lots.
Thank you for you time.
Sincerely,
Emad and Erica Khaleeli
5/1112010
12-71
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ofPLANNING AND REsEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT
ARNOLD SCHWARZENBGGER.
GOVERNOR
May 4,2010
Kit Fox
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
Subject:Residential Development Standards Code Amendment &Zone Change (Planning Case No.
ZON2007 -003 77)
SCH#:20Hi041001
Dear Kit Fox:
CYNTHIA.BRY.A:NT
DmECTOR
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for
review.The review period closed on April 30,2010,and no state agencies submitted C0nll11ents by that
date.This letter ac1Q:towledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review req~lirements
for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
P.lease call the State Clearinghouse at (916)445-0613 ifyou have any questions regarding the
environmental review process.Ifyou have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
~o=-~
cting Director,State Clearinghouse
1400 10th Street P.O.Box 3044 Sacramento,California 95812·3044
(916)445·0613 PAX (916)323-3018.www.opr.ca.gov
12-72
Document ~etails Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
2010041001
Residential Development Standards Code Amendment &Zone Change (Planning Case No.
ZON2007-00377)
Rancho Palos Verdes,City of
Type·
Description
Neg Negative Declaration
The.proposed "Residential Development Standards Code Amendment and Zone Change"would enact
miscellaneous revisions to provisions of the City's Developmet Code that regulate the development of
single family residential neighborhoods.These includes,but are not limited to:Side-Yard Setbacks for
Pre-Incorporation Lots;Eastview Rezoning from R5-4 to RS-S;Mira Vista Overlay Control District
(OC-S);Courtyard Area Lot Coverage;Private Street Easement Lot Coverage;Flag-Lot Lot Coverage;
Minimum Driveway Areas;Driveway Landscape Buffers;Tandem Parking;Front and Street-Side Wall
and Fence Height;Chain Link Fencing along Palos Verdes Drive West;Clarification of Permitted
Enchroachements into Setbacks;Resolution of Inconsistencies Regarding the Depth of Ornamental
Pools;and Development Standards for Minor Structures in Setback Areas.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Kit Fox
Agency City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Phone 310-544-5228
email
Address 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
City Rancho Palos Verdes
Fax
State CA Zip 90275
Range
33°45'00"N /118°22'30"W
citywide
miscellaneous
Project Location
County Los Angeles
City Rancho Palos Verdes
Region
Lat/Long
Cross Streets
Parcel No.
Township Section Base
Pacific Ocean
PVPUSD,LAUSD
Residential,<=1 DU/ac (RS-1),Residential 1-2 DU/ac (RS-2),Residential 2-4 DUlac (RS-3 &RS-4),
Residential 4-6 DUlac (RS-5)
Proximity to:
Highways 1,107,213
Airports Torrance (TOA)
Railways
Waterways
Schools
Land Use
Project Issues AestheticlVisual;Agricultural Land;Air Quality;Archaeologic-Historic;Biological Resources;
Cumulative Effects;Drainage/Absorption;Flopd Plain/Flooding;Forest Land/Fire Hazard;
Geologic/Seismic;Growth Inducing;Landuse;Minerals;Noise;Population/Housing Balance;Public
Services;.Recreation/Parks;Schools/Universities;Septic System;Sewer Capacity;Soil
Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Solid Waste;Toxic/Hazardous;Traffic/Circulation;Vegetation;Water
Quality;Water Supply;Wetland/Riparian
Reviewing Resources Agency;California Coastal Commission;Department of Fish and Game,Region 5;Cal Fire;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation;Department of Water Resources;Office of Emergency
Management Agency,California;Caltrans,District 7;Department of Housing and Community
Development;Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 4;Native American Heritage Commission
Note:Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
12-73
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
Date Received 04/01/2010 Start of Review 04/01/2010 End of Review 04/30/2010
Note:Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
12-74